Has Global Warming affected Atlanta? (Decatur: title, education, reviews)

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by shivtim

It would be useful if your own links didn't undermine your own point. You likely posted that article after just looking at the title, and thought it was some sort of "smoking gun" that the climate isn't changing. Direct quote from the article: "scientists agree that temperatures will continue to rise in the long term."

It doesn't undermine anything I've said. It simply reinforces my statements that natural forces are the cause of any climate change. It isn't a smoking gun and I never claimed it was one. Rather than trying to take shots at me, read what is written and comment on that. That is how a discussion works. Private message me if you need more remedial tips.

[shivtim]

Originally Posted by erick295

There will never be a clear blue sky in the summer. Much of that haze is natural.

OOOOH, haze is natural. That explains why every summer there are huge haze clouds over the middle of the ocean, the arctic, rural Canada, the Amazon rainforest, and Glacier National Park. Meanwhile populated areas like Atlanta and Los Angeles have remarkably clear skies.

Seriously, do you ever step back and listen to your craziness?
Smog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No wonder people in Georgia don't believe in climate change, if they can't even agree that humans cause smog.

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by GeorgiatoChina

This is expected from the Georgia forum. Of course people here are going to listen to Eric Errison, Sean Hannity and the like that admit to hating academia and not agree with scientist.

With scientist? When insulting other people's beliefs, try to write in sentences that make sense.

Is there one scientist out there with definitive scientific proof of man made climate change? This is a topic that is hotly contested by scientists. To represent man made climate change as fact is flat out incorrect. To try to mark a scientific discussion a political one is not constructive.

[shivtim]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

It doesn't undermine anything I've said. It simply reinforces my statements that natural forces are the cause of any climate change. It isn't a smoking gun and I never claimed it was one. Rather than trying to take shots at me, read what is written and comment in that. That is how a discussion works. Private message me if you need more remedial tips.

Follow your own advice. You've provided zero rebuttal to any of the multiple scientific studies and conclusions I posted. Your evidence consists of a couple of newspaper articles. You are the king of taking shots at people, so don't dare to lecture me on how to have a discussion, son.

Your online newspaper article from Germany certainly did not prove that "natural forces are the cause of any climate change." In fact, it provided specific evidence that humans do indeed affect climate.

[shivtim]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

This is a topic that is hotly contested by scientists.

False. Absolutely false. I provided links to consensus scientific statements from the presidents of 18 scientific organizations (representing hundreds of thousands of scientists). I provided links to studies from the US Government, from dozens of Universities, and from international scientific panels. All of these had the same conclusion. The topic is most certainly not "hotly contested." There is unprecedented agreement that global climate is changing due to human causes. Please take the time to read some of the scientific reports I posted.

Survey of scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documen...DoranEOS09.pdf
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."

Examination of published literature:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full#
"Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

[shivtim]

A good place to start for anyone with questions about climate change:
http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/downl...endix1-CAQ.pdf

Outline of the Questions addressed
A. How can we predict what climate will be like in 100 years if we can’t even predict the weather next week?
B. Is the climate changing? How do we know?
C. Climate is always changing. How is recent change different than in the past?
D. Is the global temperature still increasing? Isn’t there recent evidence that it is actually cooling?
E. Is it getting warmer at the same rate everywhere? Are these trends likely to continue?
F. How long have scientists been investigating human influences on climate?
G. How can the small proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have such a large effect on our climate?
H. Could the Sun or other natural factors explain recent climate changes?
I. How do we know that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change?
J. What is and is not debated among climate scientists about climate change?
K. Is the global surface temperature record good enough to determine whether climate is changing?
L. Is Antarctica gaining or losing ice? What about Greenland?
M. What about global cooling predictions in the 1970s?
N. How is climate projected to change in the future?
O. Does climate change affect severe weather?
P. Are the oceans affected by climate change?
Q. What is ocean acidification?
R. Should we trust the computer models of the Earth’s climate?
S. What are the key uncertainties about climate change?
T. Are there tipping points in the climate system we should be concerned about?
U. Why should I care? How is climate change going to affect us?
V. Won’t more warming be good for us?
W. Who will be most affected by climate change?
X. What can be done? Are there solutions?
Y. Is it better to act now or later?
Z. Can we reverse global warming?

Note that the authors of this report hail from multiple universities around the globe (NC State, Texas Tech, Illinois, UCSD, Exeter, etc), multiple US government agencies (NASA, NOAA, etc), multiple National Laboratories, and several UK and Canadian research agencies. It provides references from 40 studies, with authors from dozens more Universities and scientific agencies and organizations, all of which were peer-reviewed by yet more scientists. If you really think global warming is some vast conspiracy of data manipulation, all of these Universities and agencies must be in on the hoax.

[erick295]

Originally Posted by shivtim

OOOOH, haze is natural. That explains why every summer there are huge haze clouds over the middle of the ocean, the arctic, rural Canada, the Amazon rainforest, and Glacier National Park. Meanwhile populated areas like Atlanta and Los Angeles have remarkably clear skies.

Seriously, do you ever step back and listen to your craziness?
Smog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No wonder people in Georgia don't believe in climate change, if they can't even agree that humans cause smog.

You seem to have confused the word "much" with the word "all."

[GeorgiatoChina]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

With scientist? When insulting other people's beliefs, try to write in sentences that make sense.

Is there one scientist out there with definitive scientific proof of man made climate change? This is a topic that is hotly contested by scientists. To represent man made climate change as fact is flat out incorrect. To try to mark a scientific discussion a political one is not constructive.

Read Shivtim's post. It's all there.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by shivtim

OOOOH, haze is natural. That explains why every summer there are huge haze clouds over the middle of the ocean, the arctic, rural Canada, the Amazon rainforest, and Glacier National Park. Meanwhile populated areas like Atlanta and Los Angeles have remarkably clear skies.

Seriously, do you ever step back and listen to your craziness?
Smog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No wonder people in Georgia don't believe in climate change, if they can't even agree that humans cause smog.

Erick is correct. The summer haze is caused by the high humidity we have here in the summer, not smog. High pressure systems will normally bring lower humidity, and the sky is blue again; until, of course, moisture from the Gulf reasserts itself.
If the haze was caused by smog, why wouldn't we have it year-round?

[shivtim]

^Sorry I realized my post sounded a little jerky. Didn't mean it that way! Gtcorndog had me all worked up. But you and Erick are not correct.

The vast majority of the haze problem we have in Atlanta is human-made photochemical smog. The reason we don't have it year-round (at least it's not as prominent in winter) is because there is less sun and heat in winter. The haze requires pollutants (mostly from automobiles) to combine with sunlight and high temperatures. Basically the recipe for smog is car pollution + sunlight.
Here is a study in the southeast that specifically looked at sources of haze:
Determining the Sources of Regional Haze in the Southeastern United States
They found that SO2 (from coal power plants) and NOx (from vehicles) were the main culprits. When they looked at naturally occurring VOCs, they found they were not major contributors to haze in the southeast.

In any event, Erick said "There will never be a clear blue sky in the summer. Much of that haze is natural." Without the millions of cars on the road (and coal power plants), Atlanta would have blue skies. Sure, we could have some naturally occurring haze on particularly hot, humid, windless days, but the fact is we already have many summer days in Atlanta with blue skies. So it's false to say there will never be a clear blue sky in summer. I've seen it with my own eyes.

Take a look at how much air quality has already improved in some cities once cars became more efficient and strict pollution controls were enforced.
Air Quality Trends | AirTrends | Air & Radiation | EPA