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.
Well there you have it, folks. The Bishop of AGW has spoken. 30 years of data is proof of climate change. Only 13 years to go, and even he will have to admit the earth is no longer warming
BTW, today I went to an exhibit at a local venue featuring Dinosaurs of the Eocene. I walked in and the room was empty. I wonder why ...
Well at least I'm living in the correct century....1850 was the 19th century Mr. smart guy..... What I said was that 30 years of constant above average temperature is NOT weather, and if it is not weather it means the climate is warming....You can scream and shout that it is not warming all you want, but that will not change the facts.
I can understand people debating the cause of that warming, but to deny it or claim that it is cooling puts you in the flat earth society.
I will also disqualify myself since I am not a qualified climate scientist.
Could become a thing but then there'd a lot less threads.
I would be happy with a lot less threads on climate change in here because they all look like this, people from the Flat Earth Society posting the same threads over and over trying to prove global warming isn't real without relying on any facts, just going off their own "beliefs."
There is climate and then there is weather.
Both change.
The question is : What is the driving source of that change?
The alarmists say it is man.
The skeptics say no, it's not man.
Arguing about the change is one thing.
Failing to accurately identify the real driving force is another.
My money is on that variable fusion reactor, 93 million miles that-a-way.
FWIW, if the "catastrophic" climate change is both manmade and inescapable, how does taxing carbon and marketing carbon credits resolve the problem, other than make certain insiders filthy rich?
=> Consider that the automobile / petroleum / pavement infrastructure hegemony has not been replaced with the far more efficient, space saving and less polluting electric traction steel wheel on steel rail (i.e., railroad) as the dominant form of land transportation.
=> Consider that new housing is being constructed in compliance with bureaucratic rules, enforcing mediocrity, which ignores superinsulation, frugality, resiliency and other conservation methods that would reduce the consumption of fuel and resources.
When the "smart money" moves from their vulnerable, resource wasting residences, to disaster resistant, autonomous, and resilient homes, it would be an irrefutable indication that "something" is afoot, and we're in for a "rough ride."
"One key piece of information that's usually omitted when discussing this subject is that the overall warming of the entire climate system has continued rapidly over the past 15 years, even faster than the 15 years before that."
"The IPCC attributes the recent slowing of surface temperatures to a combination of external and internal climate factors. For example, solar activity has been relatively low and volcanic activity has been relatively high, causing less solar energy to reach the Earth's surface. At the same time, we're in the midst of cool ocean cycle phases, for example with a preponderance of La Niña events since 1999."
According to your article, the overall warming of the entire climate system has continued rapidly, yet we're in the midst of cool ocean cycle phases.
Well, which is it?
They're not mutually exclusive, so your question has no meaning.
Funny how if there is no global warming, why are coastal communities spending billions combating rising sea levels and flooding is occurring on unprecedented levels.
There is a cave, I believe off of the French coast, that is something like 100 feet underwater that has ancient cave art.
Do you believe:
1. Ancient man had scuba gear.
2. The sea level has risen 100 feet since industrialization.
3. The Koch brothers built the cave in some lame attempt to discredit Al Gore.
Not true...Even you can read a thermometer, or can you?
So you admit that one need not be a qualified climate so called scientist to read and develop an informed analysis. Which means that the science is NOT settled.
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.
