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.
Here's for the countries as a whole. While there are swings from year to year, and always will be, there is still a very clear trend there:
And me, who is sitting between the temperate continental/oceanic biome and the boreal subarctic one, we see changes in nature. We don't have to rely only on climate data. Trees burst to leaves earlier than they did, migratory birds arrive earlier and leave later, we see new species that haven't been here since the medieval times, we see less sea ice in the Baltic Sea and it arrives later and melts sooner.
It's there. The evidence is overwhealming. The only country where there is any kind of "climate change controversy" is the USA. The rest of the world has accepted the facts.
But no, I don't listen to experts who work for universities and met offices paid by tax money. They must be biased. I rather believe oil and car companies who make their profits by polluting the environment! They are unbiased!
I believe the world is warming; HOWEVER, no one has ever proved it is due to humans!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The earth has gone through four previous warming cycles as well as cooling cycles and guess what; 60 million years ago, there was NO man to blame it one. I have yet to see any global warming theorists explain how the planet warmed then and why it could not be warming now for the same reason such as orbit change, rotational change, etc. (Mars is also getting warmer.)
I believe the world is warming; HOWEVER, no one has ever proved it is due to humans!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The earth has gone through four previous warming cycles as well as cooling cycles and guess what; 60 million years ago, there was NO man to blame it one. I have yet to see any global warming theorists explain how the planet warmed then and why it could not be warming now for the same reason such as orbit change, rotational change, etc. (Mars is also getting warmer.)
I can agree with that.
World has been warmer ...it has been cooler....
Palm trees in southern Alberta during the dinosaur age .....
Not everywhere has been warming at the same rate....
Western Canada has been warming more than eastern Canada (bummer),
especially Calgary (all southern Alberta really).
There are a few places in Alberta that now have average high temps above freezing in January,
as far north as High River, it's just south of Calgary (and Calgary is just below freezing now).
Same with USA.
Places like Phoenix (and Las Vegas,NV) are amazing, the average lows are a lot higher.
If you look at 1931-60 or even 1941-70 climate normals you will see much cooler lows,
all year long, especially in winter. Average january low in Phoenix only upper 30s F
and Las Vegas pretty much at the freezing point.
Other AZ NV places have benefitted too, including Tucson (mid 30s avg jan)
No so farther east ....for example, Dallas not much warmer in January than it ever was.
This is Chicago's temperature trend according to Berkeley Earth. My question is how did they get data for the 1700's when no station or settlement existed?
Even at 1900 Aurora which has the longest contiuous station in the Chicagoland are shows a warming of 1.3F over the course of the century. And notice since 1960 the trend is more than tripple that. Now I do agree that warming trends are nowhere near what those precious climate models forecast. That's all BS. Chicago isn't turning into north Arkansas within the next 15 years as the socalled climate forecast claim
There are factors such as Urban Heat Island that could account for the minor amount of warming that has occurred. One degree Fahrenheit in a century, or about 0.4 C, is hardly an emergency and is likely within natural fluctuation range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
A more logical assumption would be not to focus on one city.
The reason for some single-city focus is as a reality check against the "models." Models can be manipulated, adjusted or just plain "fooled around" with. Prime examples are the destruction of climate-related e-mails at East Anglia University, and the splicing of actual temperatures recorded in modern time with "proxy data" in ways that accentuate trends in a visibly alarming manner (such as the fraudulent Mann "hockey stick") make some spot-checking imperative. No good accountant, for example, takes management's word on quality of receivables. On any but the most qualified reports, they always "test" receivables by checking with some account debtors as to whether the receivables are real. Ditto physical inventories.
I believe the world is warming; HOWEVER, no one has ever proved it is due to humans!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The earth has gone through four previous warming cycles as well as cooling cycles and guess what; 60 million years ago, there was NO man to blame it one. I have yet to see any global warming theorists explain how the planet warmed then and why it could not be warming now for the same reason such as orbit change, rotational change, etc. (Mars is also getting warmer.)
Quite true as well. The climate fanatics will claim that there has never been such rapid change. Thus my emphasis in showing that whatever is happening is slow and gradual, and not outside historical experience.
The reason for some single-city focus is as a reality check against the "models."
The models are generally global models, so it's a poor check. Regional areas have more natural variability than the whole globe, so you're looking at more noise and less signal.
The models are generally global models, so it's a poor check. Regional areas have more natural variability than the whole globe, so you're looking at more noise and less signal.
Except that the "global models" are prone to all kinds of shenanigans that individual city statistics are not. And at least such effects as UHI in individual cities are widely known. Global models are basically gibberish made to look scientific.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lab276
There was a good cartoon I remember about action on climate change, with a climate sceptic calling out in a lecture "what if it's all a hoax and we make a better world for nothing?"
Like, does it even matter if it's real or not? Surely finding cleaner and more sustainable energy sources is a good goal in and of itself.
But is it a better world if enormous amounts of money are extracted from the First Wold countries and redistributed to Swiss bank accounts of Third World kleptocrats?
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.
