You tried to use weather (no snow in Alaska) to prove climate change. If I say it's cooling (record cold and snow in the N.E.) you'll say it's weather and it doesn't disprove climate change, global warming or whatever the Legion Of Doom is calling it these days. Do I have that right?
Anything local is, by definition, not global. If you want to know if it's getting warmer, you need global data. Do you have any?
What? Cycles of climate change. Cyclical change is coming out of the ice age, while the sun activity, or lack of it, is gonna give us a cooling effect, as we have seen before. We were coming out of an ice age when we had the medieval warming, and then later on the little ice age. But the trend is to warm up as you come out of ices ages, with fluctuations of warming and cooling taking place within this period. Will you admit your were wrong, when the predictive models based only upon co2 fails again? Or will you write another promissory note?
The normal trend with interglacial periods is rapid warming followed by gradual cooling into the next glacial period. Temperatures from the Vostok ice core clearly show this pattern. The last glacial period ended about 12,000 years ago and the gradual cooling toward the next glacial period began about 5,000 years ago, long before the MWP and LIA. The warming over the last century is clearly not part of the normal cycle.
I don't believe the BS about Man being responsible. But, stuff like this cannot be denied: Explained @ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/i...ed-to-dump-heat-into-atmosphere/#.VTOmVKbXXIo
Oh bull(*)(*)(*)(*). We simply do not know enough to make such claims. We are warming up regardless of co2. The warming and cooling cycles are mostly related to solar activity, which is why the ice caps on mars shrunk. It shares the same star as we do. If they had sunk as much grant money in solar activity and cycles, that would be the cause today of climate change, not co2. Fact is, the sun is the cause, and always has been the cause for the natural cycles of climate change. But you cannot tax the sun... The last ice age will be over when there is no ice left in the polar regions. And we are actually going to be see a cooling in the next 30 years, from solar cycles. Which will blow this alarmism out of the water. So the deniers will then be making excuses again why the inaccurate climate models are once again not predicting accurately what is going on.
Scientists have known about the connection between the sun and climate for over 200 years, since William Herschel made the connection between sun spots and drought in 1801. The problem with your argument is that Total Solar Irradiance has been decreasing for decades while temperatures continue to climb.
What a mish-mash of half understood denialist rubbish. If you are going to argue climate science - at least get the arguments correct
No you don't and pretending that I have made claims I have not does not make you right - neither does it win arguments The second letter in AGW stands for GLOBAL - that means trended data from across the world which may include no snow in Alaska but also includes record cold temperatures in Tasmania, It also includes TIME frames so that the global temperature is measured over a year usually. This means you might have a record cold temperature 2 days out of a year but your whole winter is shorter than it should be
Never underestimate the ability of the climate denier to ignore evidence he finds inconvenient. That mountain of ignored evidence just gets bigger and bigger every day, doesn't it? When you say "We simply do not know", what you really mean is, "I simply refuse to learn." But not everyone in the world is as ignorant as you prefer to be. Ice caps on Mars grow and shrink seasonally, and the rate is often affected by dust storms. In fact, the Sun has been cooling over recent decades, and Mars has been cooling along with it. So now there's even more evidence for you to ignore. Natural cycles don't create heat, they just move it around, from one place to another. "Natural cycles" explains nothing. Solar activity reached an all-time high in the late 1950s and has been declining since then. So when exactly are we supposed to see this cooling phase begin? And yet, those "inaccurate models" predicted in 1990 that, with a .63 W/m[sup]2[/sup] increase in 20 years, we would see a global surface temperature increase of .17 C per decade. In actual fact, we did see a .63 W/m[sup]2[/sup] increase in the following 20 years, and actually got a global surface temperature increase of .17 C per decade. Bullseye.
I love how threads like this seem to cause the absolute frenzy of charge and counter-charge followed by name-calling.
