The Other Climate Theory

Well the whole globe is not getting warmer either, there are areas that have been cooler.

100 years of data trumps 22 years hon. Also warming over the past decade has not been what was predicted. It seems we are heading into a cooling trend.

 

Yes, really really and truly the whole globe is getting warmer

Just about everyone agrees on THAT!!

Especially if you look at temperatures AFTER 1989

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html

 

Yup. Some commenter named "Cowboy" cited a 1989 study that analyzed data through 1987 in just the 1.5% of the Earth that makes up the lower 48. There tends to be stronger variation at the regional level (the 1930's were pretty warm in the U.S.), such that detecting a clear warming signal is more difficult. Global average is a different story.

As we know, it's warmed dramatically both globally and in the lower 48 since then. Even in small regions now, the signal is being detected.

Here is the warming (globally) we've seen since 1987.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1987/trend

Climate models have been pretty accurate. Remember that the null hypothesis (the denial hypothesis) is no warming.

 

Well, if you trust Anthony Watts, the US has been getting warmer too.

Of course, his actual peer-reviewed data contradicts the lies he's been spewing on his blog for years. So you don't really know if it's reliable. His computer is probably right next to an air conditioner.

 

Since none of these deniars are replying to my post around page 6...

Again I post...

"Cosmic Ray Theory"...DEBUNKED

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvztL9r47MI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvztL9r47MI[/ame]

/thread

 

Yes there are areas of the globe that will cool with climate change. That is why they changed the label from global warming to climate change.

Great Britain will cool with global warming because of a weaker gulf stream.

 

They never ever look at evidence - but that does not stop them from making a claim that we are all just religious zealots unwilling to look at the other side of the argument

 

I looked at the "other side" when the CERN experiment came out.

Nothing there to change my mind...but I did notice a lot of right wing websites saying that the science was settled...too bad I did not get that from the people that actually did the work.

The earth is getting warmer...the island is sinking.

To think that man does not effect the environment is absurd.

 

But I do believe that the southern part of the globe will get warmer and the northern part will get cooler.

The seasons are changing....we will soon have more ice in the artic...till summer rolls around again.

 

Of course man can affect his local environment. The highly populated areas in the US (mostly liberal bastions where environmentalists mostly reside) have significant local pollution.

 

and yet you do not believe that that pollution will affect the rest of the world?

 

Even more worrying - solar output is going to go up in the next couple of years as we swing into another sunspot cycle

Expect even more extreme weather events - cyclones and hurricanes are going to move further away from the tropics - more CAT 5 storms, more severe droughts (Somalia may lose millions yet) and more flash flooding (we are still mourning Grantham and the "inland tsunami" as this solar cycle ramps up.

 

Not to mention immigration...as parts of Mexico become unlivable and agriculture drys up...the U.S. gets a bumper crop of immigrants it can not afford to support.

I am pretty sure the same thing is happening all over the world and it is breeding poverty.

Its sad really...they can't stay at home and we don't want them.

 

For humans, local is the earth and out pollution is basically limited to the earth and near orbit, although we are spreading trash throughout the solar system. Local does NOT mean that pollution stays in NYC or SF. It means it stays ON THE EARTH.

 

Even worse will be the anti-science immigrants from Texas.

 

We really should not even dignify these claims with replies. Whenever another thread like this starts, let's just completely ignore it.

Otherwise, the average person will skim through the debate and conclude that this is actually an equal two-sided debate. By arguing, we are likely doing more harm than good. Same goes for evolution vs creation threads.

 

What about in the early 20th century when unchecked agriculture almost succeeded in turning the Midwest into a desert? A lot of it still hasn't fully recovered.

 

RPA1...just look at a picture of earth from space and notice the thin line (the atmosphere) around the earth you will have to look carefully because it is only 25 miles thick.

And then think about an aquarium, and how easy fish pollute and ruin the confined enviroment they live in....and tell me that man has little effect on the earths atmosphere. There are a few billion of us living in this little fishtank.

 

Trouble is that if a false claim is ignored, it will be seen as true by people who have no knowledge of the science. Look how many people repeat the stupid statement "Climate change has happened before so we do not need to worry about it now." Or "CO2 is only .03% of the atmosphere so its effects are insignificant" Anyone with even a basic understanding of logic can see how stupid these arguments are but they keep getting repeated until some lose their common sense and start believing them.
I post on the subject not to change the minds of the people I am having a discussion with (because I know they will never came out of their partisan shell), but to hopefully convince people who are still trying t make sense of the basic concepts of CC.

 

seriously, if this were proof that there is no such thing as AGW, the person who discovered it would win the nobel prize AND be a very very rich man into the bargain.

there are various sycles, but that doesn't mean human induced climate change isn't happening.

climate deniers are like fat people who constantly stuff their faces while arguing that food intake has no influence on weight increase.