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.
Over the 130 year period the overall trend was warming. During that period, according to NASA, the surface temperature of the planet increased a grand total of 0.80°C, and decreased a grand total of 0.29°C, leaving a net increase of 0.51°C.
No one has EVER said that global warming means it will get hotter all the time all over the world. There simply is no argument in this thread because the point made by the OP is not proof of anything.
This faux "meteorology" by people who probably haven't studied weather since grade school makes me feel pretty awful about the state of mankind; even smart people in the richest country in the world don't feel any need to understand simple things before making sweeping claims about them.
No one has EVER said that global warming means it will get hotter all the time all over the world. There simply is no argument in this thread because the point made by the OP is not proof of anything.
This faux "meteorology" by people who probably haven't studied weather since grade school makes me feel pretty awful about the state of mankind; even smart people in the richest country in the world don't feel any need to understand simple things before making sweeping claims about them.
Actually it's been 17 years without global warming.
BTW.. the following are some brilliant predictions made by the supposedly experts unlike us simple people with faux meteorology knowledge.
Snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren't going to know what snow is" --- Dr David Viner, Senior Research Scientist at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, 'Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past', March 4, 2000
Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago." --- David Hathaway, Solar Physicist of the Marshall Space Flight Center, 'Scientists Predict Big Solar Cycle', December 21, 2006
"Within a decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro" --- Al Gore, "Inconvenient Truth," 2006.
"The vast Arctic sea ice that spreads across the North Pole could disappear during the summer within five years, leading ice and snow scientists are warning." --- The Age, Australia, August 4, 2008
"The entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years." --- Al Gore, Saarland, Germany, December 13, 2008
A good rule of thumb in discussions like this one is if someone mentions Al Gore during the discussion, or uses cooler winter temperature averages to dispel climate change, they have absolutely no idea what climate change even is and the chances of them ever understanding are slim, as they are likely already indoctrinated in "science" by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and FOX "News".
You remember that the next time we have a heat wave and talking heads on all the other news networks are focusing on global warming.
The point would be it's yet another example of bias coming from academia, if the person producing this study wanted to take the high road and provide insight into the propaganda behind climate change they should of focused on both sides.
I think solar is pretty cool and I hope we can get things like battery lifespans increased so that it becomes a better option.
The only way those systems will ever be cost competitive is through net metering, not only is far cheaper but it's logical to use existing infrastructure.
I don't disagree with you, in fact, most proponents of green energy are opposed to cap and trade as well. When cap and trade was first practiced in Europe (2005) the results were that pollution, in some instances, actually increased. The best case scenario since then is a paltry 8% drop in emissions, while some estimate that impact has been non existent.
I don't know if it's the origins of cap and trade but the first instance I'm aware of is the 1990 amendment to the clean air act governing PM, sulfur dioxide etc. That worked well but only becsue there was variety of things they could do. Increased efficiency, wet scrubbers and transition to using coal from the Powder River Basin which has a lower sulfur content among them and one of the things that also did was lower carbon intensity.
It's a whole other ballgame with CO2 and frankly I don;t see it as workable, it's just going to drive costs up and put money in the pockets banks.
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.
