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.
Have the manmade-global-whatever fanatics ever come up with an actual link between man's activites and the climate changes we are seeing? Or are they still ducking, dodging, shucking, and jiving away?
Climates frequently change.
Sometimes the climate gets warmer.
And sometimes it gets colder.
That's been going on for as long as the planet has been orbiting the Sun. Or, as long as it's had a climate, at least.
And man has never had the slightest influence on it.
Even the leftist loons who scream about how we have to use government to change everything, go back to the stone age, etc., to prevent some unknown catastrophe, have never been able to come up with even ONE study or example that backs up their claims.
What's funny is that, when they do name some study, it invariably turns out to be nothing but a bunch of long-winded claims which, finally, refer to some other "study" for proof. And what is in that other "study"? You guessed it - more long-winded claims, and eventually a reference to yet another study. And you can guess what is in that one, too.
The leftist global-whatever loons have been insisting on impending doom, and the urgent need to give government massive powers to change every bit of our lives to "avoid" that doom, for at least 40 years by my count. Literally billions of dollars have changed hands - usually into their hands - all over the world. And they still haven't come up with one shred of proof that man has had the least bit of influence on the climate changes that happen regularly around us. Nor is there any proof that man can do anything to change it.
***40 YEARS*** of screaming, caterwauling, and doomsaying. All without the slightest proof. Just references to references to references, ad infinitum. And demands that they be given complete power over all of us, and that we send more and more of our resources to them, to change what they cannot change.
Have the manmade-global-whatever fanatics ever come up with an actual link between man's activites and the climate changes we are seeing? Or are they still ducking, dodging, shucking, and jiving away?
Climates frequently change.
Sometimes the climate gets warmer.
And sometimes it gets colder.
That's been going on for as long as the planet has been orbiting the Sun. Or, as long as it's had a climate, at least.
And man has never had the slightest influence on it.
Even the leftist loons who scream about how we have to use government to change everything, go back to the stone age, etc., to prevent some unknown catastrophe, have never been able to come up with even ONE study or example that backs up their claims.
What's funny is that, when they do name some study, it invariably turns out to be nothing but a bunch of long-winded claims which, finally, refer to some other "study" for proof. And what is in that other "study"? You guessed it - more long-winded claims, and eventually a reference to yet another study. And you can guess what is in that one, too.
The leftist global-whatever loons have been insisting on impending doom, and the urgent need to give government massive powers to change every bit of our lives to "avoid" that doom, for at least 40 years by my count. Literally billions of dollars have changed hands - usually into their hands - all over the world. And they still haven't come up with one shred of proof that man has had the least bit of influence on the climate changes that happen regularly around us. Nor is there any proof that man can do anything to change it.
***40 YEARS*** of screaming, caterwauling, and doomsaying. All without the slightest proof. Just references to references to references, ad infinitum. And demands that they be given complete power over all of us, and that we send more and more of our resources to them, to change what they cannot change.
How Accurate Are Existing Computer Climate Modeling Techniques?
Quote:
Ask a Scientist - December 2013 T. Fulmer of Lititz, PA, asks "How accurate are existing computer modeling techniques and can we be confident that they identify human activities as the primary cause of global warming?" and is answered by UCS Kendall Fellow Roberto Mera, Ph.D.
Climate scientists have made many improvements to computer models over the years that have increased their accuracy and reliability. These advances have allowed scientists to show, unequivocally, that human activities are the major driver of global warming.
During the last five years, for example, climate scientists have made dramatic advances (pdf) in their ability to track two key climate indicators—ocean heat content and Arctic sea ice seasonal cycles—and are confident that current models can reproduce surface temperature increases since 1870, including the rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century.
There remain some uncertainties with climate model performance, but that is to be expected from any system that aims to approximate conditions in the real world. Scientists are still trying to nail down cloud processes, aerosol distribution, ocean models, and sea ice changes. But model developers and climate physicists are addressing these issues by using large numbers of model simulations as well as a variety of statistical methods based on current and past observational data.
Climate modelling and forecasting accuracy has been questioned lately due to the apparent “pause,” or “speed bump,” in the rise of global surface temperatures over the last 15 years. In fact, climate forecasts conducted in the 1990s have been quite accurate in simulating what happened since the year 2000. A study by Myles Allen and colleagues at Oxford University, for example, compared climate forecasts that begin in 1996 with the actual temperatures observed since. They found that the simulations accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade to within a few hundredths of a degree.
The truth is that global warming has not paused. It is true that the rate of surface temperature warming is somewhat smaller over the last 15 years, but selectively citing the period from 1998 to 2012 is inappropriate—especially since ocean heat content continued to rise at a steady pace and the Arctic sea ice hit record lows in 2012. The year 1998 was a record temperature year, due to a strong El Niño. Shifting the time period just two years earlier, from 1996 to 2010 instead of from 1998 to 2012, the surface temperature trend increased 0.14 C per decade, slightly greater than the long-term trend. That’s why it is incorrect to focus on 15-year increments when we’re talking about temperature increases over decades, if not centuries.
Advances in modelling also have enhanced scientists’ ability to separate natural causes from human activities’ influence on the climate system. Natural changes alone can’t explain the temperature changes that have occurred over the last 150 years. For instance, when climate models include only recorded natural climate drivers, such as the sun’s intensity, they cannot accurately reproduce the observed warming during the latter half of the 20th century. However, when scientists include human-induced climate drivers, such as carbon dioxide emissions, in their simulations, they accurately capture recent temperature increases in both the atmosphere and the oceans.
Thanks to improved climate models, scientists are now able to discern human influence on not just the general climate, but also on extreme weather events linked to climate change. Thousands of simulations generated by the climateprediction.net project have shown that heat waves such as those in Europe in 2003, Russia in 2010, and Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 (pdf) were more likely to occur in the current decade than in the mid-20th century, when greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere were lower than they are today.
Yawn... more threads about global warming from ignorant posters. I really like to hear peoples opinions when they have no knowlege in the subject.
They are not here to find the truth, they are only here to discredit global warming. They have -0- interest in facts, understanding, or logic (rather they use manipulation to try to get others to believe global warming is hoax.)
Their oil company backed CEO leaders at Fox news and Rush radio told them global warming is a hoax, and now they come to attack anyone who says man made global warming is real.
Have the manmade-global-whatever fanatics ever come up with an actual link between man's activites and the climate changes we are seeing? Or are they still ducking, dodging, shucking, and jiving away?
Climates frequently change.
Sometimes the climate gets warmer.
And sometimes it gets colder.
That's been going on for as long as the planet has been orbiting the Sun. Or, as long as it's had a climate, at least.
And man has never had the slightest influence on it.
Even the leftist loons who scream about how we have to use government to change everything, go back to the stone age, etc., to prevent some unknown catastrophe, have never been able to come up with even ONE study or example that backs up their claims.
What's funny is that, when they do name some study, it invariably turns out to be nothing but a bunch of long-winded claims which, finally, refer to some other "study" for proof. And what is in that other "study"? You guessed it - more long-winded claims, and eventually a reference to yet another study. And you can guess what is in that one, too.
The leftist global-whatever loons have been insisting on impending doom, and the urgent need to give government massive powers to change every bit of our lives to "avoid" that doom, for at least 40 years by my count. Literally billions of dollars have changed hands - usually into their hands - all over the world. And they still haven't come up with one shred of proof that man has had the least bit of influence on the climate changes that happen regularly around us. Nor is there any proof that man can do anything to change it.
***40 YEARS*** of screaming, caterwauling, and doomsaying. All without the slightest proof. Just references to references to references, ad infinitum. And demands that they be given complete power over all of us, and that we send more and more of our resources to them, to change what they cannot change.
You say the Earths climate has been changing for 100's of millions of years, and it was scientists who said that. Why do you believe the scientists who tell us about the Earths climate 100's of millions of years ago?
Why do you believe science when it says the Earths climate has been changing for 100's of millions of years, and you do (not) believe science when it says man made global warming is happening?
This is all wordy and fun but the one thing never addressed is what causes the oceans temperatures to increase? Is it the fiery ball in the sky or is there a heating element under the oceans and plugged into a nuclear power plant surely here in the USA?
The sun is the one factor never taken seriously because it must be a man made problem, damnit, or they can't extort from us and deprive us of our inalienable rights.
The fault always falls back on man so someone of authority can restrict the actions of the weak to the point of depriving him of his life.
Who should we trust NASA, the EPA, scientists, and Greenpeace (or) Fox news?
while fox news does have an agenda, they dont bend the ear of the regulatory officials in the government, greenpeace does.
and really, think progress? you are going to use think progress, an organization whose goal is to destroy capitalism as completely as possible, and really doesnt tell the truth? they made the same claim about the bush tax cuts also, that they were only for the rich, but the reality is that they were for EVERYBODY. the plan was to cut ALL the income tax rates across the board, a fact that the liberals dont want people to actually know because it would hurt their whole, "the republicans hate the poor" mantra. get real and get a clue.
as for nasa, the epa, and greenpeace, i dont trust them at all these days. tell me nasa is going back to the moon to build a base from which we will explore the rest of the solar system, and i will trust them. tell me nasa has some good information on aerodynamics that will make aircraft, and even cars, more efficient, and i will trust them(after all that was the reason for the founding of naca the forerunner to nasa). but on climate studies? no. and the epa started off with good intentions, and did good work early on, but in the 90s they started using junk science far more heavily to gain more power in the federal government, so they cant be trusted anymore. and greenpeace? get real they have never been trust worthy. they are a group of radicals who will do anything to make a splash in the news to push their agenda, including letting their member risk their very lives.
fox news? i trust them to report the news, when i decide to watch them, but their talk programs are entertainment, so i dont watch them anymore.
scientists? when they put out repeatable experiments, they can be trusted. when they put out the raw data for everyone to see, they can be trusted. but when they modify the raw data, and when they start with a conclusion rather than a hypothesis, and when "investigate" themselves, they cannot be trusted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3
You say the Earths climate has been changing for 100's of millions of years, and it was scientists who said that. Why do you believe the scientists who tell us about the Earths climate 100's of millions of years ago?
Why do you believe science when it says the Earths climate has been changing for 100's of millions of years, and you do (not) believe science when it says man made global warming is happening?
because scientists have not proven that man is the cause. they have shown that the climate is changing, anyone can see that, but they are assuming that man is the cause and not nature, because man is here now. they started with a conclusion rather than a hypothesis, and as such they wen toff on a tangent and only looked at the evidence that supported their conclusion. that is not real science.
a real scientist would have started with a hypothesis, then looked at ALL the evidence before coming to a conclusion. and all the evidence includes what went on in the past as well as what is going on now, and what may happen in the future.
and real science would support proper regulations that would truly curb emissions, and apply to everyone equally. instead they are pushing for the regulations they want to apply only to the fully developed countries, and they want a wealth redistribution scheme on a global scale. lets take money from the rich countries and give it to the poor countries so they can develop their industries, and thus pollute more.
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.
