"Excessive heat in six states -- Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana -- resulted in their warmest August on record. This year ranked in the top ten warmest August for five other states: Florida (3rd), Georgia (4th), Utah (5th), Wyoming (8th), and South Carolina (9th).The Southwest and South also had their warmest August on record."
NOAA recently admitted they made errors in temerature measurements. They opted to keep the faulty data. So I do not trust any link that points to a site using NOAA data.
The data for the year 1890 (to pick an arbitrary date) is likely inaccurate data. It was OK for the time, but since many are telling us a few degrees rise spells doom and dead polar bears, a few degrees seems important. Back then, we did not have accurate meaurements compared to today.
No possible way to know if it was legitimately collected or guessed at and the further back you go, the more likely it is that the data is inaccurate.
KSL TV Weather put some of their sensors on the roof of their building covered with asphault and gravel. The temperatures were much hotter at the measurement site than down below, on the street. A reporter walked a block away and the temp was five or six degreres hotter and in the local park, much degrees cooler.
We are living in a world driven scared, and being told we will die; by people with an agenda.
We are living in a world driven scared, and being told we will die; by people with an agenda.
Ignoring the other stuff. Name a single source that said anything about death to humans, and please try to make it creditable. But those words where the same use to fight two un-win-able wars.
NOAA recently admitted they made errors in temerature measurements. They opted to keep the faulty data. So I do not trust any link that points to a site using NOAA data.
The data for the year 1890 (to pick an arbitrary date) is likely inaccurate data. It was OK for the time, but since many are telling us a few degrees rise spells doom and dead polar bears, a few degrees seems important. Back then, we did not have accurate meaurements compared to today.
No possible way to know if it was legitimately collected or guessed at and the further back you go, the more likely it is that the data is inaccurate.
KSL TV Weather put some of their sensors on the roof of their building covered with asphault and gravel. The temperatures were much hotter at the measurement site than down below, on the street. A reporter walked a block away and the temp was five or six degreres hotter and in the local park, much degrees cooler.
We are living in a world driven scared, and being told we will die; by people with an agenda.
Do not believe the data.
I often hear this from AGW deniers. None have been able to answer this question. The United States isnt the only country in the world with climate scientists dont you think that if there were serious doubts regarding AGW that the other scientists would say something? Many of these countries have much to gain if it was all a hoax like China who will surpass us in the coming decades as the leading consumer of fossil fuels and thus C02 emissions. Tell me why scientists in all these other countries agree with the underlying science?
How about asking yourself this Bob, why exactly are the ice caps melting? Ice caps that have been around for millennia are disappearing at an ever increasing rate. Its a hoax, right? To bad MOST scientist don't back you up....
Actually plenty of scientists back bob up... Like he said, follow the money... naturally occurring phenomenon account for nearly 98% of so called "greenhouse gases" (volcanoes, forest fires, livestock). Not to mention the earth's climate is cyclical anyway. anyone remember the ice ages? And they happened AFTER some of the worst greenhouse gas (volcanic) eruptions ever in the history of the planet.
Device(s): Droid Razr Maxx HD (ICS 4.1.2), Motorola XOOM (ICS 4.1.1), HP TouchPad (CM 9), ASUS Infinity (JB 4.2
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 1,860
Thanked 3,927 Times in 2,380 Posts
As a resident of the great state of Arid-zona I can tell you that while this summer was hot, it's not unusual in the summertime. After all this is a desert and deserts get hot.
Don't wanna perspire in the summer? Move to Alaska!
__________________ Yea though I walk through the Valley of Google I shall fear no Apple...
Advice provided comes from fellow Android enthusiasts. We're not tech support. Please do your due dilligence before implementing! And if someone helped you, please share the love with the button...
Device(s): Galaxy S3 (Verizon)
Evo 4G - retired/rooted
Carrier: Verizon
Thanks: 3,024
Thanked 1,721 Times in 1,162 Posts
I'm of the belief that humans impact the planet less than we think. I'd blame our egos (ie: sun circle around the earth kind of thinking).
I think all of this can be explained with geomagnetic pole reversal. Basically, the north pole goes south for the winter, (which is a cyclical event) and causes mass climate disturbances. According to the cycles, we are due for one in the near future. (The first one for recorded humanity!!)
"In the summer of 2001, the IPCC released its strongest statement to date on the problem of global warming, in its Third Assessment Report. The report, "Climate Change 2001", provides further evidence for global warming and its cause—the widescale burning of fossil fuels by humans. The report projects that global mean surface temperatures on earth will increase by 2.5–10.4°F (1.5–5.9°C) by the year 2100, unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced well below current levels. The report also notes that this warming trend will represent the fasting warming of the earth in 10,000 years, with possible dire consequences to human society and the environment ."
Actually plenty of scientists back bob up... Like he said, follow the money... naturally occurring phenomenon account for nearly 98% of so called "greenhouse gases" (volcanoes, forest fires, livestock). Not to mention the earth's climate is cyclical anyway. anyone remember the ice ages? And they happened AFTER some of the worst greenhouse gas (volcanic) eruptions ever in the history of the planet.
Actually, neither your post nor the links you provided back Bob up. Bob is making the claim that global warming is NOT happening, and it is NOT a threat to us. You are making the claim, as well as you links are making the claim, that global warming is not man made. Two very differant points. Your point is moot, for it does not matter the cause only the effect. 99% of the scientific community recognizes global warming, though they may differ on the cause, they all recognize that it is happening, and that it WILL have an effect on us.
Last edited by nlsme; September 12th, 2011 at 09:43 AM.
For Humans not to be causing global warming (or not much), the basic physics of the greenhouse gases would have to be proven wrong. 8/31/94 - How does carbon dioxide cause global warming?
When something makes sense, you act on it.
Given the fact that there is a much greater vested interest for global warming not to be acted on then for there is to have it acted on, the old corrupt power-mad scientists lying about non happening climate change is moot.
Its ridiculous that so little is being done. If you are told a huge meteor is going to strike the earth, you act on it, even if the chance is only 5%.
__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!
"Excessive heat in six states -- Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana -- resulted in their warmest August on record. This year ranked in the top ten warmest August for five other states: Florida (3rd), Georgia (4th), Utah (5th), Wyoming (8th), and South Carolina (9th).The Southwest and South also had their warmest August on record."
I file this type of info the same way as i file statements about "February being the coldest ever" blah blah blah .... (remember that sort of thing this past winter?)
Long term is what matters. Globally. We will always have highs and lows in the short term, and locally. One "hottest summer ever" or one "coldest winter ever" doesn't change my mind one way or another.
Last edited by JimmyRayBob; September 12th, 2011 at 11:25 AM.
Reason: pathetic use of the English language / grammar
When we had a record breaking cold 2010-2011 winter we were lectured that weather does not equal climate. That doesn't hold true when we have record breaking heat?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja
Given the fact that there is a much greater vested interest for global warming not to be acted on then for there is to have it acted on, the old corrupt power-mad scientists lying about non happening climate change is moot.
Straw-man argument. The argument is not that they are mad scientists or that they are necessarily lying. I'm sure the scientists in the '70s really believed it when they said that we were entering a period of global cooling or that we would soon be unable to feed ourselves due to over-population. Still scientists like everyone else need to make a living and if research grants goes to those who support global warming I'm sure they take notice. Couple that with the push-back scientists receive from the climate change establishment when their research doesn't necessarily jive with their climate change theory:
Scientists have been speculating on the relationship among cosmic rays, solar activity and clouds since at least the 1970s. But the notion didn't get a workout until 1995, when Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark came across a 1991 paper by Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, who had charted a close relationship between solar variations and changes in the earth's surface temperature since 1860.
.
.
.
They announced their findings, and the possible climatic implications, at a 1996 space conference in Birmingham, England. Then, as Mr. Svensmark recalls, "everything went completely crazy. . . . It turned out it was very, very sensitive to say these things already at that time." He returned to Copenhagen to find his local daily leading with a quote from the then-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): "I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naïve and irresponsible."
Mr. Svensmark had been, at the very least, politically naïve. "Before 1995 I was doing things related to quantum fluctuations. Nobody was interested, it was just me sitting in my office. It was really an eye-opener, that baptism into climate science."
.
.
.
Then he waited. It took six years for CERN to greenlight and fund the experiment. Mr. Kirkby cites financial pressures for the delay and says that "it wasn't political."
Mr. Svensmark declines entirely to guess why CERN took so long, noting only that "more generally in the climate community that is so sensitive, sometimes science goes into the background."
.
.
.
But while the cosmic-ray theory has been ridiculed from the start by those who subscribe to the anthropogenic-warming theory, both Mr. Kirkby and Mr. Svensmark hold that human activity is contributing to climate change. All they question is its importance relative to other, natural factors.
Through several more years of "careful, quantitative measurement" at CERN, Mr. Kirkby predicts he and his team will "definitively answer the question of whether or not cosmic rays have a climatically significant effect on clouds." His old ally Mr. Svensmark feels he's already answered that question, and he guesses that CERN's initial results "could have been achieved eight to 10 years ago, if the project had been approved and financed."
PLEASE BE CAREFUL WHERE YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION FROM!
It's so common for the general public to just go to any websites that agree with them and use info on those sites to back themselves up. Anyone who has extensively studied science knows that is definitely the wrong thing to do and will result in an F on a research paper.
Again, PLEASE BE CAREFUL WHERE YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION FROM!
Unless you believe everything that news sites say... especially Fox News, why would you believe everything that is stated on a website either confirming or rejecting global warming?
This is one of those topics that the general public really does not have firm understanding of or of the science itself. When I mean science, I mean environmental science... which encompasses a huge amount of different fields
Environmental Science at Indiana University is considered to be one of the hardest majors due to the need to have extensive knowledge in scientific fields such as atmospheric science, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc. etc.
Global warming IS truly happening but whether or not it is anthropogenic (human-causing) is the question. I highly recommend doing research of your own and look at data itself instead of just believing anything that a website called "junk science" or "world climate report" states. If I quoted those on a research paper, that would be an automatic grade deduction for every one I quote.
__________________
See a post that makes you go "WTH! "? Report it!
See a post that makes you go "That was helpful! "? Thank it!
Feeling a little on a certain topic or with your device? Ask for help!
Want to know if I am female or not? Ask Roze!
Last edited by Vihzel; September 12th, 2011 at 12:12 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Vihzel For This Useful Post:
Actually, neither your post nor the links you provided back Bob up. Bob is making the claim that global warming is NOT happening, and it is NOT a threat to us. You are making the claim, as well as you links are making the claim, that global warming is not man made. Two very differant points. Your point is moot, for it does not matter the cause only the effect. 99% of the scientific community recognizes global warming, though they may differ on the cause, they all recognize that it is happening, and that it WILL have an effect on us.
Bob is not making the claim that temps are not rising or that GW is not, in part, man made. Perhaps that is what I might of said, so let me clarify. Yes, temps are rising and yes, man might be part of the "problem."
According to the UCAR, over the last 100 years, the temperatures have risen 1.36 degrees F. Bob is making the claim that two or three degrees warmer in a hundred years will not make any appreciable difference. And scientists that say the same thing are never listened to.
I am saying that those saying so much about GW are not scientists with any qualifications to know. Like actors.
The EPA says 2-7 degrees is one possibility but they do not know. In these arguments, hardly anyone considers that GW could be natural, but laws are being written based on science that is in no way settled.
The first(?) major climate study years ago (I'll try to find a link) was signed by thousands of "important" people. It was big news on the conservitive side; hardly mentioned by the left. This suggested to the public that GW must be serious because so many that know so much cant be wrong. Problem was, it was signed by actors, poets, others that did not have a clue or the scientific background.
Bob is upset that use "deniers" can't get a word in edgewise and that Al Gore publicly said that the debate is over. I am also bothered that so many people think things like Carbon Credits are good for the environment when they are nothing more than a way to make millions of dollars and the public thinks they make a difference. They do not; all they do is allow a polluter to pollute more by buying credits from a polluter that does not pollute much.
How about asking yourself this Bob, why exactly are the ice caps melting? Ice caps that have been around for millennia are disappearing at an ever increasing rate. Its a hoax, right? To bad MOST scientist don't back you up....
Perhaps they do melt from time to time. And perhaps how much they melt is not really a problem. Al Gore did not do his side any favors when it was shown that the caps are perhaps not melting as much as his power point movie showed.
Try searching for the truth and accurate weather data. It is all over the place. The Danish say the North Pole's temperatures have risen only a few degrees average over the last 100 years, others say more and a few say less.
And so what if the ice caps are melting? We do not know how much or what will happen and you cannot suggest that it might be natural. You can point to colder temperatures on average at the poles and some will say the data is wrong; they are quick to offer other data that might be flawed or just BS.
Others say the fact that our winters are so cold is due to GW. We deniers cannot win.
As a resident of the great state of Arid-zona I can tell you that while this summer was hot, it's not unusual in the summertime. After all this is a desert and deserts get hot.
Don't wanna perspire in the summer? Move to Alaska!
I was in your state some time ago and yes, it was hot. I was planning to go to work for an ariel photographer. I tend to melt like a big silly candle so I said no.
I file this type of info the same way as i file statements about "February being the coldest ever" blah blah blah .... (remember that sort of thing this past winter?)
Long term is what matters. Globally. We will always have highs and lows in the short term, and locally. One "hottest summer ever" or one "coldest winter ever" doesn't change my mind one way or another.
Thats a very good point! Its what over decades what matters. Of course we know that the planet is warming, but the general public often think that two cold winters in their small bit of the planet means the warming of the planet isnt happening. Or vice versa. Climate isnt the 7 day weather forecast
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjr72
When we had a record breaking cold 2010-2011 winter we were lectured that weather does not equal climate. That doesn't hold true when we have record breaking heat?
Straw-man argument. The argument is not that they are mad scientists or that they are necessarily lying. I'm sure the scientists in the '70s really believed it when they said that we were entering a period of global cooling or that we would soon be unable to feed ourselves due to over-population. Still scientists like everyone else need to make a living and if research grants goes to those who support global warming I'm sure they take notice. Couple that with the push-back scientists receive from the climate change establishment when their research doesn't necessarily jive with their climate change theory:
It does indeed hold true. Its just the thing is that we have been getting hotter and hotter every decade, even in this decade we have had several record breaking summers.
... It's so common for the general public to just go to any websites that agree with them and use info on those sites to back themselves up. ...
...This is one of those topics that the general public really does not have firm understanding of or of the science itself. When I mean science, I mean environmental science... which encompasses a huge amount of different fields. ....
... If I quoted those on a research paper, that would be an automatic grade deduction for every one I quote.
Being a member of the general public and not having a firm understanding of the all the science fields related to Climate Change and hoping to avoid a grade reduction, which sources should one use that can be shared with this board that general public can understand ?
I'm not being cute, as the general public does have a stake in this debate.
NOAA recently admitted they made errors in temerature measurements. They opted to keep the faulty data. So I do not trust any link that points to a site using NOAA data. ....
Do not believe the data.
Do you have a source for your NOAA claim ? I have a tendency not to believe unsubstantiated claims, especially when they don't agree with my claims.
Being a member of the general public and not having a firm understanding of the all the science fields related to Climate Change and hoping to avoid a grade reduction, which sources should one use that can be shared with this board that general public can understand ?
I'm not being cute, as the general public does have a stake in this debate.
Yes indeed, the public has a stake in it. You hit upon one of the big problems with the Internet. It can be very difficult to find accurate data or data that has not been spun. A perfect example is this debate. No shortage of links to "prove" that your statements or my statements are wrong or correct.
In my business, I must deal with facts. I am not allowed to slip something by that has not been fact checked.
Some people love the net because they can get any answer they want to any question they dare to ask. Some people simply pick the first link Google returns and post that. In most cases, the poster has not actually researched the hard data; they simply assume it is accurate because it sounds reasonable.
Fortunately, you can find the truth if you do the research. On a forum, however, few people are willing to spend a day ploughing through the crap to get to the basic facts tp post a reply to someone they disagree with.
And fewer still know how to parse raw data and draw a meaningful conclusion.
Few people are truly qualified to discuss GW at a deep technical level so they must use the web to find the answers. Sometimes we get into arguments because one person has a different set of "facts" to support their ideas than I have.
Sometimes, we simply do not want our sacred cows slaughtered and what seems outrageous or seems like a lie is actually the truth. When you post actual facts, some people do not believe what you say. Their exposure to the largely liberal media disagrees, so the facts must not be actual facts, but lies.
If you do not trust those links, follow the links in the articles. Also, search Google for other articles about this data issue. Learn how this data was collected (NOAA uses amateurs to collect data and they acknowledge some of those taking measurements are not complying with accepted standards)
Last edited by Frisco; September 12th, 2011 at 02:38 PM.
... The Danish say the North Pole's temperatures have risen only a few degrees average over the last 100 years, others say more and a few say less.
Well, let's examine the l-o-n-g view.
"The research published in the journal Science (Sept. 8) demonstrates that abrupt climate change has been a systemic feature of Earth's climate for hundreds of thousands of years and may play an active role in longer term climate variability through its influence on ice age terminations."
"The research published in the journal Science (Sept. 8) demonstrates that abrupt climate change has been a systemic feature of Earth's climate for hundreds of thousands of years and may play an active role in longer term climate variability through its influence on ice age terminations."
"Webster concluded by rejecting the crude warming theory of Jefferson and Williams in favor of a more subtle rendering of the data. “We have, in the cultivated districts, deep snow today, and none tomorrow; but the same quantity of snow falling in the woods, lies there till spring will explain all the appearances of the seasons without resorting to the unphilosophical hypothesis of a general increase in heat.” Webster’s words essentially ended the controversy. While Jefferson continued to compile and crunch temperature data after his retirement from the presidency, he never again made the case for global warming. Webster’s position was considered unimpeachable . . . until the second half of the 20th century."
... Sometimes, we simply do not want our sacred cows slaughtered and what seems outrageous or seems like a lie is actually the truth. When you post actual facts, some people do not believe what you say. Their exposure to the largely liberal media disagrees, so the facts must not be actual facts, but lies.
This article somewhat supports your position that our interpretation of facts can be bias.
"The more scientifically literate you are, the more certain you are that climate change is either a catastrophe or a hoax, according to a new study [PDF] from the Yale Cultural Cognition Project.
Many science writers and policy wonks nurse the fond hope that fierce disagreement about issues like climate change is simply the result of a scientifically illiterate American public. If this “public irrationality thesis” were correct, the authors of the Yale study write, “then skepticism about climate change could be traced to poor public comprehension about science” and the solution would be more science education. In fact, their findings suggest more education is unlikely to help build consensus; it may even intensify the debate."
"The Wildavskyan schema situates Americans’ cultural values on two scales, one that ranges from Individualist to Communitarian and another that goes from Hierarchy to Egalitarian. In general, Hierarchical folks prefer a social order where people have clearly defined roles and lines of authority. Egalitarians want to reduce racial, gender, and income inequalities. Individualists expect people to succeed or fail on their own, while Communitarians believe that society is obligated to take care of everyone."
"The researchers report that people whose values are located in Individualist/Hierarchy spaces “can be expected to be skeptical of claims of environmental and technological risks. Such people, according to the theory, intuitively perceive that widespread acceptance of such claims would license restrictions on commerce and industry, forms of behavior that Hierarchical/Individualists value.” On the other hand Egalitarian/Communitarians “tend to be morally suspicious of commerce and industry, which they see as the source of unjust disparities in wealth and power. They therefore find it congenial, the theory posits, to see those forms of behavior as dangerous and thus worthy of restriction.” On this view, then, Egalitarian/Communitarians would be more worried about climate change risks than would be Hierarchical/Individualists."
If you do not trust those links, follow the links in the articles. Also, search Google for other articles about this data issue. Learn how this data was collected (NOAA uses amateurs to collect data and they acknowledge some of those taking measurements are not complying with accepted standards)
Don't believe these links fully support your position, as these are isolated examples. I believe what you are getting at is that terrestrial temperature observations are bias toward warmer temperatures over time due to urbanization, thus creating "heat sinks".
"When it comes to climate change, there are three possibilities to consider: 1) global warming is not occurring, 2) global warming is a natural phenomenon and there’s nothing to be done about it, or 3) global warming is caused by humans. To debate any of these positions persuasively requires an understanding of scientific principles such as the conservation of mass and the carbon cycle."
... Long term is what matters. Globally. We will always have highs and lows in the short term, and locally. One "hottest summer ever" or one "coldest winter ever" doesn't change my mind one way or another.
"The investigation is focused on trends not the absolute level, and often, as in this case, it is actually easier to determine how much a given property is changing versus what its exact value is. If one station is near the airport at 3 feet above sea level, another is in a park at 3000 feet, it doesn't really matter because they are both rising, that is the critical information. So how do we finally know when all the reasoning is reasonable and the corrections correct? One good way is to cross check your conclusion against other completely unrelated data sets. In this case, all of the other various indicators of global temperature trends that are available unanimously agree. Go ahead, put aside the direct surface temperature measurements, because Global Warming is also indicated by:
All of these completely independent analyses of widely varied aspects of the climate system lead to the same conclusion: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend. Looks like the folks at NASA and CRU do know what they are doing after all."
"When it comes to climate change, there are three possibilities to consider:
To quote the movie "Paul", "You just can't win with these people."
Explorers for the last 500 years have looked for a northwest passage, it never existed until 2007. For those that do not believe in climate change, explain that.
Global warming and cooling has been going on since the beginning. What no one seems to be looking at is what will happen to the atmosphere with the changes - for instance x, gamma, cosmic rays. Are there some that are beneficial that more clouds and thicker atmosphere would block, or would thinning and changes in the atmosphere let more rays in, especially if they are found to be more dangerous than thought?
Ash and pollutants in the atmosphere are recorded in ice sheets. They do sample cores of ice which do record fairly accurately.
There was the "year without a summer" in New England around 1816. That was caused by the explosion of Mt. Tambora.
Quote from Wikipedia: The 1815 eruption is rated 7 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index, the only such eruption since the Lake Taupo eruption in about 180 AD.[6] With an estimated ejecta volume of 160 cubic kilometers, Tambora's 1815 outburst was the largest volcanic eruption in recorded history. The explosion was heard on Sumatra island (more than 2,000 km (1,200 mi) away). Heavy volcanic ash falls were observed as far away as Borneo, Sulawesi, Java and Maluku islands. Most deaths from the eruption were from starvation and disease, as the eruptive fallout ruined agricultural productivity in the local region. The death toll was at least 71,000 people (the most deadly eruption in recorded history), of whom 11,000–12,000 were killed directly by the eruption;[6] the often-cited figure of 92,000 people killed is believed to be overestimated.[7] The eruption created global climate anomalies that included the phenomenon known as "volcanic winter": 1816 became known as the "Year Without a Summer" because of the effect on North American and European weather. Agricultural crops failed and livestock died in much of the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in the worst famine of the 19th century.[6]
So carbon pollutants similar to volcanic eruptions can be a problem. Some of the scaremongers do have other agenda - like selling anti pollution solutions.
The Following User Says Thank You to zuben el genub For This Useful Post:
Global warming and cooling has been going on since the beginning. What no one seems to be looking at is what will happen to the atmosphere with the changes - for instance x, gamma, cosmic rays.
But you are missing the point. If climate change continues, millions of people would have to relocate. Hundreds of thousands of acres of farm land will have to be abandoned and moved. Everything we based our society on will be toss aside and we will have change with it. We are horrible at any form of change.
Which is the bottom line. Climate change will make a hard life even harder, creating greater problems and disrupting the balance in the ecosystem we have enjoyed in the last 10,000 years.
Does the planet heat up and cool off over time, yes it does. But in the same tone it also dramatically effects our ability to use the landscape to survive. If you enjoy your life and how the world is today, you need to stop climate change, no matter what is causing it. If you enjoy having to relocate and fight for survival, then climate change is for you.
Device(s): Droid Razr Maxx HD (ICS 4.1.2), Motorola XOOM (ICS 4.1.1), HP TouchPad (CM 9), ASUS Infinity (JB 4.2
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 1,860
Thanked 3,927 Times in 2,380 Posts
The heating and cooling of the planet is a natural process that has taken place since the planet came into existence. Will it impact people living in coastal areas? Most definitely! The weather change will also have an impact on inland areas. Is this change in temperature due to the "global warming" hysteria? Nobody know for sure... There simply is not enough evidence to prove that what we are seeing today is not simply a peak in the planets weather pattern.
Consider this... scientists believe that this planet is about 4.5 billion years old. Weather patterns on planet Earth have been tracked and recorded for about 150 years with some limited anecdotal evidence of ancient weather patterns going back maybe 2000 years. Well if my mathematics is anywhere close that's about 0.00000333% of the overall age of the planet (if scientists are correct about the planets age).
Last edited by Martimus; September 13th, 2011 at 07:23 PM.
The heating and cooling of the planet is a natural process that has taken place since the planet came into existence. Will it impact people living in coastal areas? Most definitely! The weather change will also have an impact on inland areas. Is this change in temperature due to the "global warming" hysteria? Nobody know for sure... There simply is not enough evidence to prove that what we are seeing today is not simply a peak in the planets weather pattern.
Consider this... scientists believe that this planet is about 4.5 billion years old. Weather patterns on planet Earth have been tracked and recorded for about 150 years with some limited anecdotal evidence of ancient weather patterns going back maybe 2000 years. Well if my mathematics is anywhere close that's about 0.00000333% of the overall age of the planet (if scientists are correct about the planets age).
We have ice cores that go back 700 thousand years. Thats a pretty fair sample size
try a simple science experiment......... take 2 blocks of ice....... drill holes in one and place them both on the sidewalk to see which one melts faster
global warming scientists are causing accelerated polar ice melts
try a simple science experiment......... take 2 blocks of ice....... drill holes in one and place them both on the sidewalk to see which one melts faster
global warming scientists are causing accelerated polar ice melts
Try this one:
Buy four 10 pound turkeys. Put one in the refrigerator, put one under warm running water, place one under cool running water, and let one set out on the counter to thaw.
Which one thaws quicker?
The turkey under cold running water thaws first. Do not ask me why, ask Alton Brown. So what is the point? None except that we often think things work one way and they really do not.
Actually, the real point is, I want someone here to prepare a few turkeys and invite me to dinner. I like chestnut dressing, by the way.
As for the blocks of ice, it is the block with the holes. I think it is a trick answer.
But you are missing the point. If climate change continues, millions of people would have to relocate. Hundreds of thousands of acres of farm land will have to be abandoned and moved. Everything we based our society on will be toss aside and we will have change with it. We are horrible at any form of change.
Which is the bottom line. Climate change will make a hard life even harder, creating greater problems and disrupting the balance in the ecosystem we have enjoyed in the last 10,000 years.
Does the planet heat up and cool off over time, yes it does. But in the same tone it also dramatically effects our ability to use the landscape to survive. If you enjoy your life and how the world is today, you need to stop climate change, no matter what is causing it. If you enjoy having to relocate and fight for survival, then climate change is for you.
Why will they need to relocate and why will farm land need to be abandoned? More interesting is how will we move the farmland. UPS perhaps?
To quote the movie "Paul", "You just can't win with these people."
Explorers for the last 500 years have looked for a northwest passage, it never existed until 2007. For those that do not believe in climate change, explain that.
BTW, Gary Braasch devotes his life to proving how bad we humans are. A look at his web site paints a pretty good picture of what he is all about. He is all about how bad us humans are and how horrible us GW deniers are.
BTW, Gary Braasch devotes his life to proving how bad we humans are. A look at his web site paints a pretty good picture of what he is all about. He is all about how bad us humans are and how horrible us GW deniers are.
I know a few things about Mr. Braasch.
Well, we're wrecking the planet. Other than that, heck, human beings are the bomb.
Device(s): Droid Razr Maxx HD (ICS 4.1.2), Motorola XOOM (ICS 4.1.1), HP TouchPad (CM 9), ASUS Infinity (JB 4.2
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 1,860
Thanked 3,927 Times in 2,380 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by keale18
We have ice cores that go back 700 thousand years. Thats a pretty fair sample size
And when the layers are peeled back, how granular is the weather information that they provide? day-by-day? year-by-year? century-by-century?
Like looking at layers of sediment in rock these provide a very high level peek at what happened in the past. You simply cannot look at an ice core and determine what were the high, low, and median temperatures during each day/month/year represented in the ice core... And without detailed weather statistics it's difficult to make an accurate comparison of the weather patterns today with the weather patterns of the planet 123,456 years ago.
With such limited data to work with you might have to simply guess...
... Some of the scaremongers do have other agenda - like selling anti pollution solutions.
A report from Greenpeace, U.S.A. has confirmed that ExxonMobil has been funding several prominent groups that have openly challenged the science behind global warming. The report largely focuses on grants provided to Dr. Willie Soon, a prominent climate denier. It reveals an elaborate “scientific” enterprise designed to distort the science of climate change.
"While it is undoubtably true that there are some cycles and natural variations in global climate, anyone who wishes to insist that the current warming is purely natural or even just mostly natural has two challenges. Firstly, they need to identify just what the mechanism is behind this alleged natural cycle, because absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. So natural or otherwise, we should be able to find this mysterious cause. Secondly, a "natural cause" proponent needs to come up with some explanation for how a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not itself affect the global temperature. Theory predicts that the temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, how is it possible this is not happening?
In other words, the mainstream climate science community has provided a well developed, internally consistent theory that predicts the effects we are observing. It provides explanations and makes predictions. Where is the sceptic community's model, or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature? Where is the evidence of some other natural forcing, like the Milankovich cycles that controlled the ice ages, a fine historical example of a very dramatic and very regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic?"
Device(s): Droid Razr Maxx HD (ICS 4.1.2), Motorola XOOM (ICS 4.1.1), HP TouchPad (CM 9), ASUS Infinity (JB 4.2
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 1,860
Thanked 3,927 Times in 2,380 Posts
Unfortunately it still does not answer the question of how you compare granular modern weather trend data to climate cycles over hundreds of thousands of years that shows tiny layers in ice cores extracted from polar regions.
The following chart was in that hyperlink
Every listed gradiant on the bottom axis of this chart is a period of 25 thousand years. This chart lists trends over a very long period of time. It simply does not account for any sort of seasonal variation... any short term spikes get lost in the ambient noise. Comparing data on this chart to data accumulated real time by meteorologists is simply conjecture... there is no commonality and there is no equivalent point of reference.
Oh and if you notice there are periodic spikes of temperature, CO2, and/or methane that exceed current values at 125, 225, and around 325 thousand years ago...
Last edited by Martimus; September 14th, 2011 at 12:19 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Martimus For This Useful Post:
Device(s): Galaxy S3 (Verizon)
Evo 4G - retired/rooted
Carrier: Verizon
Thanks: 3,024
Thanked 1,721 Times in 1,162 Posts
I think we don't really have to worry about people relocating. When the world gets too hot, it'll kill us, and when it gets too cold, it'll kill any of us that survived.
...To quote the movie "Paul", "You just can't win with these people." ...
Sure you can, not only will they believe in GW, they'll encourage it.
"The north-east sea route, which links the Atlantic to the Pacific, is likely to become a commercial ship operator's favourite, saving thousands of miles and avoiding tolls on the Suez Canal tolls."
... Comparing data on this chart to data accumulated real time by meteorologists is simply conjecture... there is no commonality and there is no equivalent point of reference. ....
To construct this plot, eight data sources (listed below) were selected on the basis of good temporal resolution (preferably ~100 years or less per data point) and coverage of the last 12 kyr. Seven of the eight specifically reported temperature and were used as is. The other one reported an unscaled temperature proxy and was scaled as described in Notes below. Each curve was smoothed by a Gaussian weighted filter to produce a history of the Holocene temperature variations at that site with approximately 300 year resolution (one exception, see notes). These smooth curves were adjusted to have the same mean over the interval 100-6000 years BP. The average of these curves was then constructed, and the alignment relative to modern day determined by comparing the average over the interval 250-1900 AD relative to the three short-term proxies shown in inset (for details on those plots, see: Image:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png). Note that the short-term proxies are not at all used in constructing the average itself.
Sure you can, not only will they believe in GW, they'll encourage it.
"The north-east sea route, which links the Atlantic to the Pacific, is likely to become a commercial ship operator's favourite, saving thousands of miles and avoiding tolls on the Suez Canal tolls."
How about asking yourself this Bob, why exactly are the ice caps melting? Ice caps that have been around for millennia are disappearing at an ever increasing rate. Its a hoax, right? To bad MOST scientist don't back you up....
You're not claiming that ice caps have never melted prior to now, are you? At the same time, ice is growing at the south pole. Why is that?
__________________
Obama/Biden 2012...Because some Americans still have jobs!! ~ Mike Church
Last edited by mike114; September 15th, 2011 at 06:57 AM.
You're not claiming that ice caps have never melted prior to now, are you? At the same time, ice is growing at the south pole. Why is that?
Nowhere did i say anything of the sort. I just made a point that showed it is happening NOW, contrary to what some have said. Also, as I've pointed out, it really doesn't matter why it is happening, all that matters is the effect it will have on us, and what we can do to mitigate the effects. Now, I see you are making a claim that it isn't happening now, because the ice in the south is growing. Care to provide any links to verify that, because the last I heard, it is breaking off in sheets the size of states.
Last edited by nlsme; September 15th, 2011 at 09:37 AM.
You're not claiming that ice caps have never melted prior to now, are you? At the same time, ice is growing at the south pole. Why is that?
Ice always grows during the winter Yeah I know that some parts of the Antarctic arent losing ice, but much of it is
Quote:
Originally Posted by nlsme
The fact that the ice caps are melting is a pretty good indicator that it is in fact happening. Also, as I've pointed out, it really doesn't matter why it is happening, all that matters is the effect it will have on us, and what we can do to mitigate the effects.....
Its an indicator, but its really the global climate that matters with this.
The Arctic is losing much more ice then the Antarctic too
Climate change ?
button...
"? Report it!
"? Thank it!
on a certain topic or with your device? Ask for help!
Ask Roze!
, which sources should one use that can be shared with this board that general public can understand ?
that our interpretation of facts can be bias.
Yeah I know that some parts of the Antarctic arent losing ice, but much of it is
