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.
Did you guys see the latest? My God. NOAA couldn't take seeing "The Pause" or the cool down since 2000 which NASA admitted so they adjusted the data AGAIN!! This is out of hand now.
Don't worry.. NOAA's source is in this link. I will quote them here... More details with link..
“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,'”
"The research team comes to the conclusion that there was a severe cold snap during the geological age known for its extreme greenhouse climate. "
"The Cretaceous, which occurred approximately 145 million to 66 million years ago, was one of the warmest periods in the history of the earth. The poles were devoid of ice and average temperatures of up to 35 degrees Celsius prevailed in the oceans. "A typical greenhouse climate; some even refer to it as a 'super greenhouse' ", "
"We have now found indications in the Arctic that this warm era 112 to 118 million years ago was interrupted for a period of about 6 million years."
"The polar regions are particularly sensitive to global climatic fluctuations."
On NOAA's corrections, the new corrections place NOAA's dataset closer to the value of other datasets. Note the uncertainty range on all the trends, short-trem trends are uncertain; both continued global warming and no warming are within the uncertainties, though 2013 and 2014 weren't included). You can't site a trend without the uncertainty.
Just getting your opinions, please, no heated arguments.
Do you think recent global warming was/is mostly man-made or mostly natural?
Good luck with the "no heated arguments" goal. Few things seem to get people more angry than somebody not just buying everything global warming that comes down the pipeline. I voted "not sure", because I find the question loaded, but didn't want to post with out at least adding to the poll.
For example, it's like asking the same questions about the recent solar minimum. "What is the cause of the recent changes in solar radiation?" Then including "mankind" as one possible answer. You might expect somebody to argue that such a poll is ridiculous. Except if we are talking about changes in sunlight at the surface of the planet, mankind could actually be a cause. So if the poll is actually about sunlight and air pollution, it could be valid.
Which is why global warming has to be defined before you can have a discussion, or poll, about it. anyone who refuses to define what they mean by global warming is putting the cart before the horse.
Which is more than enough to start a huge argument.
Even the satellite data shows the unexpected (and unexplained) asymmetric "climate change" which has become quite bothersome of late. How much (if any) is due to humankind and our changes to the natural world, is a very very important question. What does show up, even with heavily adjusted data, is that something strange is going on.
I want to know if it's even possible for mankind to be causing it. Consider the real question. If we, as a planet of human beings, wanted to change the very weather, the vast circulation patterns, the albedo, the cloudiness, precipitation and amount of sunlight, could we? (Have we?)
Yes, Co2 is warming the world.... Meanwhile after they "adjusted" the temperatures.... they got ride of the "pause/hiatus" that they so desperately tried to explain using natural factors
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.