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.
More signs of global warming. I expect the same nonsense, inanities, and vacuous comments from the Global Warming denialists. The rising worldwide temperatures are what are predicted from anthropological climate change. The science is settled on this matter.
The purpose of this thread is to point out the trends. If you care about future generations, you will want action taken immediately. If not, I suppose they can just burn.
All I feel I can do here is offer you a view of the opposite side of the spectrum when it comes to these types of discussions. It seems that people have a tendency to sensationalize the weather, depending on which season we happen to be in the middle of at the time. And we so quickly forget what the weather/climate/etc. were up to just a few months back. Here are a few examples:
And finally, I thought I'd point out that many of the examples from the post you provided are quite subjective, and open to interpretation. For those looking for "red planet" doom, a record high in Belfast, Ireland is something to jump at. That is until you notice that it's not the record high. According to your link, the record set for Belfast, Ireland was set on July 28th with a temperature of 29.5 degrees Celsius. However, the information provided in the following link states that the actual high temp for Belfast, Ireland was set back on July 12th, 1983......and the temperature was 30.8 degrees Celsius. Check it out. Oh, also, the record high temperature recorded anywhere in Ireland was 33.3 degrees Celsius. You see, that's the problem with trying to cherry pick examples and create an argument based on them.
From the link: July is normally the warmest month in Northern Ireland, with mean daily maximum temperatures varying from about 17.5 °C in the upland areas and along the north coast to almost 20 °C in low lying areas south of Lough Neagh and in Fermanagh. In the UK, the highest July mean daily maxima occur in the London area (23.5 °C) whilst the lowest occur in the Shetlands (15 °C). The highest temperature ever recorded in Northern Ireland is 30.8 °C at Knockarevan in County Fermanagh on 30 June 1976, and also at Shaw's Bridge in Belfast on 12 July 1983.
I don't have to time to hunt through all of the examples from the OP, but I'm guessing I would find more discrepancies if I looked into more of them. Just saying, the information is right there at our fingertips, if we are just willing to look a little farther into it.
All I feel I can do here is offer you a view of the opposite side of the spectrum when it comes to these types of discussions. It seems that people have a tendency to sensationalize the weather, depending on which season we happen to be in the middle of at the time. And we so quickly forget what the weather/climate/etc. were up to just a few months back. Here are a few examples:
And finally, I thought I'd point out that many of the examples from the post you provided are quite subjective, and open to interpretation. For those looking for "red planet" doom, a record high in Belfast, Ireland is something to jump at. That is until you notice that it's not the record high. According to your link, the record set for Belfast, Ireland was set on July 28th with a temperature of 29.5 degrees Celsius. However, the information provided in the following link states that the actual high temp for Belfast, Ireland was set back on July 12th, 1983......and the temperature was 30.8 degrees Celsius. Check it out. Oh, also, the record high temperature recorded anywhere in Ireland was 33.3 degrees Celsius. You see, that's the problem with trying to cherry pick examples and create an argument based on them.
From the link: July is normally the warmest month in Northern Ireland, with mean daily maximum temperatures varying from about 17.5 °C in the upland areas and along the north coast to almost 20 °C in low lying areas south of Lough Neagh and in Fermanagh. In the UK, the highest July mean daily maxima occur in the London area (23.5 °C) whilst the lowest occur in the Shetlands (15 °C). The highest temperature ever recorded in Northern Ireland is 30.8 °C at Knockarevan in County Fermanagh on 30 June 1976, and also at Shaw's Bridge in Belfast on 12 July 1983.
I don't have to time to hunt through all of the examples from the OP, but I'm guessing I would find more discrepancies if I looked into more of them. Just saying, the information is right there at our fingertips, if we are just willing to look a little farther into it.
I don't know why I'd care about any of that. This is about averages, not individual areas. That's why they call it climate change, not always global warming. On average, things will get warmer. Individual areas might even get colder now and then. For example,
The most comprehensive computer modelling study on the issue to date, it concludes the risk of severe winters in Europe and Northern Asia has doubled as the result of the climate change.
It works like this, say the scientists. As the ice melts it exposes open water which, being very much darker, absorbs more heat. The warmer water then warms the air above it which in turn, weakens the jet stream, the high level river of air which does much to determine the weather. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...cientists.html
That's from 2014...so it could be outdated. I remember a biology teacher expressing concern that global warming could push down the gulf stream back in the early 2000's, which would remove a source of heat for the U.K and make it much colder for a long, long time. I haven't heard anything about the gulf stream moving down or fading away...but that's an example of how global warming can make things cooler too.
It seems to me the only sane argument is that the climate has always been changing regardless of what man does, but that man can influence it too. So the debate is how much is man changing it.
I don't know how much man is changing it, but the fact of the matter is, Mars is getting warmer too...which suggests that possibly the sun is responsible for "some" or even most of the recent warming on Earth. Mars also has receding polar ice caps.
With that said, I support doing more to preserve wildlife areas, green energy, etc...
The vast majority of the smart people say it's not the sun. From the second page of your link, regarding the guy with the controversial theory that the sun is causing global warming rather than human beings:
Because the energy Earth receives from the Sun hasn’t changed much at all over the past few decades. In fact, since about 1960 this energy has been on a slight downward trend, while Earth keeps getting warmer.
Judith Lean, a scientist at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. who studies how the Sun influences Earth’s climate, calls this the most compelling evidence for the conclusion that the Sun is not the cause of Earth’s warming.https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...s-not-the-sun/
"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.
"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
Planets' Wobbles
The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.
"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)
All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.
These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.
Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.
"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.
No Greenhouse
Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.
He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.
But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.
Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.
Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.
"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years." https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...warming_2.html
The vast majority of the smart people say it's not the sun. From the second page of your link, regarding the guy with the controversial theory that the sun is causing global warming rather than human beings:
Because the energy Earth receives from the Sun hasn’t changed much at all over the past few decades. In fact, since about 1960 this energy has been on a slight downward trend, while Earth keeps getting warmer.
Judith Lean, a scientist at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. who studies how the Sun influences Earth’s climate, calls this the most compelling evidence for the conclusion that the Sun is not the cause of Earth’s warming.https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...s-not-the-sun/
"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.
"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
Planets' Wobbles
The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.
"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)
All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.
These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.
Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.
"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.
No Greenhouse
Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.
He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.
But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.
Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.
Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.
"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years." https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...warming_2.html
What happens is that people don't understand that natural climate change happens at a consistant rate. Where life has a chance to adapt. Add billions of beings with civilizations that pump BILLIONS of Co2 as opposed to millions of CO2 from natural occurring events(ordinary volcanoes), that speeds up the process.
It's an undisputed scientific fact that when Earth formed, there was no Oxygen in the atmosphere, only CO2, Methane and Ammonia, with some Nitrogen and trace Noble Gases like Helium, Krypton (produced from the decay of radioactive isotopes) and Argon.
That state existed for 2 Billion years, and guess what? There was no runaway greenhouse effect.
There were two major glaciations, the Pangolan and Huronian. That is a scientific fact, too. The only dispute is whether the equatorial band was fully iced over. Some scientists believe it was, others believe it wasn't, and still others believe the equatorial band was filled with floating pack-ice.
Near the end of that 2 Billion years, single-celled organisms in the ocean much akin to plankton evolved. Those organisms engaged in photosynthesis. The by-product of photosynthesis is free Oxygen.
The free Oxygen in the ocean was absorbed by reactive metals and minerals dissolved in the ocean. Iron is one of the most reactive, so it precipitated out first, settling to the ocean floor and forming large bands of Iron rust that are still visible today in Australia, Wisconsin, Michigan and elsewhere.
At that time the Huronian Glaciation took place.
After all the reactive metals and minerals precipitated out in the ocean, the ocean began absorbing Oxygen until it became saturated, and then free Oxygen started leaching into the atmosphere, where it quickly bonded with reactive metals and minerals on the surface of the Pangean Continent.
Once all the reactive metals and minerals on the surface had oxidized, Oxygen started to accumulate in the atmosphere.
The bacteria on the Earth's surface were anaerobic. Oxygen was poison to them and they started dying, but one mutated to be able to tolerate Oxygen. Then another mutation allowed bacteria to actually use Oxygen and the course of Evolution was altered.
After 500 Million years Oxygen still hadn't reached 10% volume, and yet there was no runaway greenhouse effect, but there was enough Oxygen to allow for the formation of the Ozone Layer.
Those are the scientific facts which you were unable to refute, so naturally you resorted to the standard rhetoric.
To to put it simply there are two problems with your argument. 1) there was initial warming due to ghgs in the early earth atmosphere. We evolved in narrow climatic balance. Its not that any warming is bad, its that disrupting the climatic balance that we have evolved in us a threat. 2) the "not even 10%" figure doesn't really provide any argument because its still about maintaining the environment we are adapted for (as well for the ecosystems we depend on).
Finally the rambling about metals doesn't really provide much context. I would wager this intentionally misleading info overload and posturing. Its a common approach to seed doubt on a subject because it makes it harder for non-experts to parse and critically appraise an argument.
That's not exactly true. For example, the frontal pattern that has persisted for 2+ months over Northern Europe is quite rare in the historical record. Is it a result of climate change? Statistically, this is hard to predict, given the underlying variability in this phenomenon. The phenomenon, when it occurs, can be explained by frontal patterns, but prediction is much harder and so is linking it to man-made climate change, although the state-of-the-art in global and regional climate is moving slowly in that direction. It is virtually impossible to link any form of climate change to "natural" forces, basically because the underlying internal and forces that might cause this are not well known and applying external Non-anthropgenic forcing factors (like volcanoes) only works for shorter periods until the global climate system returns to its equilibrium. So, climate modelers are stuck with either having to simulate the "existing" system, or using greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric stocks of GHGs.
What happens is that people don't understand that natural climate change happens at a consistant rate. Where life has a chance to adapt. Add billions of beings with civilizations that pump BILLIONS of Co2 as opposed to millions of CO2 from natural occurring events(ordinary volcanoes), that speeds up the process.
Well...I give most people more credit than that. Have you ever been to the Heartland Institute's website? They're a libertarian think tank that focuses on challenging the claims of climate scientists. They're not dumb. They've defended cigarettes before. Now they're using similar tactics to defend climate change denial...and they're pretty good at it:
Before the Heartland Institute became famous for its leading role in climate change denial, the group spent many years working to defend the tobacco industry. Just as the group is now known for its over the top attacks on climate scientists, Heartland once played a large role in criticizing public health experts and others calling attention to the dangers of cigarette smoking. https://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/05...-smoking-risks
They know they'd be found out if they'd outright lie...so they try to stretch out the unknowns as much as possible. To refute them you have to know things about science most people don't know, and this leaves most people in the purgatory of "Well...some smart people say global warming is manmade, and some people say it might not be! Who do I trust? I guess I'll assume political disagreements are biasing people."
And that's how the oil companies get to keep all their money.
There's stuff like that all over the place...not trying to insist that climate scientists are completely wrong, but more trying to paint them as tree-hugging alarmist eccentrics who worry too much, and that fools a lot of people, and these often aren't dumb people who are tricked. It's probably particularly convincing if you're a Republican or Libertarian and the only people who claim human-made climate change is real are those "commie" leftists, and them being correct means the hard-working, patriotic party have been lying to you...which they basically have been...maybe because they know global warming can't easily be fought by the free market, so they'll have to lose power if they admit it's real, or maybe because they're the party of big business, and big businesses despise government regulation and carbon taxes and all those things that would be ways to combat climate change.
For those thinking global warming is a hoax perpetrated by 10s of thousands of scientists do you ever give thought to the possibility you are wrong and the scientists are right?
We are a very arrogant society who only cares about themselves and not future generations. Our planet is over populated and requires more space damaging our eco system. We pollute our waters with tons of garbage. We pollute everything and can’t survive like this much longer.
True. As a society we have been evolving towards that mentality for some time.
You want people to care, but you offer nothing in return for caring. Nothing tangible here and now I should say. Look My house is green, as green as I could afford to do it at the time and with what was available in the country it is built in. I can't expect people who have a lot less money than I do to do the same things. Some would say then I should be forced to pay for it for them then. Those that say that don't seem to ever put their money where their mouth is or even walk the walk.
We have weekly beach clean up on Sundays. About 20 ex-pats get together, we pick a beach and go clean up the garbage. Ex-pats from all over the world. Now there are plenty that come from socialist countries like Sweden, but they don't join in. It's mostly Aussies, Brits, Americans and Canadians. The Scandinavians dont really participate nor do many of the left leaning Europeans. Go figure. Its a small community, everybody knows everybody.
Last edited by boneyard1962; 07-07-2018 at 06:34 AM..
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.
