Do You Believe in Global Warming? (Rush Limbaugh, March, radio, TV)
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.
False. That supposition only exists under the pretense of modeled projection, which... has consistently failed to live up to the observed trends.
You are welcome though to provide the research to which supports your claim, yet will not find it within the observational records or outside of models to which take extreme liberty in their assumptions.
Yes, I was looking through some old newspapers and found one dated Aug. 19, 1984. On the cover: "The Drowning of Los Angeles."
There were even predictions. For the year 2014: "The Water Spills Over." Meaning that due to the sea level "rising," water would pour into and flood areas like California's Great Central Valley and parts of the Los Angeles basin. So watch out... only two more years to go before all that happens!
Since you like William Chapin at the University of Illinois so much (I see that you copied a ton of his graphs a few pages back), I suppose I could just be lazy and cite one of his articles.
Second, he lists his sources and methodology and lastly this is simply the evaluation of the observed data formulated from raw sources.
Are you trying to say that such application is the same as a projection?
Also, define "big fan"? Am I a DMI fan as well if I use a graph of their collected data? How about the NSIDC?
The problem you have is that you think that because I use the various representations of their collected data, that I am somehow then required to accept their projections and their opinions concerning the data. They aren't even in the same ballpark concerning the issue.
Now certainly there are issues with some agencies "modifying the data" (GISS consistently revises its raw station data, yet refuses to release their methodology and station selection).
In the end, if you look at the data (which there are multiple sources outside of Cryosphere), you see the same basic trend in the ice. From that data, we see that there is no "spiral" in the poles as you claimed. We have not had a loss below the lowest of 2007 for the arctic an the ice growth and loss seems to not show any discernible pattern to that nature. As for Antarctica, well... I doubt you even want to go there, it is well above average.
What a researcher supposes is all and good, but it isn't the same as taking the data and then mapping it out. You make the mistake of confusing "guessing" with simple representation.
Yes, i do and I also believe that humans contribute to the problem. Will the world end tomorrow? absolutely not but it's never too early to help the environment for future years
Yes, i do and I also believe that humans contribute to the problem. Will the world end tomorrow? absolutely not but it's never too early to help the environment for future years
Considering the other threads you post in and your responses there, I would conclude you believe whatever you are told to believe by the factions you hold most dear.
That is, your opinion is that of another and should be placed onto the shelf of "mouthing off someone else's agenda".
Yes, i do and I also believe that humans contribute to the problem. Will the world end tomorrow? absolutely not but it's never too early to help the environment for future years
Yes, it is. We do not have the technology to replace fossil fuels right now. Therefore, it is too early to stop using them.
No, since this is in the context of AGW, not natural
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.