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.
This is where I stopped. You obviously did not understand the words of mine that you quoted if you go on to talk about your impression of the weather where you live. That is not data on which to base a hypothesis about global temperature trends over decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
What's happening in your region does not disprove or prove anything. It's global warming, not regional warming.
You claim to be weather buff. Great. What about climate? I'm sure you're aware that the two are not the same thing? This is important to understand. Saying 'we had an extra cold winter' is hardly an argument. That's weather. Local weather. Without observing massive global trends in climate, you are never going to understand the big picture.
I don't care! I don't buy it! Because if it were real, then my region would also be seeing warming, would it not? And given that 2 local meteorologists don't buy it either, that tells me that there are those in the meteorology community don't buy it either. You are free to believe the theory of global warming, because that is all it is but a theory, and not FACT. I will continue to believe otherwise.
You'd think they would have learned their lesson from ten years ago...
"Ten years ago, the Pentagon paid for a climate study that put forth many scary scenarios.
Consultants told the military that, by now, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Hague would be unlivable, polar ice would be mostly gone in summer, and global temperatures would rise at an accelerated rate as high as 0.5 degrees a year.
However, I did find that every single prediction made in this paper is spot on!
Psst.....I would fact check a publication from this source:
Quote:
The Washington Times is a daily broadsheet published in Washington, D.C., United States. It was founded in 1982 by the founder of the Unification Church, Sun Myung Moon, and until 2010 was owned by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate associated with the church.
The argument isn't political, it is scientific. And from a purely scientific standpoint, the earth is observably warmer today than it was when polar bears roamed Kansas and Manhattan was covered in a sheet of ice. The real debate is "root cause", and that has become the political dividing line.
The AGW crowd bases their position on climate models, but anyone who reads the IPCC reports in detail learns quickly that the models are not subject to IV&V and are frequently updated and corrected. The climategate scandal was based on the emails which proved that internally they could not reproduce data and the models did not give the desired or expected result. Hansen and his crew are on record as stating that models are far less important than paleoclimate studies and observable data. He discounts the importance of the models. Yet every thread on AGW has a pretty little graph showing imminent doom and gloom because of human CO2 contributions to the atmosphere - all of which were forecast using models they can't verify and are not subject to independent peer-review.
When we disagree with the SCIENCE behind the root cause we are labeled as heretics and threatened with fire at the stake. When we point out periods in history when it was much hotter and much colder, and prove that CO2 levels didn't affect those temps, we are "big oil shills". I don't have a problem with conservation, I think there are strong financial incentives to frugality with any resource, and live a pretty clean lifestyle. I have a huge problem with activists using specious data to advance an agenda predicated on false premises.
"Failures of the delta island levees in the Sacramento River region in the Central Valley of California creates an inland sea and disrupts the aqueduct system transporting water from northern to southern California because salt water can no longer be kept out of the area during the dry season." http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf
"In 2007, a particularly severe storm causes the ocean to break through levees in the Netherlands making a few key coastal cities such as The Hague unlivable." http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf
"As temperatures rise throughout the 20th century and into the early 2000s potent positive feedback loops kick-in, accelerating the warming from .2 degrees Fahrenheit, to .4 and eventually .5 degrees Fahrenheit per year in some locations." http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf
The argument isn't political, it is scientific. And from a purely scientific standpoint, the earth is observably warmer today than it was when polar bears roamed Kansas and Manhattan was covered in a sheet of ice. The real debate is "root cause", and that has become the political dividing line.
The AGW crowd bases their position on climate models, but anyone who reads the IPCC reports in detail learns quickly that the models are not subject to IV&V and are frequently updated and corrected. The climategate scandal was based on the emails which proved that internally they could not reproduce data and the models did not give the desired or expected result. Hansen and his crew are on record as stating that models are far less important than paleoclimate studies and observable data. He discounts the importance of the models. Yet every thread on AGW has a pretty little graph showing imminent doom and gloom because of human CO2 contributions to the atmosphere - all of which were forecast using models they can't verify and are not subject to independent peer-review.
When we disagree with the SCIENCE behind the root cause we are labeled as heretics and threatened with fire at the stake. When we point out periods in history when it was much hotter and much colder, and prove that CO2 levels didn't affect those temps, we are "big oil shills". I don't have a problem with conservation, I think there are strong financial incentives to frugality with any resource, and live a pretty clean lifestyle. I have a huge problem with activists using specious data to advance an agenda predicated on false premises.
That is one of the most concise and accurate representations of this issue that I have heard yet.
Bravo!
You'd think they would have learned their lesson from ten years ago...
"Ten years ago, the Pentagon paid for a climate study that put forth many scary scenarios.
Consultants told the military that, by now, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Hague would be unlivable, polar ice would be mostly gone in summer, and global temperatures would rise at an accelerated rate as high as 0.5 degrees a year.
"Failures of the delta island levees in the Sacramento River region in the Central Valley of California creates an inland sea and disrupts the aqueduct system transporting water from northern to southern California because salt water can no longer be kept out of the area during the dry season." http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf
"In 2007, a particularly severe storm causes the ocean to break through levees in the Netherlands making a few key coastal cities such as The Hague unlivable." http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf
"As temperatures rise throughout the 20th century and into the early 2000s potent positive feedback loops kick-in, accelerating the warming from .2 degrees Fahrenheit, to .4 and eventually .5 degrees Fahrenheit per year in some locations." http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf
Psst.... I did.
Yes those were scenarios based on various data. Instead of just quoting stuff out of context you should read the report as there were various scenarios given based on varying levels of warming.... So what you are quoting are the worst case scenarios.... You seem to be confused that these were the only scenarios given.
Yes those were scenarios based on various data. Instead of just quoting stuff out of context you should read the report as there were various scenarios given based on varying levels of warming.... So what you are quoting are the worst case scenarios.... You seem to be confused that these were the only scenarios given.
These are truly ridiculous scenrios too, a rise in temps of 0.2-0.5 per year??? We have experienced zero warming this entire century, so those scenarios are and absurd 'what if', and not remotely realistic. But I suppose we should prepare for it, what if something truly bizzare happened, well, we have a plan, so there's that.
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.
