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.
All the climatologists are claiming through their research that the globes temperature is warming due to mans activities,In brief heres what they use to come to their conclusions=
Quote:
The National Centers for Environmental Information contains the instrumental and paleoclimatic records that can precisely define the nature of climatic fluctuations at time scales of a century and longer. Among the diverse kinds of data platforms whose data contribute to NCEI's resources are: Ships, buoys, weather stations, weather balloons, satellites, radar and many climate proxy records such as tree rings and ice cores. The National Oceanographic Data Center contains the subsurface ocean data which reveal the ways that heat is distributed and redistributed over the planet. Knowing how these systems are changing and how they have changed in the past is crucial to understanding how they will change in the future. And, for climate information that extends from hundreds to thousands of years, paleoclimatology data, also available from the National Centers for Environmental Information, helps to provide longer term perspectives.
What scientific study are the GW deniers using to refute the Scientific communities findings?
All the climatologists are claiming through their research that the globes temperature is warming due to mans activities,In brief heres what they use to come to their conclusions=
What scientific study are the GW deniers using to refute the Scientific communities findings?
Their models have been consistently and spectacularly wrong, and all in the same direction, to the hot side. Also, their predictions about increased hurricanes and tornadoes and what not have been completely wrong. In fact, there has been a downturn in this sort of activity.
And of course there have also been a number of instances where they have been caught "adjusting" the data and cooking the books to force the reported trends to behave more to their liking.
In fact, their predictions have been sufficentiently far off base that they actually decided to rebrand their politically contrived movement from "Man-Made Global Warming" to "Man-Made Climate Change" so that would feel enabled to associate literally any activity in the Earth's climate with the need to urgently implement their all-too predictable leftist agenda of dramatically increased taxes, redistribution of wealth to the favorites of the left (but not the poor people) and an increased level of government interference and control over everyone's lives, with of course the left presiding.
Their models have been consistently and spectacularly wrong, and all in the same direction, to the hot side. Also, their predictions about increased hurricanes and tornadoes and what not have been completely wrong. In fact, there has been a downturn in this sort of activity.
And of course there have also been a number of instances where they have been caught "adjusting" the data and cooking the books to force the reported trends to behave more to their liking.
In fact, their predictions have been sufficentiently far off base that they actually decided to rebrand their politically contrived movement from "Man-Made Global Warming" to "Man-Made Climate Change" so that would feel enabled to associate literally any activity in the Earth's climate with the need to urgently implement their all-too predictable leftist agenda of dramatically increased taxes, redistribution of wealth to the favorites of the left (but not the poor people) and an increased level of government interference and control over everyone's lives, with of course the left presiding.
Again this appears to be all your opinion Spartacus as i have yet to see any credible evidence from the scientific community refuting what the majority of climatologists are saying. sure you can cherry pick a rogue scientists claims here or an obscure publication there but you cant provide a viable consensus from any credible scientific society saying GW is a hoax and isnt happening.. https://www.google.ca/#safe=active&q...h+temperatures
No matter what you claim the fact is its getting warmer.
I'm not buying into the idea that every one is in on some sort of conspiracy,neither it appears is the rest of the world, the only people i see who have issue with the warnings of the Global scientific communities is Americas extreme rightwing demographic.
So why is this small American rightwing demographic so obsessed with trying to refute what scientific findings/study are showing?
All the climatologists are claiming through their research that the globes temperature is warming due to mans activities,In brief heres what they use to come to their conclusions=
What scientific study are the GW deniers using to refute the Scientific communities findings?
Nothing but conspiracy theories supported by lies, as evidenced by Spartacus' post.
Nothing but conspiracy theories supported by lies, as evidenced by Spartacus' post.
What did Spartacus713 write that's erroneous? It's all backed up by historical fact.
The climate modelers' predictions were always wrong. And hurricanes actually became far fewer in number since the dire annual forecasts of the 1990s that they would increase with every successive year at the time in size, intensity, and number.
And they did adjust the books. That's why Climategate emails were leaked by an incredulous internal whistleblower.
I'd like to know how many people in this thread still think that there is no global warming. I had a poll in the thread that I started a long time ago ("An experiment in climate change discussion"), but unfortunately that thread was deleted, so the poll is gone too. As I see it, those who still deny that the globe is warming are flat-out "deniers" in the truest sense of the term (on par with holocaust deniers, evolution deniers, moon-landing deniers, etc.).
The question of whether or not human activity is a significant contributor is a bit more tricky. I personally think the evidence for AGW is fairly strong, and I think that we ought to be cleaning up our act anyway, so I strongly support most of the environmental efforts to stop GW. At the same time, I have to admit that I'm not highly confident that we can have much affect on GW, even if we are, in fact, the cause of it. The Scientific American article linked above is an example of why my confidence is low. This quote sums up my concern:
"This suggests to me that the Arctic today is not in equilibrium with the greenhouse gas settings, meaning that we have to expect significant increases in [Arctic] temperature and precipitation even if the level of greenhouse gases keeps constant," Melles said. The Arctic may eventually catch up to the changes today's rapid CO2 emissions are setting in motion. "The Earth's system is kind of a sluggish beast. It takes a while for the ocean and atmosphere to respond to this rapid rise in carbon dioxide," Brigham-Grette said.
In other words, it looks to me as though we have to not only stop increasing carbon emissions, but actually lower the concentrations. Otherwise, the Earth will eventually catch up to the current levels, and we will have 60-degree weather in the Arctic Circle.
The bottom line for me is that we need to be seriously planning for GW in all its glory. Denying the science is foolish and dangerous. And continuing to rely so heavily on fossil fuels is just plain stupid, no matter how you look at it.
I'd like to know how many people in this thread still think that there is no global warming. I had a poll in the thread that I started a long time ago ("An experiment in climate change discussion"), but unfortunately that thread was deleted, so the poll is gone too. As I see it, those who still deny that the globe is warming are flat-out "deniers" in the truest sense of the term (on par with holocaust deniers, evolution deniers, moon-landing deniers, etc.).
The question of whether or not human activity is a significant contributor is a bit more tricky. I personally think the evidence for AGW is fairly strong, and I think that we ought to be cleaning up our act anyway, so I strongly support most of the environmental efforts to stop GW. At the same time, I have to admit that I'm not highly confident that we can have much affect on GW, even if we are, in fact, the cause of it. The Scientific American article linked above is an example of why my confidence is low. This quote sums up my concern:
As far as your assertion that there are people who believe the Earth has not warmed, you are once again responding to an argument nobody is making.
The Earth has warmed since the end of the "little ice age" which lasted from about 1350 to 1850, a time during which glaciers advanced, crop failures increased, deaths from epidemics and plague were common and Washington crossed an ice-choked Delaware river. So, we were due for an upturn and we have gotten it.
Prior to that, we had the medieval warming period, which lasted from 800 to about 1300. This was when the Vikings were the terror of Europe and Greenland was actually green.
So as you can see, the warming we have experienced since the end of the little ice-age is not unusual or unexpected at all.
And we can also talk about the warming that has certainly occurred since the peak of the last ice age some 12,000 to 20,000 years ago. I challenge you to produce a quote from someone who believes the Earth has NEVER warmed. You cannot do it, and you know it, because nobody is taking that position.
Earths cooling and warming cycles are not in dispute,the discussion is about whether mans use of 100 million barrels of oil daily is causing a dangerous and abnormal rise in that warming cycle, the scientists are telling us that through their research and study the Earth is warming at an abnormal rate,they also point out the consequences of this trend, most rational thinking people believe what the scientific research is pointing to=its getting hotter.
And even though i cant prove it i also think the Earth is a sphere and not flat.
Another liberal (with no advanced degrees in any area of science,no publications, and no formal training in an area of science) presuming to understand science.
I must say that observing those devoid of any scientific training is similar to a child playing 'army" or "construction" in a sand box. It is very amusing, yet sad, as it is an adult, not a child, presuming knowledge with ZERO CREDENTIALS.
Difference is hawkeye most people believe what the scientists are saying, believe the news stories that the Earth is warming up just like we believe most of what science teaches us.
Because we arent scientists with vast amounts of resources to refute what the scientists are saying about the climate.So when global science communities like NASA/NOAA/etc tell us their findings are pointing to Global Warming we dont automatically assume a big conspiracy theory and that they are all lying we just assume the Earth is warming up.
Again i'll post just a small portion of what science uses to come to their conclusions=
Quote:
Quote:
The National Centers for Environmental Information contains the instrumental and paleoclimatic records that can precisely define the nature of climatic fluctuations at time scales of a century and longer. Among the diverse kinds of data platforms whose data contribute to NCEI's resources are: Ships, buoys, weather stations, weather balloons, satellites, radar and many climate proxy records such as tree rings and ice cores. The National Oceanographic Data Center contains the subsurface ocean data which reveal the ways that heat is distributed and redistributed over the planet. Knowing how these systems are changing and how they have changed in the past is crucial to understanding how they will change in the future. And, for climate information that extends from hundreds to thousands of years, paleoclimatology data, also available from the National Centers for Environmental Information, helps to provide longer term perspectives.
What reliable resources are you using to refute the claims of science communities such as NASA and NOAA to come to your stance on the issue.?
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.
