Climate Scientists Struggle To Explain Warming Slowdown (generation, economy, world)
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.
Carbon makes up such a small percentage of the dreaded "greenhouse effect" to begin with and man's contribution to that is almost insignificant. You do realize if it weren't for the dreaded "greenhouse effect" we would all be frozen?? Maybe not.
Actually, it is a significant issue with regard to the greenhouse effect. CO2, unlike nearly every other GHG, takes up to 100 years to cycle through the atmosphere. Because of this, increasing levels of manmade CO2 emissions over and above what occurs naturally build up in the atmosphere, which does all kinds of negative things, such as increase the impact of feedback loops, and other effects. Even were we to mitigate our CO2 emissions today, it would take at least 100 years or longer to return to pre-industrial levels.
What part of "global warming is about long term trends, not short term variations" did you not understand? The world is better off? For whom? Slightly warmer? Perhaps you should read up on the Permian extinction event to see what unchecked climate change can do.
Dude, if you use a light bulb, and drive a car, you will be asked to finance needed changes because you and I both are part of the problem, and so must be part of the solution.
"problem"?
"Dude", you do not understand science. It is incumbent upon those promoting a theory to disprove the null hypothesis. Science is not by a "show of hands" or a vote- science is data presented in a rigorous fashion with sound statistical analysis.
So far, there has been no sound scientific study proving the concept of "man made global warming". Until that study occurs, "global warming" is, at best, unproven conjecture.
What part of "global warming is about long term trends, not short term variations" did you not understand? The world is better off? For whom? Slightly warmer? Perhaps you should read up on the Permian extinction event to see what unchecked climate change can do.
Dude, if you use a light bulb, and drive a car, you will be asked to finance needed changes because you and I both are part of the problem, and so must be part of the solution.
If that was true we would still be calling it global warming as opposed to climate change. The fact that you have to use hyperbole means you know that you have lost the argument and we are not going to spend billions on this.
Slightly warmer does not equate unchecked and there is no checking the climate.
The argument "they all agree" has been dismissed. It no longer holds any sway. LOL, they can disagree all they want at that and it just shoots your argument about science down as we are not still warming.
The argument "they all agree" has been dismissed. It no longer holds any sway. LOL, they can disagree all they want at that and it just shoots your argument about science down as we are not still warming.
Yeah, repent, the end is near.
What part of "global warming is about long term trends, not short term variations" did you not understand?
If that was true we would still be calling it global warming as opposed to climate change. The fact that you have to use hyperbole means you know that you have lost the argument and we are not going to spend billions on this.
Slightly warmer does not equate unchecked and there is no checking the climate.
I don't know or care what you call it. I call it global warming, as do many other people.
Global averages are "slightly warmer", and that warming will continue for the foreseeable future if CO2 emissions are allowed to continue to increase UNCHECKED. However, regions, such as the Arctic and sub-arctic, are seeing substantially more than "slightly warmer" temperatures.
I don't know or care what you call it. I call it global warming, as do many other people.
Fewer and fewer.
Quote:
Global averages are "slightly warmer", and that warming will continue for the foreseeable future if CO2 emissions are allowed to continue to increase UNCHECKED. However, regions, such as the Arctic and sub-arctic, are seeing substantially more than "slightly warmer" temperatures.
I know, and the great flood is going to inundate New York under 10 feet of water.
"Dude", you do not understand science. It is incumbent upon those promoting a theory to disprove the null hypothesis. Science is not by a "show of hands" or a vote- science is data presented in a rigorous fashion with sound statistical analysis.
I don't understand science? Ha. That's too funny.
Quote:
So far, there has been no sound scientific study proving the concept of "man made global warming". Until that study occurs, "global warming" is, at best, unproven conjecture.
No one has ever said that science is a Democratic process. Science goes wherever the evidence leads it. And the evidence points unambiguously to anthropomorphic global warming. THAT is where the consensus comes in.
Science is not about proving anything. You offer proofs in mathematics, not in science. Science is about the preponderance of evidence. The preponderance of evidence about the fact of flight supports the theory of flight. The preponderance of evidence about the fact of evolution supports the theory of evolution. THE PREPONDERENCE OF EVIDENCE about the fact of AGW supports the theory of AGW.
You clearly have no idea what "us guys" are claiming the climate scientists are doing.
"Us Guys" agree with the vast majority of scients (including the serious skeptics) that suggest the earth warmed from about 1980 to 1998 and has since neither warmed nor cooled. We agree with this because it is part of the instumental record.
We also agree that the increase in CO2 has had an impact on that warming. We also agree that some unknown amount of the increase in CO2 is human caused.
We also agree with, and quote the growing body of Climate Scientists who are becoming more and more skeptical of the "C" in CAGW...catistrophic...
People like Dr. Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielkie Sr (sp) and dozens of other PhD Climate Scientists.
We also point to organizations like NOAA populated by believers in the "C" in CAGW who cannot deny their own data, and have to agree and print that Tornadoes have decreased in frequincy, and have not increased in intensity.
you need to bone up on what "us guys" are saying.
The problem with trying to tie increased CO2 levels with a warming Earth is the current warming trend started at about the time of the Civil War and CO2 levels have been many times higher than is the case today without a "run-away" green house effect.
If CO2 were capable of driving temperatures higher, an increase in CO2 would be met with the release of more CO2 by the oceans and the Earth would never cool, but history shows exactly the opposite.
As for the AGW faithful, why do they outsource their thought process to people who profit from the global warming fairy tale?
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.
. It is incumbent upon those promoting a theory to disprove the null hypothesis. Science is not by a "show of hands" or a vote- science is data presented in a rigorous fashion with sound statistical analysis.