Climate Change continues to prove its real:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/20/us/noaa-global-climate-analysis/index.html?eref=rss_us
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/20/us/noaa-global-climate-analysis/index.html?eref=rss_us
July hottest month on record, and 2015 could be hottest year
- Thread starter Huey Grey
- Start date
Guess what? It's hot ALL THE TIME in the middle east. It comes and goes, waxes and wanes. The planet does what it wants to.
There isn't any man-made global warming. It's a hoax perpetuated by Algore and his minions. Some day, it will be cold. And then another day, it will be hot. Cycle of life plain and simple.
There isn't any man-made global warming. It's a hoax perpetuated by Algore and his minions. Some day, it will be cold. And then another day, it will be hot. Cycle of life plain and simple.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 99,433
- 208,897
- 113
You can tell a lot by who likes your posts.
from one of the BEST scientists Richard Muller (former skeptic)
link
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
.....
How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.
link
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
.....
How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.
Do you mean the 15 year hiatus that Global warming had taken before this year? NOAA has now said that the only reason for the pause was insufficient data which invalidated the previous 15 years. Don't worry though, it did not invalidate the 100 plus years of data before that. ONLY the last 15.
http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/earth-record-warmest-july-2015-0
Is this after they made those adjustments upwards to make up for lower than expected temperature?
I wonder how much money he made after this. Either way, who cares? Let the flooding come, it's insignificant to the strong.
What I say is that the evidence is inconclusive. There are experts on both sides of the fence. Personally, I am not convinced that human activity has impacted the climate to extent of causing any sort of permanent warming trend.
"In November 2013 Muller wrote an op-ed in The New York Times arguing that strong to violent tornado activity decreased since the 1950s and suggesting that global warming is the cause. Atmospheric scientists Paul Markowski, Harold E. Brooks, et al., replied that Muller made substantial methodological flaws and was ignorant of long established findings in severe storms meteorology. They argue that there is no discernible decrease in significant tornado activity and that attribution of tornadic activity to global warming is premature although changes, especially in regional character, are likely as the atmospheric environment changes.["
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller
The problem with the studies of climate change is that there is big money backing the damnation of those that question climate change.
There is more money being spent to prove climate change and advertising it, than there is towards solutions towards correcting the proposed problem.
There isn't a single person here who has personally had a hand in the studies. So anyone here who quotes those that are paid to sell lies,....shut up. Show us concrete proof, that you have proven by your lonesome.
Until then, you are simply speaking nonsense paid by those who wanted nonsense to be spoken. And who will also profit when that nonsense is taken seriously.
Easy remedy against what I say,....show us the catastrophic consequences that according to 'studies' that should have already happened. Don't lie about past reports, or I'll smack the $?!$ out of you for doing so.
Your ball.
There is more money being spent to prove climate change and advertising it, than there is towards solutions towards correcting the proposed problem.
There isn't a single person here who has personally had a hand in the studies. So anyone here who quotes those that are paid to sell lies,....shut up. Show us concrete proof, that you have proven by your lonesome.
Until then, you are simply speaking nonsense paid by those who wanted nonsense to be spoken. And who will also profit when that nonsense is taken seriously.
Easy remedy against what I say,....show us the catastrophic consequences that according to 'studies' that should have already happened. Don't lie about past reports, or I'll smack the $?!$ out of you for doing so.
Your ball.
Speaking of the connection between pollution and global climate change - I wonder how the volume of pollutants being expelled into the atmosphere from the western fires compares with man-made (industrial) pollutants - or a single volcano eruption - or the fires in Canada that had impacted our skies earlier this year.
lolhhhwut?
Nope. Arctic sea ice is currently tracking for the 4th lowest extent on record, and is 2σ (two standard deviations) below the 1981-2010 average extent.
Antarctic sea ice may be running above the average (although it's fallen back below the 'average' now), but Antarctica has lost gigatons of land ice; part of the higher sea ice extent in Antarctic is likely due to 'freshening' of the saltwater from land runoff, making it easier for the surrounding water to freeze. Exactly the same effect used to keep roads from freezing over in the winters, only we ADD salt to the ice/snow to depress the freezing point. Land ice runoff into the surrounding Antarctic waters RAISES the freezing point, and makes it easier for the waters to freeze in warmer temperatures.
yet here in texas, this has been one of the coolest summers I can remember in 25 years, we have had very few 100+ degree days here, usually have a solid month of 30 or so days of 100+ degree days, this year I only recall about three days thus far, maybe 4 days
I bet he needed more money for a research project. We have really dropped our emissions. China and I India are the problems and with out their cooperation any change on our part will be like like spiting in the ocean
How much money does big oil make by denying Climate Change?
Pretty hard to take what you say seriously these days after you say that green energy has bigger pocketbooks than Big Oil.
It's worse than idiot. Idiot's can't help being stupid. Those who remain willfully ignorant do it on purpose and take pride in it.l
Do you really want to know? I suspect not because the answer would not be what you expect and you would then summarily dismiss it.
Considering that yearly human greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions are ~130 times the total annual volcanic output (for terrestrial and submarine volcanoes combined), I'd bet that the western fires are barely a rounding error when compared with human fossil fuel emissions...
I think you two just answered your own question. It's Climate Change now because it goes well beyond simple warming. Some areas get warmer. Others might actually get colder. But on net, the whole earth heats up.
