According to a new report, "The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_ … al_cooling
It doesn't matter if you believe in global warming or not, the ice caps are melting and Earth is getting warmer.
Living in Phoenix, I might have beach front property soon!
What’s happen to all that volume of water in all oceans/seas when a sustained 1 degree rise in temperature is maintained for a long period? - The water will expand and the volume is substantial. The sooner you dispose your beach front property the better.
Actually even if the last ten years were the warmest in "recorded" history. It would not mean necessarily that the earth is getting warmer. The trend in temperature would indicate whether or not the earth is warming or cooling. For instance if the last ten years the average temp was higher but each years avg temp was cooler than the previous it would indicate that the earth is cooling, not warming.
Sounds like you are looking forward to that beach front property Since you asked the question, I'm curious to know, Are you doing anything right now to reduce your carbon footprint?
I live in sunny Florida Florida. All last week it was about
64F daytime, and 48F at night. Yesterday, it was 62F during
the day, and 38F last night. Europe and North America have
suffered extremely cold winters for years now, and this year
is the worst so far. If we get any more 'Global Warming',
We'll all freez to death.
Best regards from Hal, on
Some people are so easily mislead by pretend science.
Maurice Strong is a FRAUD.
Al Gore is a FRAUD.
There is NO consensus on anything.
GREENLAND WWII AIRPLANES BURIED UNDER SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET OF ICE...
Al Gore sued by over 30,000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud.flv
This movement was started by the Guy who founded the Weather Channel.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-warm … andal.html
Global Warming is a SCAM designed to Shift Money and make Al Gore, Maurice Strong, and team mega billionaires.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Global-Warming- … lete-Fraud
yeah, you'll probably also end up having to eat your own pets.
I've developed a containment system for dog farts that recycles the methane and heats your house at the same time. Waiting on Al Gore to get in his big jet and fly on over here. Maybe he'll try to get 'em to pass a law or something and I'll be rich.
Why Misha, I didn't know you were a member of the WTO
only when we include the politicians in this half
No no...it's not a global warming debate. The climate is obviously changing so the bigger issue is what will happen as the Earth goes through this change.
Something's got to give.
Didn't you know? If you don't talk about it, the problem will go away.
No, it's not. Last spring, I took a class in environmental writing. We often talked about how the media is always trying to put both sides of the issue into print. Except that with global warming, EXPERTS are saying it's manmade. POLITICIANS and scientists on the Payroll of the Oil Industry are saying it's not. We had a term for such reporting; we called it, "Equal time for Hitler."
Hitler is not someone who deserves equal time or any time.
I tried that with my credit card bills. Now, my credit score isn't the best
Wait a minute...now climate change is the problem? I thought we were?
The problem keeps changing because it's made up and the left can't make up their mind how to present it. It's worse than talking with really religious people; at least they think they know what they're talking about.
Sorry, but whoever told you that, LIED TO YOU. Fact are facts, the ice-caps are melting. We better do something to take action before it is too late.
Sweet, pretty soon we will have summer weather all year round!
The climate has been changing since the earth's existence. The report also said data was used from the past 130 years, which is a drop in the bucket. Additionally, only temperature over the last 30 years has been scientifically documented by satellites, which aren't completely accurate. Before that it was some dude with a thermometer (How accurate are those numbers?).
Before that it was some dude telling what god tole him.
How akurat are thoz numbersz??
Yet u suk that up lijk jeebus dun sed it.
Nice job chaning the name from greenhouse warming to climate change. Now you can claim that temperature change in any direction is evidence of human mismanagement of resources. So much for real science.
Apparently you don't look at real world data:
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mo … e10866.htm
A year ago compiled statistics were showing a cooling trend, not a warming trend.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/08/3 … st-decade/
Uh oh, three of the metrics used for the last ten years show a flat temperature anomaly. So much for the last ten years being the warmest in history.
http://www.newstatesman.com/scitech/200 … emperature
More evidence from 2007 that temperatures have been flat since about 1998-2000.
Here's the kicker. NASA's Aqua satellite has shown:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st … 83,00.html
So why do we have all of this talk about Copenhagen? Does that suggest that our "leaders" are not up to snuff when it comes to the latest science?
Roy Spencer's work has been peer reviewed and no faults seem to have been found in the basic science of his thesis. So much for global warming, or climate change, or whatever you want to call it.
What about this site concerning Spencer then?
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/person … .php?id=19
So what? He takes money from Exxon? Big deal. His research has been peer reviewed and the basic science has been found to be without question. Or do you think that Exxon has the ability to bribe the entire scientific community?
In fact when you consider that tree rings have been shown to be inaccurate predictors of temperatures. In fact certain variations can be explained by an increase in the sophistication of our measuring devices and/or statistical uncertainly:
It's like the old saying goes. Lies, damn lies and statistics.
He is also a believer in intelligent design and a cohort of Rush Limbaugh. Did you know this before you posted the link? Which peers? I do not say he isn't a well educated person but you of all cynical people (you admitted you don't vote you remember) know how religion can retard science as it has done for hundreds of years. Here is a quote from Spencer:
"Contrary to popular accounts, very few scientists in the world - possibly none - have a sufficiently thorough, "big picture" understanding of the climate system to be relied upon for a prediction of the magnitude of global warming. To the public, we all might seem like experts, but the vast majority of us work on only a small portion of the problem."
An honest answer I think. The reason for the increased temperatures could be a combination of things, not necessarily man made but I believe it to be true. And the "Ice Man" thawing out after over 5,000 years? Surely you don't think Al gore is bribing the scientists examining him, do you?
What does his beliefs have to do with anything? There are plenty of scientists who are believers and scientists. For that matter Thomas Aquinas was a scientist. I'm a believer and yet, because I'm a cynic I suppose, I still place reason above faith.
I'm not arguing that the planet isn't warming, it is, for now at least. What I am arguing is that human induced CO2 is what is causing the spike. You sure as heck can't extrapolate temperature backwards 2,000 years or even 50 years. The instruments weren't sophisticated or numerous enough to give us a clear picture of what things were really like.
The devil is in the details in something like this. There's entirely too much fudging of the facts to be sure about anything, much less signing our economic life away in Copenhagen. The debate, contrary to Al Gore, is far from over.
Peer review means just that. It's been submitted to the journals of that particular field and other scientists either reproduce his facts and figures or they don't. Apparently they have and it stands up to scrutiny. Could he be wrong? Maybe. Is it likely he's wrong having had his work peer-reviewed? No it is not.
I know what peer reviews are. As in many instances, there is no consensus by all scientists about the causes of global warming. And Spencer's association with Rush Limbaugh and belief in ID doesn't help clear the waters at all. If you remember, the Bush administration changed the reports of the NASA scientists in regard to the climate changes.
As opposed to Al Gore's dogma and increasingly strained credibility? I think we can both agree that politicians use either side to their own advantage, but the fact that there is a truth out there doesn't change because of the antics of politicians.
The Earth has been far warmer and far cooler than the present long before the advent of humanity, much less automobiles and advanced civilization. We'd be better spending our time understanding why that was, rather than arguing which politician is right.
Sure, we are always in an advancing or retreating ice age. I snorkel in the Flint river near Camilla Georgia on occasion. Even though this area is far inland the bottom of the river is covered with many types of coral, indicating the existence of a shallow warm sea many thousands of years ago. Where I live, about fifty miles further east, was deeper ocean now called the Coastal Plains. I know these things from my own experience. I do not merely read and study about these things, I actually see them for my self.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't just believe what you agree with or what suits your values. This happens too many times today especially from a political viewpoint. Continue being cynical, but even cynicism can be carried too far. Good nite!
Fair enough. It's definitely interesting stuff to read about. I used to read about it all the time when everyone started going crazy about it.
Tim-- the global temperature has increased about a degree celcius over the last 100 years, correct? ( More influential than it sounds).
Yeah. I'm not buying it! It all depends on how you look at the data. It also depends of whether you can prove cause and effect, knowing correlation doesn't equal "cause".
If one looks at the amount of carbon dioxide in ice core samples that cover 400,000 years of history and not just the 130 years this study looked at, one can observe a cycle of warming that occurs every 10,000 years, like clock work! We are in the peak of one of those 10,000 year cycles. Will industrialization and the population of mankind contribute to a peak that is above historic norms? We probably will never live long enough to say so definitively.
One thing is for certain, we should NOT pass this cap and trade bill based on the evidence we have so far, especially since this bill will not significantly change our output of carbon into the atmosphere and will only end up stealing wealth from the poor and middle class to solve a problem we might not have. It will however make Al Gore extremely rich and allow him to trot around the globe selling his message of gloom from the steps of his private jet!
You are listening to politicians and scientists on the payroll of the Oil and Coal industries. In an environmental class I took last spring, we had a term for their findings being published, "Eqaul time for Hitleer."
Scientist publish their work in peer reviewed journals; allowing themselves to come under the scrutiny of the scientific community. You will not find the oppositions articles in such journals.
I think that's the whole point. Algore gets rich and the politicians get more power and control over us common folk. They tell us we need to cut back and make sacrifices while they continue to live large. Heck, President Obama is so stressed out he had to fly his family all the way to Hawaii for Christmas. Wonder what the total carbon footprint for that little trip was.
glad I have a pool
there are times here during the summer that it feels like walking into an oven.
even now I have on the air. I'm spoiled now, I probably couldn't take a northern winter like upstate NY where we once lived. we moved because the winters were too long and cold. brrrr..
After over 5,000 years the Ice man had begun thawing out when found in the Alps. I think this is a significant event related to warming trends. Unless of course you think the earth is only a few thousand years old.
Historically, climate was determined by factors beyond our control that resulted in cold periods and warm periods. Those forces or factors still influence climate and they are still pretty much beyond our control. However, in recent history a second influence on climate has entered the picture--anthropomorphic, or man made factors which are within our control. Now the climate is the product of the two types of factors, one beyond our control and the other withing our control. Increased greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on global temperatures have been measured scientifically. Going forward, the effect of greenhouse gas emissions may be accentuated by natural forces or canceled out by natural factors or overpowered by natural forces to produce another ice age. Nobody knows for sure what this component of global temperature will do. However, we do know the direction emissions are taking us which means it's only prudent to start doing something to dampen their warming effect on climate.
It still hasn't been proven how much, if any, influence human induced factors have on climate. The industrial revolution began ramping up just as we began a warming period, so it's not that easy to tell, especially when you consider the fact that we began these measurements with primitive tools. There are too many uncertainties involved to be able to "end the debate" as Al Gore likes to say. I'd, personally, like to see more effort put into place on mitigation of the effects of climate change and not so much effort on arguing the "humans are responsible/no they're not" debates. At least then, we'll be prepared no matter what happens.
"It still hasn't been proven how much, if any, influence human induced factors have on climate."
I beg to differ. Agreement on the quantity and effects of greenhouse gas emissions is nearly universal by scientists despite propaganda financied by the oil and coal industries and spread for them by the same unethical people who worked for the tobacco companies in their campaign to deny that cigarettes caused lung cancer, emphysema, etc.
Do you know what the biggest greenhouse gas is? Water vapour. Something that the earth's oceans and rivers generate rather a lot of, without any help from homo sapiens.
You may be right about climate change sceptics being financed by the oil and coal industries. But that doesn't necessarily invalidate their claims.
If you're going to use the "follow the money" argument, then I can certainly respond in kind: there are people who advocate "cap and trade" who stand to make a *lot* of money out of the whole anthropogenic global warming scam (for scam is exactly what it is, IMO).
The Earth cools and it heats up! Man now wants to control what God has created! Al Gore is not worried about globle warming, more worried about the almighty dollar.
Well, ClimateGate has happened. Dr. Phil Jones, in a leaked email, said himself (in 2005):
"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant."
What does this mean? That the CRU (and likely IPCC) knew about temperature declines, and essentially hid that fact from the public.
The emails reveal a pattern of deception, bullying, and perhaps more troubling, unyielding "faith" to an idea not bourne out of the data. Global warming was more like a religion to them, than a science.
Essentially, given the corruption at East Anlgia, which Al Gore et al have called the "gold standard of peer reviewed science", and the self-referential clique of peer review and journals they employed (squelching all dissent, falsifying data, deleting data, and hiding data), the CRU and IPCC's conclusions are essentially worthless.
I've written a little regarding some of these startling revelations:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Global-Warming- … of-Science
Sounds similar to how "scientists" try to perpetuate the evolution myth.
I think we should move to end the use of all energy produced from fossil fuels, nuclear power too. But lets try to curb the bull please.
Lets try and curb the bull please.
All the time you are denying the millions of facts that prove evolution happens - how on earth do you expect anyone to take you seriously on this matter?
You religionists seem very happy to gamble with my grand children's future - but are against abortion. What is up with that? Is life only sacrosanct if you get to throw a guilt trip at some pone?
Facts? What like the Mitochondrial Eve.
Yeah and atheists like you seem to think "scientists" are gods (only some of them though), suggest culling 80% of the population and killing babys.
Sorry folks me and Mark have kind of side tracked this thread about climate change (even though everything that I've just mentioned seems to be related). We should take this to the Mitochondrial Eve thread Mark.
Make Money - You are the one that bought up evolution. And -as usual - we should take whatever you say to the irrational beliefs forum.
I do not recall suggesting we cull 80% of the population, but if it makes you feel less worthless to accuse me of something I did not say - go ahead. It will probably distract away from any points I make and I know it is the way you people go about having a "debate."
There's a difference between evolution and global warming -- evolution is a field that has been studied by hundreds of thousands of specialists from all over the world for over a century, and there are (almost) no advantages to pushing evolution on the political level -- anyone who thinks evolutionists are "pushing" evolution because of some misguided fanaticism are, themselves, well, odd... (right? I mean, come on...)
As to global warming, obviously it has only received massive attention in the last few years (maybe decades), so maybe the jury is out (or half-out, or a quarter-out), and of course environmentalists do frequently act as if they have a "faith", I suppose, sometimes (not that I necessarily refute global warming, mind you; it's just not the same barrel of apples as evolution).
If your faith is so shaky that evolution is going to send it crashing down, get a new one: if you have a "relationship with Christ" that should be all the proof you need, evolution or not.
The facts are simple. Climate has warmed over the past century. "Climategate" is meaningless, some emails out of thousands taken out of context and twisted.
MNichopolis, I noticed you haven't allowed me to comment on your hubs "debunking" global warming. Are you afraid of the facts?
The earth has not cooled over the past ten years. It has stayed at around the same level as 1998 temperatures - which were the highest ever recorded.
The arctic ice cap is melting rapidly, more and more every year. Northern hemisphere snow cover is declining every year. Spring thaw comes earlier. Plants and animals are shifting their ranges northward. This is all well documented, by many thousands of scientists across all disciplines.
There is no secret conspiracy of climatologists. Facts are facts, and the facts are clear.
Just an observation: Colorado, Ohio, & Hawaii have become a lot windier in the last few years (on a consistent basis) than they used to be.
Coal and oil are dirty -- extremely dirty; never mind global warming, don't you care what you are breathing or what is going into your water supply?
And then there is the issue of security. Saudi Arabia has got you over a barrel (pardon the pun), Iraq would never have been on the radar if weren't for oil (even in a rough sense -- even if there was another reason for going in; like settling an old score), heck I wonder if you would even be propping an ally in the Middle-East (you know the one) if it weren't for oil.
Doesn't America owe it to its kids to move away from coal and oil and towards clean energy -- your kids will be inheriting all those oil-soaked rivers, and streams you know, after all....
It is becoming warmer not because of anything else. The great Himalayas are the basic source of coolness due to its height and the icebergs it creates. At no time in history previously, the area around Himalayas, especially on the west received continuous bombings since 1991, when America invaded Afganistan. In the late January, 1991, when Afgans underwent a rain of bombings, that heat could be felt even in India. All new weapons were tested there. In 1992-95, there was severe water shortage all over India due to the heat generated by the US' Afgan invasion. Again in 2001, the same is repeated, creating enormous difficulty. But the US says that warming is due to "carbon emission" only. They are hiding the real cause for warming.
Copenhagen cannot bring coolness to earth.
Stop all wars, the earth will cool down.
Cull 80% of the population and it might cool down enough to go another century.
I'm afraid that would heat up the planet in a real big way, if you know what I mean.
Then forget the idea if you are not willing to go first.
No, I will not forget the idea. It makes perfect sense, doesn't mean I am actively going to promote culling 80% of the population. You can choose to view my statements as perfectly literal if that is your wish, or you can try see the implicit argument I am trying to make. I will sleep fine either way.
I find this rather interesting. Now I am an athiest baby killer too?
Guess what folks. I never suggested culling the population.
As an answer to environmental controls, yeah, it is a possible solution but do not assume I care.
I support abortion, not killing babies.
I am not an athiest, I do not believe there is no god. However, I choose to act as if there is no god because there is no proof there is a god. So far as religion goes, I think you know.
So check that off before you slander me. Environment, I dont care. Abortion, all for it. War, cant stop it. God, maybe. Religion, big no.
Any other charges against me?
Interesting that some are now calling for Al Gore's Oscar to be recalled in light of the way the church of climate change has been pushed.
Interesting article but there was no bias regarding the impact of overpopulation. In other words, No proof.
Overpopulation is not a crisis. It is a proof for the peaceful coexistence of the people there.
Had there been no wars during middle ages in Europe, the populataion would have increased multifold.
One more point for global warming. During 1991 US invasion of Iraq, all the oil wells in the region were in flames, creating a lot of carbon emission and heat in the area around Himalayas. The main reason for warming and carbon emission is America. Now they pretend that China is the main source of warming.
It doesn't feel so warm in NH this morning...it's only 29 degrees.
Although it has been in the 50's and 60's most of the week. A little too warm for winter in New England!
There is no 'normal' for NE. I get the feeling we are in for a beating this winter.
Think so? I'm getting the impression we're going to skip winter...just like we skipped summer!
for real information, try this one:
OVERPOPULATION IS A REAL PROBLEM
Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say
Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say
You missed a bit
This is the first year on record that Pearson airport in Toronto has not recorded a snowfall in November.
Last week I watch a documentary where Inuit (Eskimos) from Northern Canada were saying there are more polar bears than there every has been around there towns. The documentary went on to say this could be because there's not enough polar ice in the arctic seas for the polar bears.
But before they decide in Copenhagen to spend billions on climate control and a cap and trade system that probably won't work I think we need to get to the bottom of ClimateGate.
Ice caps are getting thicker. You won't see that on a map.
But if they're melting as much as they say why is the beach still there?
If all this keeps up I'm gonna start a green business. This way I scare everyone into buying my stuff.
Then when it turns colder again, I'll start a red business, tell every one it was their fault, and get rich again.
Hey, go with what works.
http://www.popsci.com/environment/artic … -artic-ice
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenew … igure2.png
The north polar ice is shrinking rapidly and getting thinner.
William the second link that you posted is kind of peculiar. I'm wondering why the extent of arctic sea ice was greater in 2008 than it was in 2007.
I'm not saying there is not a problem. I've already said I think we should move to end the use of all energy produced from fossil fuels, nuclear power too.
But you have to admit that some of the data from these "scientists" is rather skeptical, to say the least. We have to ask ourselves was the Al Gore thing and everything else we are bombarded with about climate change just a lead up to Copenhagen and the acceptance of a cap and trade system? You know what I mean, some people are going to make mega bucks with a cap and trade system and it won't decrease the carbon that's put into our atmosphere by much.
Nah, the data from the scientists is not the problem. The problem is political interference in the science, and talk show hosts and idiot Senators like Inhofe and Boehner talking about things they don't understand.
The science is quite solid.
As for whether cap and trade will work? I don't know. I don't really have an opinion on that.
My only problem is with people who take the word of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh over the scientists who have dedicated their lives to understanding earth's climate.
and figure out a way to make money with their bullshit science! I think I will go burn some tires out on the ranch!
But not all scientists support the idea of climate change. I don't suggest to take the word of political spin doctors either. But how do you justify that the extent of arctic sea ice was greater in 2008 than it was in 2007? That is not consistent with what the climate change "scientists" are saying now is it?
Does any of it matter? Cap and Trade wont do anything but make some people very rich so discussing it is like beating a dead horse.. wait a minute
Also, what difference does it make whether scientist agree or disagree on climate change. Facts are facts no matter how you look at them and nature is doing her thing.
I don't know that there is anything we can do to stop it or slow it down but there is plenty we can do to protect ourselves from global cooling which is the real killer in the end.
I would say, instead of arguing about who is to blame and reducing carbon emissions, we focus on how the hell we are going to sustain ourselves without power ie: heat, hot food, vegetables etc.
They aught to start teaching classes on arctic survival, hunting and making clothes because if you can't and depend on the luxuries of today then your doomed.
You and William have pretty much nailed it, Mike - the good science is becoming increasingly difficult to find amongst the BS, from both 'sides' of the debate. Personally, I detest Al Gore - he has politicised the whole thing in his quest for fame and fortune.
Having variation and fluctuations from year to year is perfectly normal - the general trend is that the global temperature is warming and climate is changing.
As to the effect that humanity has on the process - your guess is as good as mine!
If you look at the full history of arctic sea ice extent it is only a small blip. Even with the small gain of 2008 there is still less sea ice.
See this graph for another view:
I'll tell you you what's wrong - the internet isn't research.
You need to find the source of the articles (scientific institution), find and read their charter. That will tell you if it's credible or not.
The IPCC is chartered to prove only man causes warming regardless of what it finds. Read their charter.
What's wrong is believing biased reporting.
Anyway who cares. They melted before during the medieval warming period and no one died from it.
If your scared - get a dog.
Haha. You attack my sources - where's your data? And what is it's "charter"?
Sorry, I didn't attack your sources. I questioned your credibility for believing in them without knowing if they are true or not.
But yes some don't care about the truth. It's more of an emotional thing.
Oh I see.
So you made a blatantly false assertion, that the ice caps are thickening. I provided information, with references, to prove you wrong. You attacked my sources and my credibility.
You still haven't said where you got your information.
No - I didn't lie. the ice caps are getting thicker and 12 out of 13 species of polar bear are thriving to the point they becoming problematic and expanding south following their food source.
In Antarctic, the thickening is greater than the Arctic. Only small areas of each are actually melting. Those areas only melt in summer which is normal and refreeze in winter. Nothing is going to melt when it's minus 40. Overall, the melting is nothing to write home about.
The problem with a lot of articles is that they key in on a small area and omit the surrounding area. That leads one to believe there is a problem when it's really not.
The bottom line is the ice breakers are still pretty busy.
I don't usually quote off the internet. I do my research at the library and apply logic and common sense. I read a lot of books trudge though a lot of data.
My latest trip not to change the subject was that I wanted to verify if it was true that 47 million people were without health care. I went through the census and and a couple of other thing and found out after breaking it out they lied. Only 12 million are without health care and most of them make over 40 grand a year. It gets a little more complicated than that but you get the idea. It takes work.
Go to the library and use my sources. It's still the best place to get info.
Interesting, Joe, but that is still not a source - if you are going to make such claims then it is polite to provide sources that we can follow. I use the internet and read the latest journals, yet have seen no such suggestion.
Don't get me wrong, I am pretty much on the fence when it comes to anthropomorphic effects, but I have seen nothing reliable to suggest that the atmosphere is not warming at all. If you have something concrete, I would certainly be interested in reading it.
The problem with the internet is not all of a journal is published because most are paid subscriptions. So the internet limits your data. Sometime you have to pay for data like older newspaper articles.
I can't and don't remember every book, journal, and whatever. This is how I do it.
Find a book, paper, journal, etc. Read the preface. If it seems like its biased in one direction read it anyway. If it is an organization, they all have charters, find it and read it. Read everything from left to right and in the middle. Find out political affiliations, who they get money from (that's a big issue), and are they really a scientist. Then apply common sense and logic.
Don't "feel anything about it", when you do you bias yourself and cloud your research. You need to remember what your researching has no feelings. You may hate vanilla ice cream but that does not change the reality of its existence as fact. Vanilla ice cream has no feelings and does not care about you in the least.
Read history too, it will show you our mistakes in the past and what patterns to expect in the future. For instance, the pattern exist for warming and cooling with and without humans. It's safe to take that as fact. It's a good bet that will continue.
Also beware of studies and their parameters. Can you think of anything that should have been included. Many papers, articles, and studies are just that. An inquiry telling one side of the story. It's like buying a car. They are only willing to talk about the good points of the car. Is not science but it is an attempt to define the science.
An example for reasoning it out.
They predict catastrophe from warming in the future. Well, what do they use to do this? Computer models. Well where did the models come from? Did they write the program or copy it. I found out they copied the programs from weather forecasting. I believe this because pro and con, left and right have said it.
They used the logic in these programs and change the input data. Now I am sure they had to modify some of the logic but how much we don't know. This is a cost effectively way to create a new programs for something similar. But you have to keep in mind one can change a program in any fashion using well know facts or conjecture. Often when they use these models as a reference in articles they omit some of the input they used. It could be for political or space reasons.
Now common sense and practicality comes into play. We watch weather forecasts every evening. Logic says using weather programs as a basis doesn't make sense. Why? Because we cannot accurately predict the weather out to 24 hours with any consistency. How are we going to predict climate change out to years? The logical answer is not. To me that's a show stopper right there because accuracy has a long way to go.
Mathematics teaches us we can break everything down into simper terms. The same is true with data, logic, and common sense. Try to ask "what's it all about".
Your ability to think and reason is your greatest reference.
When you have lots of data in your head you will be able to recall a good chuck of it, but keep notes that are timestamped so you can recall more.
That's why I think it is pretty silly (even funny) for anyone to point to a single (or even a couple) article(s) and jump on it - not to be disrespectful.
Finding what's true and what's not is tough but satisfying. But it does open your eyes.
Fair enough, Joe, but I still have a couple of points.
Firstly, I do pay for a lot of journal subscriptions as part of my job - tax deductible
Secondly, I research the background to everything that I read, sources of funding, affiliations, qualifications - that is part of the job. To cut a long story short, I write for a scientific resource site about sound research methods, so you are preaching to the converted!
So, I like your thorough research methodology and use very similar methods. I have arrived at slightly different answers - I still have not seen anything that suggests that global warming is not happening, only papers doubting the effects of man-made emissions. As for the ice-caps thickening and the polar bears increasing in numbers - I would like to see something about that. Not to create an argument or pick on your sources, but out of a genuine quest for knowledge - I am very open-minded about the whole thing.
The only thing that I really disagree you about is the 24h thing - it is actually easier to predict long-term effects than short-term, because the atmosphere is a chaotic system: weather forecasting is a very different beast from climatology/oceanography. However, you are certainly right to question the accuracy of the models - they are only as good as the data you put in and that is incomplete.
I am not biased one way or the other - my particular issue is wasted time. If I am writing a research paper about climate change, you can guarantee that for every 100 sources I read, 99 are junk. That wastes my time and costs me money!
Hahaha, every time he asks for a new source, the response gets longer and more condescending, with no real information. Maybe because it's a lie.
You made a statement - prove it. Especially after criticizing others for not having legitimate sources.
oh darn! well they didn't - what's your source?
Yeah that's pretty much what I thought. Kind of pointless to even try it looks like.
Usually when one can not support their position they revert to hahahaha and accusations of lying.
What else needs to be said.
Fortunately - everything is here in black and white so we can make our own decisions as to the validity of your statements.
I see you have chosen not to back them up in any way shape or form. Nor have you referenced any scientific journals or other peer reviewed sources, despite the fact that you accused others of this.
In other words - they are merely your opinions and your attacks on others - defending your layman's opinion - without any references.
All we do know for sure is you like to drive 4x4s. Bias? I think so.
YOU need to back up a statement, that's what needs to be said. But it seems that you can't, which really draws from your credibility.
Hmmm...it's nice to be held to journalistic standards:)
The truth is that you are going to believe what you want whether I back it up or not. I'm not forcing you to believe anything I say and this is an "opinion forum".
And not that your much better. Look what you did - you used half a quote.
In reality I don't owe you anything and you can demand nothing.
So relax. Besides you're big enough to verify your own info both pro and con.
No, because this cuts to the heart of the issue. Those who argue against global warming claim to know better than the scientists who say that it is a fact, referring vaguely to conspiracies and global 'cycles' proven by scientists nobody has heard of. Asking for a citation is normal, and very common practice on this forum, let alone the real academic community. I'll believe whatever makes clear sense based on real evidence and facts.
All the newspapers you listed have websites, from which you could have easily cited something to prove your point, if the proof existed that is.
I believe in warming and cooling. It's history.
I don't believe warming is happening now and I don't believe man causes warming or cooling.
Newspapers only put the popular articles and headlines on the web. That's one reason I use a library - I get the whole paper and you can't link to that. Good information is lost on the web.
A good example is Philadelphia starving for money and they are trying to raise property taxes. The Inquirer did a series of articles of which only 2 showed up on their web site.
If someone comes into your house and tells you your dog is dead and the dog is looking at you wagging its tail - is it dead or alive?
There has been no change in the climate or wild wearther around here. I'm still fishing the Delaware at the same physical spots since the 70's. We still get the Noreasters and bad thunderstorms. And we're still getting a couple of tornados every single year. No worse or better. If anything, the summers have been a little milder lately but nothing to write home about.
The Jersey shore is still the same. Cape May losing beach, Wildwood gaining beach. If water levels were rising why isn't the whole shore loosing beach?
Science is good and has its place but it is not the end all. When our time comes, the dog will be dead and it will happen right in front of our eyes. With or without science.
For me, I believe what I see first, everything else is possible but not always probable.
I am happy for you. Maybe you should go visit the Colombian villages who don't have enough water to go around because the glaciers are melting away. Then, having seen it with your eyes, if you still disagree, you can tell those know-it-all greedy scientists that you know better.
PS Nice change of subject... we'll try to forget the whole 'ice caps are getting thicker' comment, with the only proof being that fishing the Delaware hasn't changed.
How do you know that no-one died Joe? All we know for sure about the Middle Ages is that civilisation stumbled and man's 'progress' ground to a near halt.
Personally I'm not convinced that man is directly responsible for climate change in it's entirety, but I do believe that we need to get a better handle on combatting pollution, and finding carbon-free energy generating solutions. Meanwhile, whatever you might think of the scientific data re the ice caps, global warming is already having a definite impacy on the glaciars. See this link:
Good question Amanda.
During the warming period man proliferated. It was during the Little Ice Age that man stumbled through disease and plagues.
There are no archeological records indicating that shore lines flooded and people died en-mass during that warming period. It's history.
Why on earth would you want to get rid of CO2. It's a life giver. Without it we would not be here.
For all of man's CO2 pollution, Mars has more than earth. Logically, if it were a problem, shouldn't we be more concerned about the pollution on Mars. Shouldn't Mar be warmer than Earth?
I'm all for controlling pollution but our green policies just transfer one problem to another and increase energy use.
We can't control Mars and Earth is even bigger. We can control our pollution but we can't control climate change. It's just to big.
thats about as much black and white you can hope for from me. Like or lump it
Global warming is almost as big a fraud as Barack Obama...almost
Joe - you still haven't provided an source. You made an assertion that was false. The polar ice caps are not thickening.
Yes, you are right, there is some evidence that Antarctic ice is thickening or staying the same. But the decline of the Arctic ice cap has been known for years.
Polar bear populations have increased since the 1970s, yes, but that's because of a ban on hunting.
As for your description of how you examine claims and go to the source - I agree with you. We should all do that. In fact that's what I try to do as much as possible.
But despite all that, you haven't done a great job of proving your grasp of climate science. You can tell me about your logic and methods all day but your assertions are just assertions until you can back them up.
There is no climate science - they don't know how or when.
Even the big bang is an accepted theory - no one has proved it or reproduced it.
Science never made warming an issue it was politicians just like they did with the ozone hole.
Sources - Newspapers over the last 30 years on both counts.
New York Times
Plus many others from US, Canada, and England.
Go read them!
Now, since you limit yourself to the internet and limit the data you seek I will point you in the right direction.
I don't know if its on the internet and if it is it's probably incomplete.
The arctic ice is getting thicker today like in now. One source is the US Military. There are others. You see its not science its logic - who would know and who would be there. It's easy to go to the right source.
PS - your not trying hard enough and your questioning my sources? Get Real!
NASA seem to disagree:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur … 0707r.html
On balance, I'll go with them thanks.
I notice how only people/sources/organizations that one disagrees with have an 'agenda.' The rest are just telling the 'truth.'
Well. When one news organization pretty much plays by the Republican Party's playbook, and has hosts who are actively organizing tea parties against the sitting President of the United States, and when that organization reports on stupid distracting nonstories about the President whenever possible...
yes, I think that might qualify for the term "agenda".
Temperatures as best as anyone can tell have natural fluctuations. It snowed in Houston.
joer4x4 et al -
It might be quite difficult to ascertain whether or not the ice caps are melting, but it is not difficult to agree that sea levels are rising.
In Dhaka for example, it is particularly bad because there are the combined effects of rising sea levels and flood waters from melting glaciers in the Himalayas. (more extreme tides and more severe storms haven't helped either, of course).
OK, whether or not human activity is the cause, can you explain how sea levels can rise if the ice caps are not melting? Where is the extra water coming from? Obviously not precipitation, because that is just recycled water.
Rising sea levels can only be caused by more water, warmer water, or both. Or am I missing something?
In the case of the arctic even if it all melted there would be no rise in sea level.
If sea levels were rising it would be world wide. The only time the sea level rises on the port of Philadelphia is when the tide comes in. Otherwise there has been no change here.
You are correct about the idea that a complete melt of the Arctic Ice will not cause a large rise in sea-level. However, there are two issues here.
1) If the Arctic ice cap melts, it is reasonable to assume that the Greenland ice sheet will undergo some melting. That will certainly increase sea-levels. There is also the problem of Antarctica - if global temperatures rise enough to melt the Arctic, then it is reasonable to assume that the Antarctic will be affected. Again, that will increase sea-levels.
2) Melting freshwater ice affects the way that the ocean currents operate, by preventing the waters of the Gulf Stream sinking. Research has found that the waters at the Arctic are becoming less saline. Will this have devastating effects? Your guess is as good as mine, but it is one eventuality that we should prepare for - the Atlantic currents have changed many times throughout history.
This is all pretty basic oceanography - we learned this long before global warming and Al Gore appeared on the horizon!
As for the 99% - it looks like we are looking for different things, which is cool - I search for good science and ignore the politics. That is how I make a living!
For sure - I want to know what politics are driving it!
Have a great dlay!
I think the problem is in the definition of the word 'could.'
When a scientist uses the word could, as in 'Melting Ice-Caps could Affect the Circulation of Atlantic Currents,' that means that it is interesting and we should perform more research.
Sadly, once the media and politicians get hold of it, 'could' becomes 'We are all going to die, horribly!'
Have a great day, too
That's good. Shame about Dhaka, New York, London, Tokyo, Venice, Amsterdam. Hey guys, let's all go to Philadelphia...
Yeah, 'cause none of those cities exist anymore...
You are wrong. (Sarcasm is stupid by the way). They exist. But they are threatened by rising sea levels and more extreme tides. Did you not know that?
Oh, really? Great! Then "shame about" really means nothing (unless it was - sarcasm!).
In the event that all those cities become inundated someone could THEN come here and really have something to talk about.
I don't know how accurate it is but the Google Earth blog has a time animation illustrating what might happen if sea levels rise from 1 to 100 meters.
http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives … up_ri.html
Yeah "whether or not human activity is the cause" and whether a cap and trade system would make a difference.
I'm one of those strange people who believe professionals should be taken seriously. If I want a tooth fixed I look for a dentist. If I want to fly somewhere I don't try and invent a new kind of airplane. If 99% of environmental scientists and virtually every government on the planet think we have a man made problem with global warming I tend to believe them.
Ordinary people who think they can find out more than the major scientific institutions, government bodies,trans-governmental bodies and the mass of independent NGO's are usually cranks and/or have fallen victim to propaganda from special interest groups.
There are long established ways of deciding what is true and what is not to a very high level of certainty.
Most of these sites are in PDF and may take a minute to load. You may also have to increase the size to 100 or 125 to read. Good Luck, keep in mind that some of these figures are skewed by politics.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/open- … policy.pdf
http://www.scar.org/researchgroups/phys … eretal.pdf
http://acsys.npolar.no/meetings/final/a … s1_008.pdf
Thank you Jiberish, this is the sort of thing I was hoping Joe could provide since he claims to have such an in depth grasp of climate science.
A great deal of this data is also available for download, so you can take a look at the raw data in Excel.
I've been researching the Arctic Sea Ice decline today and found an interesting piece of news. Satellite data reveals that the Antarctic ice is melting as well:
http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/news/index.cf … ;NewsID=33
This is a project of NASA the German Aerospace Center, and some folks at the University of Texas at Austin.
And NASA showed they can fudge the data too!
And Fox wasn't the only news media to report it.
You may (but probably not) remember NASA declared Global Warming in 1988. We're still waiting.
I'm still waiting for the next Ice Age everyone was supposed to panic about back in the 70s.
Thats the key isn't it. The story is always out there, the details change, but the plots always the same..."the sky is falling, the sky is falling!" I see these "climate change" folks no differently than relegious extremsit and televangalist....just out to make a buck!
the warmest, really?
it is very chilly here today! i have the heat on and am bundled up in a thermal shirt, hoody and socks and my fingers are like popsicles. plus there are supposed to be blizzards in Flagstaff tonight and it has been drizzling cold rain all day.
Local weather conditions don't prove or disprove global warming.
And Joe - stories about your methods and background don't equal sources. Backup your claims or lose credibility, the choice is yours.
Send me your address and I gather some of the info and I'll mail it to you. Of course you pay for copies and postage:)
I think its pretty funny. The popular science link uses NASA data. Did you call on NASA to provide a reference? They don't even take their own temperature readings. They admitted they fudged the numbers for last October.
Credibility - Looks like we're in the same boat,captain.
To think that global warming has no effect on the weather (local or not is illogical. After all weather is a product of climate.
Some citations would do fine - I can go to my own library and look these studies up.
Not what I said. Local weather conditions do not by themselves prove or disprove global warming. However, yes, global warming can be expected to affect your local weather.
No point in googling... Phil Jones, director of the hacked CRU, said himself (in a 2005 email) "The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant." - Of course he wouldn't think spending billions on "non-existent global warming" research was statistically significant...
Given that these climate clowns (the CRU) were the goto experts on climate change, and this was his candid professional opinion, it sounds like it's game, set and match.
Any alarmists want to buy a slightly used Unicorn?
Mnichopolis, I don't see much point engaging with you here since you won't allow disagreeing comments on your hubs.
But note this: "it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant."
Not much of a smoking gun. The world has not cooled since 1998. 1998 was the hottest year recorded. Granted, we have not gone above 1998 levels, but temperature hasn't dropped either.
wasn't 98 an el nino/nina year??? How does that historically affect temperatures?
Try 1934. another year that NASA fudged and was forced to correct to save grace.
Not so much Joe. 1934 and 1998 are tied for the warmest years -in the US- while 1998 saw, by far, the highest global temperature.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar … -all-that/
Ok, here's the debate: Big Oil vs. Scientists of the world. Whereas science has a TON of data, big oil has very little, their only data being "proof" that scientists have made a mistake. Yes, both have interests in this... big oil are all billionaires that want to keep it that way, scientists are usually motivated by passion for their field (at least in the cases of about every scientist I've ever met, including my father) and a desire to be prominent in that field.
So this is my question: Who would possibly argue big oil's case without having any stake in it? Sheep? They are arguing to keep the money in their own pockets, out of yours. Even if scientists are right, nobody will be rich in the way the oil execs are now. Get real!
yes, for the last ten years we can identify the change. every year there is an increase in temperature and the normal climate prediction is changing, which was almost right from the ancient time onwards..
by Jacqueline Williamson BBA MPA MS7 months ago
I was truly expecting more winter but here in the South, the weather has reached 80 degrees in February! However, the skeptics will tell you there is no such thing as "Global Warming." I am just wondering why...
by Dan Harmon2 weeks ago
Recent studies indicate that even if the Paris Accords are successful, Sydney may find itself with temperatures of 50 degrees (122F). "Major Australian cities, such as Sydney and Melbourne, may experience...
by sannyasinman5 years ago
Why don't we hear of "Man Made Global Warming" anymore? Simple. Because global warming is not and never was caused by man and his CO2 emissions. Now even the Royal Society, a staunch man-made global warming...
by ThunderKeys5 years ago
I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please...
by billchucks7 years ago
scientist have predicted wat the world is going to experience some 4 yrs time and America is doing nothing abt it. i hope the BP OIL SPILL will teach them one or two lessons
by sannyasinman6 years ago
An independent weather forecaster who tells the truth - a rare commodity . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwyjsJJr … ded#at=164
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.