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.
Perhaps people who don't understand man's impact on CO2 levels and why the world's scientists talk about man made climate change should actually take the time to look at the scientific papers. Of course, they would never do THAT so
a simple explanation can be found here on NASA's web page:
I'm sure we'd all be happy to hear from posters who would like to argue with the scientists at NASA. And please- forget the conspiracy theories. Argue the scientific evidence.
OK, there is no global temperature record predating the satellite era.
Surface temperatures are, in fact, the end result of countless independent and varying factors.
CO2 is one of those factors, in theory, but in reality, there doesn't appear to be a direct correlation.
Past temperature swings (Little Ice Age, Medieval Warming Period, etc.) came and went without a significant change to CO2 levels.
Should be a more or less linear relationship between CO2 and surface temperature with an increase/decrease in carbon content preceding the temperature swing, but that relationship doesn't seem to exist.
If you can't name the specific drivers of surface temperature in play then, you can't rule them out now.
Obviously, H2O plays a far more important role than anything else, but it isn't often mentioned.
Cloud cover, along with many other factors, has a huge impact on surface temperature, but you can't tax a cloud, so it isn't discussed.
Or I walk outside and observe the climate is similar to what it was back in the 80s.
A few weeks ago in June in South Carolina, it was in the 70s for a couple of days.
But I'm supposed to get hysterical and believe the earth is doomed b/c liberals want to scare up some votes with alarmism wrapped up in rhetoric about Science.
Or I walk outside and observe the climate is similar to what it was back in the 80s.
A few weeks ago in June in South Carolina, it was in the 70s for a couple of days.
But I'm supposed to get hysterical and believe the earth is doomed b/c liberals want to scare up some votes with alarmism wrapped up in rhetoric about Science.
It's more about taking your wealth and property away than votes but votes are a way to get power to take away your property and rights so very connected.
The warming causes blizzards. If you paid attention before a blizzard if you live in an area.. You'll notice before one hits a few days before it are warmer than "normal".. But again per usual your simple minds can't grasp the thoughts of meteorology and basic science.
No snow and ice storms will not just go away in a warmer world.
You are picturing a world that is 25 degrees warmer everywhere when you think of the warmer earth and these warming situations.
What will end up happening is a world that is 2-4 degrees warmer with more storms and systems.
With all this said I don't buy into the main causes of climate change even being things we control (or want to)
The biggest man made climate changer is likely agriculture.. But we aren't going to stop feeding ourselves..
OK, there is no global temperature record predating the satellite era.
Surface temperatures are, in fact, the end result of countless independent and varying factors.
CO2 is one of those factors, in theory, but in reality, there doesn't appear to be a direct correlation.
Past temperature swings (Little Ice Age, Medieval Warming Period, etc.) came and went without a significant change to CO2 levels.
Should be a more or less linear relationship between CO2 and surface temperature with an increase/decrease in carbon content preceding the temperature swing, but that relationship doesn't seem to exist.
If you can't name the specific drivers of surface temperature in play then, you can't rule them out now.
Obviously, H2O plays a far more important role than anything else, but it isn't often mentioned.
Cloud cover, along with many other factors, has a huge impact on surface temperature, but you can't tax a cloud, so it isn't discussed.
There actually is a temperature record predating satellites.
There doesn't appear to be a correlation between CO2 and warming, according to what scientific study. Its not always linear but there is certainly a correlation. What scientist indicated it has to be linear.
H2O is always mentioned, its not a driver its a result. Science indicates warmer temperatures from increased CO2 result in increased moisture in our atmosphere.
Do you have a source to back up all your claims or are these just your random thoughts.
When are liberals going to take climate change seriously?
Barbra Streisand, a climate change activist, just flew her three dogs 10,000 Miles on a separate private jet so they could hear her concert.
Al Gore has the carbon footprint of Godzilla.
Oprah, another climate activist, has at least six highly wasteful mega mansions and a private jet.
How many elitist liberals drive around in gas guzzling stretch limos, have multiple mega mansions, and wasteful conspicuous consumption?????
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.
