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.
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?
Not necessarily.
Quote:
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.
It tells me you believe who tells you what you want to hear and ignore the rest if you're basing your opinion on what two non-climatologists tell you rather than what the actual climatologists say.
Quote:
You are free to believe the theory of global warming, because that is all it is but a theory, and not FACT.
You don't understand what a theory is.
Quote:
I will continue to believe otherwise.
Okay. As I've said ad infinitum, I'm not trying to change the minds of denialists, just show that their arguments are invalid and their opinions uninformed. Continue to be wrong if you like.
Every year i keep hearing the same old story global warming is real and yet every year the following keeps happening....someone is not telling the truth
Global warming is not a liberal issue. Did you hear that last November 2013 was the warmest on record? If so, do you believe it's a lie concocted by liberals?
Do you understand Calculus? Ever study electrical or mechanical engineering? There is something called a "dampening effect" which while being mathematical it correlates directly to global warming. The dampening effect is causing greater oscillation in weather trends, and overall does relate to increasing warming temperature.
One of the most common misunderstandings amongst climate “skeptics” is the difference between short-term noise and long-term signal. In fact, “it hasn’t warmed since 1998” is ninth on the list of most-used climate myths, and “it’s cooling” is fifth. This myth stems from a lack of understanding of exactly what global warming is. The term refers to the long-term warming of the global climate, usually measured over a timescale of about 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. This is because global warming is caused by a global energy imbalance – something causing the Earth to retain more heat, such as an increase in solar radiation reaching the surface, or an increased greenhouse effect.
There are also a number of effects which can have a large impact on short-term temperatures, such as oceanic cycles like the El Niño Southern Oscillation or the 11-year solar cycle. Sometimes these dampen global warming, and sometimes they amplify it. However, they’re called “oscillations” and “cycles” for a reason – they alternate between positive and negative states and don’t have long-term effects on the Earth’s temperature.
Right now we’re in the midst of a period where most short-term effects are acting in the cooling direction, dampening global warming. Many climate “skeptics” are trying to capitalize on this dampening, trying to argue that this time global warming has stopped, even though it didn’t stop after the global warming “pauses” in 1973 to 1980, 1980 to 1988, 1988 to 1995, 1995 to 2001, or 1998 to 2005.
Over the last 37 years one can identify overlapping short windows of time when climate “skeptics” could have argued (and often did, i.e. here and here and here) that global warming had stopped. And yet over the entire period question containing these six cooling trends, the underlying trend is one of rapid global warming (0.27°C per decade, according to the new Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature [BEST] dataset). And while the global warming trend spans many decades, the longest cooling trend over this period is 10 years, which proves that each was caused by short-term noise dampening the long-term trend.
In short, those arguing that global warming has stopped are missing the forest for the trees, focusing on short-term noise while ignoring the long-term global warming signal. Since the release of the BEST data which confirmed the global warming observed by all other global temperature measurements, climate “skeptics” have been scrambling for a way to continue denying that global warming is a problem, and focusing on the short-term noise has become their preferred go-to excuse.
If it makes you feel any better, it seems the BRIC nations for the most part seem to be ignoring global warming, and interestingly, they are the ones that will be experiencing the most disaster as sea levels rise. Anyone interested should see the September 2013 issue of National Geographic.
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,
Asking you to prove your claims didn't work, so I'll disprove them. Or rather, hand you the data that proves you wrong on a silver plate. You can't ask for more. Here are NASA's measurements of temperature increases over the last 134 years. I'll leave you to explain why, if there's been a 0.000 degree increase in global temperatures this century, the global temperature indices of the past 14 years do not reflect this. If you can do so without inventing liberal boogiemen who control the world's scientific community that would be nice.
It tells me you believe who tells you what you want to hear and ignore the rest if you're basing your opinion on what two non-climatologists tell you rather than what the actual climatologists say.
You don't understand what a theory is.
Okay. As I've said ad infinitum, I'm not trying to change the minds of denialists, just show that their arguments are invalid and their opinions uninformed. Continue to be wrong if you like.
Oh BS! So typical to name call, shout anyone down who disagrees with you, and cry "it's settled!" There is no absolute proof that your opinion is right either! From what I see, this is nothing more than an excuse to implement more taxes against us, and jack up energy costs!
All I know is if the liberals support it, it's got to be horses**t.
This is the basis of all right-wing denialism. Right-wing denialism is based not on data, reason, science, logic, or fact. It's based on "Wahhhhhh! Liberals! Wahhhhhhh!" This will remain the case no matter how many right-wingers spell the word 'fact' in capital letters.
[quote=no1brownsfan;37274404]Oh BS! So typical to name call, shout anyone down who disagrees with you, and cry "it's settled!" There is no absolute proof that your opinion is right either![/Quoe]
Just decades of data and a theory that fits the facts.
Quote:
From what I see, this is nothing more than an excuse to implement more taxes against us, and jack up energy costs!
And no denialist can even come close to proving that what you see is actually there, so there's no reason to pretend it's true.
Asking you to prove your claims didn't work, so I'll disprove them. Or rather, hand you the data that proves you wrong on a silver plate. You can't ask for more. Here are NASA's measurements of temperature increases over the last 134 years. I'll leave you to explain why, if there's been a 0.000 degree increase in global temperatures this century, the global temperature indices of the past 14 years do not reflect this. If you can do so without inventing liberal boogiemen who control the world's scientific community that would be nice.
That data set is 1)adjusted data and 2) includes data measured by different methodologies and instrumentation.
If I download the raw, unadjusted data for Stanford from NOAA for 60 years there is almost zero change. We are just one little city and don't represent global anything but it's interesting. And by the way, 134 years is weather, not climate.
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.
The other posted denied that those claims were in the actual report that the Washington Times was referencing.
This is the basis of all right-wing denialism. Right-wing denialism is based not on data, reason, science, logic, or fact. It's based on "Wahhhhhh! Liberals! Wahhhhhhh!" This will remain the case no matter how many right-wingers spell the word 'fact' in capital letters.
Irony is utterly lost on you, isn't it?
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.
