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.
Edit: Whatever, I'll humor you. Warming causes evaporation. Evaporation leads to precipitation. What goes up must come down. In nothern winters, it comes down as snow. So, more snow = proof of global warming. Not very complicated. Thanks for proving GW.
WRONG!
The number one green house gas by far is H2O. More water vapor in the atmosphere would cause a runaway greenhouse effect that would boil the oceans dry leaving Earth a giant gaseous inferno.
Either that or more water vapor in the atmosphere will cause an increase in low-level clouds that, in addition to providing record snowfalls, would reflect an increased portion of the Sun's energy back into space thereby cooling the Earth and becoming a natural mechanism by which Earth's surface temperature would become significantly independent of the warming effect of all greenhouse gasses.
Climate Milestone: Earth’s CO2 Level Passes 400 ppm.
The last time the concentration of Earth's main greenhouse gas reached this mark, horses and camels lived in the high Arctic. Seas were at least 30 feet higher—at a level that today would inundate major cities around the world.
Right, but we are at 400ppm Co2 and not at 2-3C warmer, and don't worry about the sea level being 30 feet higher for centuries..... Why? Maybe because our oceans are also much cooler than they were during the Pliocene, and of course, the oceans drive our climate..... It could take a few decades or 1000 years to reach an atmospheric climate that existed during the Pliocene.. We just don't know...And no government will spend trillions in a futile effort....
Last edited by chicagogeorge; 09-10-2014 at 08:29 PM..
Weird that the guy up there didn't post links to these articles, but screencaps. I picked one (August 2013's Nature) and here's what the abstract of the paper had to say:
Quote:
Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.
I will assume the denialist with the screencap concurs, since it's his source.
I also found this, same issue of the same magazine, discussing the paper. It starts off:
Quote:
A new study adds to mounting evidence that cooling in the tropical Pacific Ocean is the cause of the global warming hiatus, a slow-down in the rise of average temperatures that began around 1998.
A slow-down in the rise.
Also, according to the author of the paper in the screencap above:
Quote:
“The equatorial Pacific cooling turns out to be strong enough to offset the general rise in temperature induced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases,” says Shang-Ping Xie, a climate modeller at Scripps and co-author of the study, which is published today in Nature1. Just as importantly, he says, the model helps to explain regional trends that seem to defy the global warming hiatus, including record-breaking heat in the United States last year, and the continued decline of Arctic sea ice.
Emphasis mine.
I imagine the denialist website that, um, "prepared" the screencap didn't want to include that part.
Bonus: I see Michael Mann is being cited. Isn't he one of the scientists right-wing denialists insist is a fraud because his findings contradict Republican propaganda? Why, yes. Yes he is.
Weird that the guy up there didn't post links to these articles, but screencaps. I picked one (August 2013's Nature) and here's what the abstract of the paper had to say:
I will assume the denialist with the screencap concurs, since it's his source.
I also found this, same issue of the same magazine, discussing the paper. It starts off:
A slow-down in the rise.
Also, according to the author of the paper in the screencap above:
Emphasis mine.
I imagine the denialist website that, um, "prepared" the screencap didn't want to include that part.
Bonus: I see Michael Mann is being cited. Isn't he one of the scientists right-wing denialists insist is a fraud because his findings contradict Republican propaganda? Why, yes. Yes he is.
You and I both know that since the AGW deniers lack evidence they are forced to cherry pick what they think will refute the prevailing science...
This is the very same methods used by creationists when debating evolution.
The number one green house gas by far is H2O. More water vapor in the atmosphere would cause a runaway greenhouse effect that would boil the oceans dry leaving Earth a giant gaseous inferno.
Either that or more water vapor in the atmosphere will cause an increase in low-level clouds that, in addition to providing record snowfalls, would reflect an increased portion of the Sun's energy back into space thereby cooling the Earth and becoming a natural mechanism by which Earth's surface temperature would become significantly independent of the warming effect of all greenhouse gasses.
Increasing water vapor is a feedback effect of rising temperatures caused by increasing greenhouse gases....
For well over 100 years it has been known that increased emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide will warm the planet. As the lowest layer of the atmosphere, called the troposphere (surface to ~7 miles), is warmed, the air becomes more humid because warmer air holds more water vapor. This “tropospheric water vapor feedback” approximately doubles the initial warming caused by carbon dioxide. Water vapor in the upper atmosphere amplifies global warming, says new study
Also, opinions and blogs don't count for scientific research. Anyone can write a blog or an opinion piece and cherry pick their data to make you believe what they are telling you is true. Always check the research rather than relying on opinions.
No, you cut and pasted something some right-wing denialist website deigned to feed you. I've already shown that your own citations don't support your claim, to humour you further would be a waste of time.
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.
