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.
I have no idea why you think I said that the earth is warming. As regards where you think I said that, please quote me.
Oh, well, you said the Earth's climate changes, and that you specifically don't believe in "man-made" global warming. Are you saying you don't believe the Earth is warming?
Oh, well, you said the Earth's climate changes, and that you specifically don't believe in "man-made" global warming. Are you saying you don't believe the Earth is warming?
I was referring to earth's incredibly long history and Mother Nature doing her thing throughout earth's history, replete with ice ages et al. I have not said or implied that earth has warmed since 1997.
Unless you are focused on man-made global warming, as I think most people who follow this issue are, it's not a subject that I have focused on and I'm not at all interested in focusing on it, because as I said before: "I'm not of the mind that mankind can control or put any significant dent in whatever action Mother Nature decides to take at a particular point in time that will result in a significant change in earth's global temperatures."
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,161,028 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge
I was referring to earth's incredibly long history and Mother Nature doing her thing throughout earth's history, replete with ice ages et al. I have not said or implied that earth has warmed since 1997.
Unless you are focused on man-made global warming, as I think most people who follow this issue are, it's not a subject that I have focused on and I'm not at all interested in focusing on it, because as I said before: "I'm not of the mind that mankind can control or put any significant dent in whatever action Mother Nature decides to take at a particular point in time that will result in a significant change in earth's global temperatures."
.................. If there's one thing that all sides of the climate debate can agree on, it's that climate has changed naturally in the past....... (article continues at [url=http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm] )
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,161,028 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by hensleya1
Fact of the matter is, the "science" community has been uncertain about the earth's climate ever since.... well, science began trying to contemplate what the earth's climate will do next. Whether it's warming, cooling, or whatever. Back in 1895, the science journals were filled with doom and gloom about how arctic ice would wipe out Canada. And then this global cooling hoo-ha in the 70's. And then warming. And then cooling (climate change now?)
- Los Angles Times October 23, 1912
- Time Magazine Jan. 2 1939
- New York Times - January 30, 1961
- Presidential advisor Daniel Moynihan, 1969
- Fortune Magazine February 1974
- The Birmingham Post (England) July 26, 1999
***
Yeah, I have a hard time believing anything these guys say. I'll continue driving my fuel-efficient car and doing my part to care for the environment, but I do not subscribe to any belief that buying carbon credits or paying carbon taxes will do anything to offset the earth's climate change... which will go on with or without us.
Science isn't done by popular magazines, politicians, and newspapers ..... it's done by scientists, in this case climate scientists. That being said, there actually was some debate in past years - but no longer, not among climatologists. Science doesn't claim to be some revelation of God, perfect from the beginning. It's a process of accumulating data, making hypotheses, testing the hypotheses, getting more data ...... it goes on usually for a long time before debates about the hypotheses end, and a consensus is reached.
I was referring to earth's incredibly long history and Mother Nature doing her thing throughout earth's history, replete with ice ages et al. I have not said or implied that earth has warmed since 1997.
Unless you are focused on man-made global warming, as I think most people who follow this issue are, it's not a subject that I have focused on and I'm not at all interested in focusing on it, because as I said before: "I'm not of the mind that mankind can control or put any significant dent in whatever action Mother Nature decides to take at a particular point in time that will result in a significant change in earth's global temperatures."
The only question at hand is, is the Earth currently undergoing long-term warming? Do you believe that the pause in surface temperature increase this decade represents a status that will continue into the future, or that it is merely an ebb in an overall continuing warming trend?
The only question at hand is, is the Earth currently undergoing long-term warming? Do you believe that the pause in surface temperature increase this decade represents a status that will continue into the future, or that it is merely an ebb in an overall continuing warming trend?
Frank, I don't know, and I won't hazard a guess, because that is all it would be. I'm simply not big on guesswork or speculation or tea leaf reading etc.. I much prefer to take my positions based on applying my reasoning skill set to evidence.
If you were to ask me the same question after we had a period of extremely heavy volcanic activity, I might well tell you that I am sticking up on canned goods and overcoats and moving my residence to Florida, if not further south.
I will say this, versus when I was a pup long ago, today's meteorologists have definitely improved in their ability to accurately predict the weather by area/region over the short term, such as days weeks and perhaps a few months or so or more. However, long term weather forecasting still has a long way to go as far as I'm concerned.
I just read that there was an 8.0 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Alaska, and as I search around for meteorologists who predicted it, I have yet to come up with any names -- though my search for this God-like figure who wears a weatherman's hat also still has a ways to go.
Frank, I don't know, and I won't hazard a guess, because that is all it would be. I'm simply not big on guesswork or speculation or tea leaf reading etc.. I much prefer to take my positions based on applying my reasoning skill set to evidence.
If you were to ask me the same question after we had a period of extremely heavy volcanic activity, I might well tell you that I am sticking up on canned goods and overcoats and moving my residence to Florida, if not further south.
I will say this, versus when I was a pup long ago, today's meteorologists have definitely improved in their ability to accurately predict the weather by area/region over the short term, such as days weeks and perhaps a few months or so or more. However, long term weather forecasting still has a long way to go as far as I'm concerned.
I just read that there was an 8.0 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Alaska, and as I search around for meteorologists who predicted it, I have yet to come up with any names -- though my search for this God-like figure who wears a weatherman's hat also still has a ways to go.
Meteorologists don't predict earthquakes, you're thinking of geologists
I wonder if the point where adding more CO2 to the atmosphere doesn't result in more infra-red capture. It's well known that each ton of CO2 added to the atmosphere absorbs less IR radiation than the last. By itself, CO2 can never increase atmospheric temperatures dramatically. It was feared that CO2 would cause enough of an increase that water vapor concentration would get to the point where it would take over the green house gas role. Water vapor is a much better absorber of IR than CO2 is.
Maybe it just didn't happen. Probably something got left out of the models. They were always wildly over predicting temperature increases anyway.
Humans have been exhaling CO2 for thousands of years, but it took the current crop of politicians to label CO2 as a pollutant.
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.
