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.
So, why do you think the ice caps are melting then?
There are a lot of reasons as to why, though this isn't an area I have spent a lot of time reading about. Most would agree we have shown some warming periods and often though, it is argued through regional influences rather than some overall trend.
If you really want to pay attention to the ice melts, the people at CA were tracking it all this year. No real "definitive" on the issue (which theories showed correct), but it does cover the issue in much detail and there is a lot of discussion overall.
The suns effect on climate is extreeme. Sun Spots are dirrectly reflected in Earths temperature as solar flares and sun spot radiation penetrate the magnetosphere and become trapped in the Earths atmosphere adding to global warming until their energy dissipates over time. Right now the sun is entering a cycle of low sun spot activity. That means temperatures with go down on a global average for some time. These cycles of high solar activity and low solar activity last between 5 and thirty years. Yes global warming is real and this stellar gift from the nature of our sun is buying us some time to repair our mistakes in the destruction of our atmosphere from pollution. We should not let the last couple of years of global temperatures determine if change to human activity is needed. Rather we should look at the amount of carbon emmisions into the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution and let those numbers be the factor to base our decisions. The sun is cutting us some slack be it coincidence or devine intervention. But we must make haste in utilizing this break to repair the damage done.
So we are the cause you are saying? The spin from observed trends gets more and more amusing as time goes. You do realize you can only adjust previous projections, fudge the math, and spin the actual outcome so much before people catch on to do you not?
This urgency to "fix" something that nobody in the field can explain with proper evidence and backed confidence is getting tiresome.
By the way, maybe you could show how much we actual contribute compared to say how much is natural? I think people would be greatly interested to see the numbers on this. I know I would.
So we are the cause you are saying? The spin from observed trends gets more and more amusing as time goes. You do realize you can only adjust previous projections, fudge the math, and spin the actual outcome so much before people catch on to do you not?
This urgency to "fix" something that nobody in the field can explain with proper evidence and backed confidence is getting tiresome.
By the way, maybe you could show how much we actual contribute compared to say how much is natural? I think people would be greatly interested to see the numbers on this. I know I would.
Spot on. Global warming, err, I mean climate change (its our fault whether it heats or cools) is not about the environment. Its about wealth redistribution from industrialized nations to poorer countries and more taxation in the U.S.. The cap and trade nonsense is more evidence of this. Oh, and "buying carbon offsets" makes liberals feel better about driving around in their limo's and private business jets to attend global warming fund raisers.
It is an average of the whole planet, not just a relatively small land mass (as compared to the total surface of the planet).
By which means are they attempting to determine this average though? Is it through the GISS Surface stations? Are you speaking of Dendrochronology and the correlations to climate temperatures? Is it satellite records?
Look, I won't argue there have been warming trends or even that we have been going through a slight warming in the past. The issue is more of how much and how it compares to historical records as well as what may be causing these trends and is it progressively increasing. This is something that has not been proven in the slightest.
Surface records are severely messed up with selective cherry picking in the data analysis, instrumental location bias and calibration, as well as the observed satellite records not syncing up with surface records. That is, they tend to throw out the satellite records in favor of the surface records because the surface records support the "consensus" even though satellite records tend to be more accurate and encompassing of factors concerning atmosphere than surface stations.
Then we have problems with the dendro correlations to climate showing extreme selection bias by the researchers as well as some extremely poor applications in the math attempting to find these correlations. Not only that, but there has also been rather defensive attitudes by the teams making these claims resulting in improper practices within the field. Any question to the "consensus" is met with extreme hostility by the community that supports the hypothesis.
Though, the good news is that through all of this, attention has been brought to the focal of those key individuals who are at the core of this belief and their data (now with some finally being released) is being ran over with a fine tooth comb revealing some extreme problems with their methods.
Personally, I think that while there are good scientists out there doing good work in the field and they do provide proper support to areas of the belief, they also are not the ones stomping their feet in arrogant position calling for political motions.
So in Moscow it was the warmest since 1891, why so hot back then...
No cars, no coal plants, smaller population....
Global warming is a con, all over the world there are always cyclical climate variations.
Zero population growthers, anti business, animal rights activists and opportunists like Al "private jet" Gore hypocrite are pushing this garbage.
freedom
Yeah, f*** science. Lets just repeat what Hannity tells us.
Yeah, f*** science. Lets just repeat what Hannity tells us.
Maybe you could answer to the post above this one then? If you want to get into the details of the science, I honestly prefer it over the banter of either sides political dialogue.
It is the science to which the political realm is running from who support the consensus. If you wish to discuss the science, then please do so. That is, unless you were speaking of "Political Science"?
Here in Denver, the thing I notice throughout the year is that night time lows very much tend to be higher than average, both winter and summer. The obvious result of this is that if you went back 25 years in Denver, you'd notice that by Halloween, all the trees were bare. Now it's mid November and there are still trees with color, a few bare, and some are still fairly green. I'm sure you'd notice a similar phenomenon in other parts of the country.
This is the new religion of our times... a government religion! (Due to all of the beliefs/faith that has to go on) For every scientist that says there is global warming... there is a scientist with data supporting the opposite! I was all for the global warming thing until I did my own research and now I am against it.
No sane person wants to pollute the planet in this day and age and make it unlivable for our descendants! But we also do not want to go back to the stoneage either! When I was a kid they were talking about us getting cooler every year and was drumming up fear about global cooling, the same people a few years later changed their minds and started creating the global warming issues; I did a huge amount of research on the subject.
But now it is all about profit for private environmental companies and government agencies! It is quickly becoming a way for the people to control us, our economy, and our future!
There are some awfully dark things in our path ahead!
I find it amusing (or pathetic) how offended people are at the attempt to limit the destruction we as a species are inflicting upon the planet.
Yes, scientists are still trying to determine just how far the extent of human activity has had on climate change, but no one, I repeat, no one, is claiming that we have had NO impact. Those researchers who have been unfairly labeled as "global warming critics" are merely voicing concern over the rush to assumptions that many of their contemporaries are guilty of. They do not have any problems with the basic science at the core of global warming studies, but rather approach the subject more cautiously than others.
Don't you all find it odd that as the Number 1 polluter, we the United States, also happen to be one of the nations whose population is most "in the dark" about the issue? It is only in countries like the U.S. and China that global warming is a "controversy".
A lot of you seem to be quite confident in your knowledge of global warming as a "hoax", but if any of you would point me in the direction of a major science organization that rejects the consensus that human beings have had significant impact on climate change in modern history.
Any takers?
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.
