Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obviously, the author cited 1997 thru 2012 in his headline because there has been no global warming during that period -- even though the rallying cry for global warming began during this period.
Ok well that solves everything, we just build time machines and travel back to 1997-2012 and everything will be fine!
No not really. The graph appears to show that each decade, on average, has less sea ice in the northern hemisphere. It is a trend. Will it stabilize at some point? Will it reverse at some point and we'll start seeing decades with more sea ice in the northern hemisphere? Maybe. We don't know. Look at the graph and the trends - the smart money is on less ice.
What is "short term?" Has there been less average ice in the past than there is now? Sure. Will there be more at some point in the future? Probably so. It seems a marked change, in one definite direction, over just my short lifetime.
I could also quibble with the use of the terms "weather" (when we're talking about 35 years of compiled data) and "region" (when we're talking about the sea ice of the northern hemisphere). This is isn't just "it's been kinda dry the last few years in north Texas."
But keep reading.
No, I never said anything about how we can reverse the trend, and I even left out the part about how humans may have inadvertently caused this decades-long regression in northern hemisphere sea ice.
What I asked was, isn't the graph ITSELF, in ISOLATION, through 2014, cause for concern? Positive feedback loops? Higher sea levels?
And what I asked was, how do we prepare for this, if indeed the trend does continue? Not "how do we reverse this trend?" Not "how do we stop it in its tracks?" How do we as a species deal with what appears to be happening, regardless of cause, regardless of our inability to prevent or halt it?
You do not prepare for something that you are not concerned about.
I am not at all concerned about less ice in some region that some people fret over and allege is the result of man-made global warming, for which they have no dispositive proof whatsoever.
Moreover, asking me questions is neither evidence nor proof of this alleged man-made global warming.
The focus of this thread is supposed to be on clear and unyielding evidence that proves man-made global warming is not a myth but real.
I am not at all concerned about less ice in some region...
Well, that bizarre lack of concern, about the melt itself, about its secondary effecs (feedback), and about what it may portend, is a nice fantasy for you. Never lose that child-like carefree attitude, it'll serve you well I'm sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge
The focus of this thread is supposed to be on clear and unyielding evidence that proves man-made global warming is not a myth but real.
You do not think 35 years of disappearing northern hemisphere ice is evidence of warmer air and water in the northern hemisphere?
But you've already said you are not concerned with what we've seen already, why would you be concerned by any other evidence, any continuation of existing trends, or any effects on people other than you? You just DON'T CARE.
You do not prepare for something that you are not concerned about.
I am not at all concerned about less ice in some region that some people fret over and allege is the result of man-made global warming, for which they have no dispositive proof whatsoever.
Moreover, asking me questions is neither evidence nor proof of this alleged man-made global warming.
The focus of this thread is supposed to be on clear and unyielding evidence that proves man-made global warming is not a myth but real.
Where's the beef?
If this graph proves there was no warming between 1997-2012, would a graph showing a temperature increase from 1995-2014 prove that global warming is real?
Well, that bizarre lack of concern, about the melt itself, about its secondary effecs (feedback), and about what it may portend, is a nice fantasy for you. Never lose that child-like carefree attitude, it'll serve you well I'm sure.
You do not think 35 years of disappearing northern hemisphere ice is evidence of warmer air and water in the northern hemisphere?
But you've already said you are not concerned with what we've seen already, why would you be concerned by any other evidence, any continuation of existing trends, or any effects on people other than you? You just DON'T CARE.
I care about having clear and unyielding evidence that proves theories such as global warming.
Air might be warmer over any period of time in a region and ice might melt as a result, but if you hold such has happened due to man-made actions you should still be able to present clear and unyielding evidence that prove it.
If this graph proves there was no warming between 1997-2012, would a graph showing a temperature increase from 1995-2014 prove that global warming is real?
Prosecutors have to produce evidence that proves their case at an extremely high level of certainty. Similarly, the burden of proof rests with those who have a theory and need to prove it.
Just as I would not vote to send a person to death row without clear and unyeilding evidence of their guilt, I don't and won't buy into theories without clear and unyielding evidence that proves the theory is true.
Moreover, a graph might show temperatures rising, but clear and unyielding evidence must establish that rising temperatures are the result of man-made activities.
I care about having clear and unyielding evidence that proves theories such as global warming.
Why? Would you then be suddenly concerned about something or other? You've already stated you're "not at all concerned" about disappearing ice. Seems like There is ample evidence, but why would anyone waste time trying to show it to you? Do you really think it's feasible, having ignored everything that's ever been shown, that there's some other sort of evidence that would change your mind? And, why would you waste time looking at said evidence when you're already so sure the EFFECTS are of no concern anway? Just go about your life, I'm sure everything will be fine.
Prosecutors have to produce evidence that proves their case at an extremely high level of certainty. Similarly, the burden of proof rests with those who have a theory and need to prove it.
Just as I would not vote to send a person to death row without clear and unyeilding evidence of their guilt, I don't and won't buy into theories without clear and unyielding evidence that proves the theory is true.
Moreover, a graph might show temperatures rising, but clear and unyielding evidence must establish that rising temperatures are the result of man-made activities.
Make your case.
Is there anything I could post here that would convince you, or would I be wasting my time? I mean, unless you live in a cabin in the woods and this is your first day on the internet, you've heard it all before, so I'm guessing "waste of time".
Why? Would you then be suddenly concerned about something or other? You've already stated you're "not at all concerned" about disappearing ice. Seems like There is ample evidence, but why would anyone waste time trying to show it to you? Do you really think it's feasible, having ignored everything that's ever been shown, that there's some other sort of evidence that would change your mind? And, why would you waste time looking at said evidence when you're already so sure the EFFECTS are of no concern anway? Just go about your life, I'm sure everything will be fine.
I care about having clear and unyielding evidence that proves theories such as global warming, because I also don't and won't believe in Puff the Magic Dragon, the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot without clear and unyielding proof either.
Moreover, because they saw a downward trend in temperatures from the forties to the seventies, various scientists in the seventies theorized that we were facing an ice-age due to the effects of man-made pollution.
I didn't buy into their malarkey back then either. Why? Because they did not produce clear and unyielding evidence to support their theory.
I will note that Chicago had 79 inches of global warming fall on the city last winter. In any event, I'm still waiting for their ice-age.
I will note that Chicago had 79 inches of global warming fall on the city last winter.
Got it. Have a nice day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
