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.
Rational people would realize that the developing world will not reduce CO2 emissions and that your only alternative, if the global warming loons are right, is to build dikes if ya live near the water.
If 2014 breaks the record for hottest year, that also should sound familiar: 1995, 1997, 1998, 2005 and 2010 all broke NOAA records for the hottest years since records started being kept in 1880.
"This is one of many indicators that climate change has not stopped and that it continues to be one of the most important issues facing humanity," said University of Illinois climate scientist Donald Wuebbles.
Some non-scientists who are skeptical of man-made climate change have been claiming that the world has not warmed in 18 years, but "no one's told the globe that," Blunden said. She said NOAA records show no pause in warming.
The record-breaking heat goes back to the end of last year - November 2013 broke a record. So the 12 months from October 2013 to September 2014 are the hottest 12-month period on record, Blunden said. Earth hasn't set a monthly record for cold since December 1916, but all monthly heat record have been set after 1997.
The OP article is correct and confirms what many have said for many years. It only makes logical sense. The sun does change the amount of energy it puts out. This can be tracked using sunspots and other measurements to indicate this. There is much historical evidence of change in climate based on variability in the sun. See "the little ice age", The Maunder minimum, the "medieval warm period" if your interested in further research. Its all there and its all tied to the sun. Just consider that the climate has changed in England so much at at one point in history, the Thames river would regularly freeze over in winter, and yet at other times, it was warm enough to grow grapes there. All this is before the industrial revolution.
Finally, I would remind you that North America has supposedly had 4 ice ages. If that's true, then how can we say that climate is constant unless man changes it.
Denialist: "Cars break down all the time, you can't blame me for it."
Scientist: "You drove into a tree!"
Just because natural causes can change the climate, doesn't mean all climate change must be caused by nature. And measurements prove there's no correlation between sun activity and temperature in recent decades.
Rational people would realize that the developing world will not reduce CO2 emissions and that your only alternative, if the global warming loons are right, is to build dikes if ya live near the water.
The developing world has greater incentive than us to prevent climate change, they're more vulnerable than we are. It's presumptive to say you know what's impossible in countries around the world for decades to come. You're making ignorant judgements about the motives of people on the other side of the planet who haven't even been born yet.
The developing world has greater incentive than us to prevent climate change, they're more vulnerable than we are. It's presumptive to say you know what's impossible in countries around the world for decades to come. You're making ignorant judgements about the motives of people on the other side of the planet who haven't even been born yet.
The recent deal with China---was it not a bit one-sided? The developing world prioritizes rising out of poverty over offsetting global warming. Only an ignorant individual could not see that.
The recent deal with China---was it not a bit one-sided? The developing world prioritizes rising out of poverty over offsetting global warming. Only an ignorant individual could not see that.
China's industry is dirtier than ours, did you expect the exact same standards to apply to both countries immediately?
Your government's own data shows no Cause & Effect from CO2 on temperature.
In fact, it's just the opposite. Warming temperatures result in an increase in CO2, but increasing CO2 does not cause warming temperatures.
Eichler et al. (2009) used the ice core oxygen isotope record from the continental Siberian Altai as a high-resolution temperature proxy for the last 759years. They found strong correlation between the reconstructed temperature and solar activity, suggesting the solar forcing as a main driver for temperature variations in the Altai region during the pre-industrial time (AD1250–AD 1850). They identified a 10–30 year lag between the solar forcing and the temperature response, and also obtained that the reconstructed temperature was not significantly correlated with the green house gas CO2.
Uh-oh....the house of cards that propaganda built is starting to collapse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips
They say that the sun is the cause, but they can't see why.
However,it is difficult to determine the quantitative role of solar activity on the Earth's climate change at present. More evidences need to be found to better understand the long term impact of solar activity on the climate change of our Earth.
What's the temperature in Degrees Fahrenheit for the 15 micron band that CO2 absorbs?
Connecting the correct dots....
We are speaking to the planet earth, what planet hasn't warmed in 18 years?
Why did you pick 18, kind of a weird number why not 20, 50, 100?
Like many others, they are merely following the cherry-picking standard set by the IPCC.
Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any
preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012
was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence).
Source: IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Summary for Policymakers (SPM), page 5
Do you deny that the IPCC cherry-picks data?
"...30-year period..." = Cherry-picking
"...since 1850." = Cherry-picking
"...last 1400 years (medium confidence)" = Cherry-picking
I do believe we should apply a uniform standard to the AGW Nutters.
At your murder trial, we need only "was likely your DNA" and a witness need only say you are "likely" the person they saw, and that's good enough.
Right?
Do you know how the IPCC defines "medium confidence?"
I do....."Medium confidence, About 5 out of 10 chance"
Source: IPCC 1.6 The IPCC Assessments of Climate Change and Uncertainties
Hey, a 50-50 chance you committed a crime is good enough, right?
Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting
for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence).
It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010 (see Figure
SPM.3), and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971.
Source: IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Summary for Policymakers (SPM), page 8
More cherry-picking by the IPCC.
And for the record, the IPCC's own definition of "high confidence" is: High confidence About 8 out of 10 chance
That's 80%....a "C" as a grade.
You know, if you actually read what the IPCC publishes instead of parroting what others say, you might actually learn something.
What's the temperature in Degrees Fahrenheit for the 15 micron band that CO2 absorbs?
Got physics?....
Mircea
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.
