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've been all over the World on business and more often than not there were reports of weather that was out of the norm!
It's also my understanding that the exceptionally hot weather ( records being broken) has coincided with a period when the suns energy should have led to the reverse situation!
I'm not a " Green" but I am pretty certain we have altered natural events!
Weather allegedly being out of the norm certainly is not evidence of man-made global warming. I have yet to see clear and unyielding evidence that global warming exists, much less that -- as the theory goes -- it is caused by mankind.
I wish the term "global warming" would stop being used because it does not accurately reflect the actual situation. What is happening (check which stories lead the news on any given night) is global climate change. This is exactly the model scientists have forecast for years. Frequent, more violent storms, drought, flooding, more powerful hurricanes and tornadoes etc. These events are happening globally. It is easy for those who deny climate change to ignore the evidence before their eyes because then they don't actually have to change anything in their own lives. The powerful lobby for the fossil fuel industry will convince politicians (money is a powerful carrot to dangle) that none of this is their fault just as they convinced us all in the 1960's that lead in gas was actually good for us. If you're Canadian, you simply need a Prime Minister who fires all the scientists and hires his own "truthologists" to convince the masses that everything is just fine. You can have jobs OR the environment but you can't have both. There are no good paying jobs in green energy. Oil spills are good for the oceans. Use birds to sop up oil spills (their little feathers are so absorbant). The world's natural air conditioners are melting at an unprecedented pace but its all good. "Proof, you want the proof! You can't handle the proof".
don't you know, they call it climate change now, even though climate change has been around since the birth of the planet and will be here even after the planet no longer has man on it. the sun has does more for global warming than man ever could.
plus the reason that the global warming fanatics say climate change instead of global warming, is that they found out that not many people really believe in global warming and that they could not implement their socialist policies. so they just say climate change instead.
That would be understandable. If you lived on Superior and observed the ice staying longer into the season with each successive year over the last 50 years, you would probably be a denier, so climate change would be more believable. On the flip side, if you lived in Phoenix and observed each successive summer getting progressively hotter at the 'Airport', global warming might be an easier sale, even though the reduction in plants and trees, and increase in asphalt and buildings is probably a bigger contributor.
Overall this issue has been politicized, which is the real foundation for discord on the topic. I'll blame it on Al Gore.
People who claim that man-made global warming is happening should certainly be able to produce very clear aggregate global warming data that supports their theory.
Just as prosecutors must provide jurors with clear and unyielding evidence before they can expect a jury to support their theory of a defendant having committed a crime, similar evidence should exist and be presented by global warming supporters. However, aggregate global warming data since 1997 works against their theory.
Where the beef?
Of course you as an amateur would have consulted with professional climatologists to get answers to your objections, Wudge. You wouldn't want to be considered a crank! Which climatologists did you email or contact otherwise, to see what they had to say?
Quote:
Claim 3: Global warming stopped a decade ago; Earth has been cooling since then.
1998 was the world's warmest year in the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre’s records; recent years have been cooler; therefore, the previous century's global warming trend is over, right?
Anyone with even a glancing familiarity with statistics should be able to spot the weaknesses of that argument. Given the extended duration of the warming trend, the expected (and observed) variations in the rate of increase and the range of uncertainties in the temperature measurements and forecasts, a decade's worth of mild interruption is too small a deviation to prove a break in the pattern, climatologists say.
Recently, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein asked four independent statisticians to look for trends in the temperature data sets without telling them what the numbers represented. "The experts found no true temperature declines over time," he wrote.
Of course you as an amateur would have consulted with professional climatologists to get answers to your objections, Wudge. You wouldn't want to be considered a crank! Which climatologists did you email or contact otherwise, to see what they had to say?
The classic graph with no statistical games still holds true:
If you have a case for man-made global warming, do make it.
This seems pretty simple to me. If the claim of man-made global warming was true, I would expect the aggregate numbers around the globe to reflect this global warming claim. However, there has not been any increase in global warming numbers for the last fifteen years.
So I ask again: where's the beef?
(As a getaway note: if you ever sit on jury, you will find that evidence does not speak for itself. Officers of the court present their positions and their evidence and their arguments to the jury.)
I wish the term "global warming" would stop being used because it does not accurately reflect the actual situation. What is happening (check which stories lead the news on any given night) is global climate change. This is exactly the model scientists have forecast for years. Frequent, more violent storms, drought, flooding, more powerful hurricanes and tornadoes etc. These events are happening globally. It is easy for those who deny climate change to ignore the evidence before their eyes because then they don't actually have to change anything in their own lives. The powerful lobby for the fossil fuel industry will convince politicians (money is a powerful carrot to dangle) that none of this is their fault just as they convinced us all in the 1960's that lead in gas was actually good for us. If you're Canadian, you simply need a Prime Minister who fires all the scientists and hires his own "truthologists" to convince the masses that everything is just fine. You can have jobs OR the environment but you can't have both. There are no good paying jobs in green energy. Oil spills are good for the oceans. Use birds to sop up oil spills (their little feathers are so absorbant). The world's natural air conditioners are melting at an unprecedented pace but its all good. "Proof, you want the proof! You can't handle the proof".
Global warming is an accurate term. The globe as a whole is warming. The "politically correct" term "climate change" has caused the general public to think that it's not actually global warming and that instead the climate is just changing and nothing can be predicted. It has contributed to the conservatives' belief that it's all a scam.
If you have a case for man-made global warming, do make it.
This seems pretty simple to me. If the claim of man-made global warming was true, I would expect the aggregate numbers around the globe to reflect this global warming claim. However, there has not been any increase in global warming numbers for the last fifteen years.
So I ask again: where's the beef?
(As a getaway note: if you ever sit on jury, you will find that evidence does not speak for itself. Officers of the court present their positions and their evidence and their arguments to the jury.)
There are 3 things you don't know:
1) There is a lot of random variation from year to year in the climate. One year being colder than the last doesn't mean there's no global warming. We are looking at the long term trend.
2) There is a natural climate cycle which is the source of much of our climate variation, driven by the sun and the irregular orbit of the earth. It's called the Milankovitch Cycle. However it doesn't explain the last century of warming.
3) We have put a lot of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Those gases retain more heat. It's simple physics, like putting an extra blanket on your bed, or improving the insulation of your house. If for a 15 year period there's no net warming, it doesn't mean more heat isn't being retained by those gases. It means that the heat they retain is offset by other factors like cloud cover (which is affected by the solar cycle) or the Milankovitch Cycle.
Global warming is an accurate term. The globe as a whole is warming. The "politically correct" term "climate change" has caused the general public to think that it's not actually global warming and that instead the climate is just changing and nothing can be predicted. It has contributed to the conservatives' belief that it's all a scam.
If the globe as a whole is warming, why do the aggregate numbers around the world not reflect any such warming.
I think it is entirely reasonable to believe that global warming should be reflected by an increase in the aggregate temperature numbers around the globe. Do you not agree?
1) There is a lot of random variation from year to year in the climate. One year being colder than the last doesn't mean there's no global warming. We are looking at the long term trend.
2) There is a natural climate cycle which is the source of much of our climate variation, driven by the sun and the irregular orbit of the earth. It's called the Milankovitch Cycle. However it doesn't explain the last century of warming.
3) We have put a lot of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Those gases retain more heat. It's simple physics, like putting an extra blanket on your bed, or improving the insulation of your house. If for a 15 year period there's no net warming, it doesn't mean more heat isn't being retained by those gases. It means that the heat they retain is offset by other factors like cloud cover (which is affected by the solar cycle) or the Milankovitch Cycle.
In the seventies, scientists were claiming that all of the pollution mankind was putting into the atmosphere would cause an ice-age. They thought that was simple physics too.
I have a simple question: if man-made global warming is now real and just simple physics, then why have these "simple physics" not been reflected by an increase in aggregate temperature around the world?
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,164,711 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge
If you have a case for man-made global warming, do make it.
This seems pretty simple to me. If the claim of man-made global warming was true, I would expect the aggregate numbers around the globe to reflect this global warming claim. However, there has not been any increase in global warming numbers for the last fifteen years.
So I ask again: where's the beef?
(As a getaway note: if you ever sit on jury, you will find that evidence does not speak for itself. Officers of the court present their positions and their evidence and their arguments to the jury.)
I just posted a graph showing that the numbers have increased.
You're the one claiming something contrary to expert opinion. Climatologists are the ones who have studied this their entire lives, and their answers to your objections are easily found on the internet, as I just did in the above article.
Experts don't need to bow to you, but they have answered ALL objections from skeptics anyway - I've never seen one that wasn't answered.
If you want to prove that all the experts are wrong and you are right, you would need prove thousands of articles wrong. You haven't. Instead, when someone gives you an answer, you ignore what they said and raise the question again.
Here is another article, hopefully you can understand this one:
Quote:
No, it hasn't been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn't the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What's more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.
Though humans love record-breakers, they don't, on their own, tell us a much about trends -- and it's trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables -- like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity -- not by cherry-picking single points.
There's also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on surface air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance -- due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called 'thermal mass') -- tend to give a much more 'steady' indication of the warming that is happening. Records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there is no sign of it slowing any time soon (Figure 1). More than 90% of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3% goes into increasing the surface air temperature........... THE ARTICLE CONTINUES AT What has global warming done since 1998? TO AVOID COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
The two articles I posted have simply been for explanation, not proof. There's no longer any debate among professionals in the field about whether there is some degree of man-caused global warming ....... the only debate is about how severe the problem will get.
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.
