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.
"Believe" is what you're forced to do in the absence of evidence.
Global warming is a fact.
Yep.
But Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is most certainly a belief.
Global warming, as in the globe has warmed since a given period of time is simply a fact, but a pointless one in the context of CAGW as that fact does not validate CAGW.
Reading through these posts, it seems to me that the big gap here is that people don't make the connection between natural cycles of warming and cooling (which take tens of thousands of years) and man made warming (which has taken 50 years). The rate of temperature change between natural and human-caused warming is incredibly different: orders of magnitude. Yes, the earth's temperature has changed before, but the RATE of temperature rise and sea level rise is unprecedented.
I find that people have the same disconnect with species extinctions: since extinction is a natural process, they don't believe that the current accelerated rate of extinction due to deforestation is a bad thing. Again, its hard for people to make a connection between a "natural rate" (very very slow) and the human-caused rate of extinction (100x faster)
I believe that our climate is changing, as it always has. Is it going to be a warmer/wetter climate or a warmer/drier climate. What about colder/drier or colder/wetter? Each scenario has it own implications. In my hometown of Sacramento, a warmer scenario likely means real water problems because it means earlier snow melt for the Sierra Nevada mountains and less water availability for Sacramento in late summer and early fall, before it starts to rain again. (Sacramento goes from about May to at least October without more than 1/4 inch of rain on average.)
I am far less concerned with IF the current climate patterns have been accelerated by human activities, than what we can do to mitigate the problems that will result from climate change. If humans cease to exist on Earth because of a changing climate, we won't be the first species to go extinct for that very reason.
Reading through these posts, it seems to me that the big gap here is that people don't make the connection between natural cycles of warming and cooling (which take tens of thousands of years) and man made warming (which has taken 50 years). The rate of temperature change between natural and human-caused warming is incredibly different: orders of magnitude. Yes, the earth's temperature has changed before, but the RATE of temperature rise and sea level rise is unprecedented.
I find that people have the same disconnect with species extinctions: since extinction is a natural process, they don't believe that the current accelerated rate of extinction due to deforestation is a bad thing. Again, its hard for people to make a connection between a "natural rate" (very very slow) and the human-caused rate of extinction (100x faster)
Where is your evidence? Normander just put up a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Reading through these posts, it seems to me that the big gap here is that people don't make the connection between natural cycles of warming and cooling (which take tens of thousands of years) and man made warming (which has taken 50 years). The rate of temperature change between natural and human-caused warming is incredibly different: orders of magnitude. Yes, the earth's temperature has changed before, but the RATE of temperature rise and sea level rise is unprecedented.
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.
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.
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.
It seems as if he interprets the data differently than you do. Perhaps this is because he is a scientist and you are not?
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.
