quote:
All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
Meteorologist Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change every recorded, either up or down.
Most snow in North America in 50 years.
First snow ever in Baghdad.
quote:
Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
As I've said before, I remain skeptical of global warming. But here is what I don't get: if we were having record HIGH temperatures it would be on the news and CNN specials about global warming. I hear nothing on the news about polar bears doing well killing seals since the ice is at record levels nor do I hear about glaciers gaining mass.
A single year variation or other short term variants are not that meaningful - I agree with that in relation to overall climate. But the die hard Global Warming people should either recognize that fact and stop pointing out every incident and blaming Global Warming (Hurricanes, Polar Bears, wild fires, crop failures, disease...) or recognize this as a total reversal of global warming.
Again, this is definitive proof of nothing in regards to climate change. But it does seem to indicate that people are anxious for news about Global Warming and not to keen on anything that contradicts that party line.
Along the same lines...
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
Here's some more....
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=552E34BF-D7DC-4F6B-B5DA-92F40FCFDFF6
California is going to teach it, even though they don't know anything about it.
http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_8269190
So I'm not sure exactly what's being argued here. Are you arguing that it's not global warming we should be worried about but global cooling? Or are you arguing that nothing's happening whatsoever?
There's a basic math concept called the average. Some temperatures will be above it, some below it. Only in Lake Woebegone do all the children score above average.
Long ago (as we account for time, unlike geological time) a geology professor said that the world has generally been warmer than it has been for the last couple of thousand years. We could be at the end of a glacial period, or we could simply be between them. It's hard to imagine the glacial period. When the ice stopped in Western Pennsylvania, he said that it towered about 5 miles high. Canada is still rebounding from the weight of it. The moraine at its southernmost point formed ridges hundreds of feet high, composed of rock dragged from Canada.
So in geologic terms, a single year doesn't mean much. A century of data is more reliable, but a millennium would give a better indication of where our climate is heading.
The point is that most people are happy to point to bears having to go without killing seals and forest fires to support global warming, but no one wants to pay attention to strong evidence to the contrary. It's too damn hard to think, so just believe what you are told. The point is that there is not definitive evidence of Global Warming.
The law of averages and the matter of anecdotal evidence is rarely discussed in relation to global warming, but when evidence to the contrary is produced they are included in the story. The matter is deemed closed and off limits for question by a large amount of the population and I don't understand why. That's the point.
You'd think news agencies would be interested to hear that 2007 was the coldest year in more than a decade and/or that polar ice is increasing... but as of yet they haven't picked up on the story. That's the point.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The point is that most people are happy to point to bears having to go without killing seals and forest fires to support global warming, but no one wants to pay attention to strong evidence to the contrary. It's too damn hard to think, so just believe what you are told. The point is that there is not definitive evidence of Global Warming.
The law of averages and the matter of anecdotal evidence is rarely discussed in relation to global warming, but when evidence to the contrary is produced they are included in the story. The matter is deemed closed and off limits for question by a large amount of the population and I don't understand why. That's the point.
You'd think news agencies would be interested to hear that 2007 was the coldest year in more than a decade and/or that polar ice is increasing... but as of yet they haven't picked up on the story. That's the point.
So . . . . you're arguing that nothing's happening whatsoever?
Just that I'm not sure Wevus.
The only reason I bother talking arguing the other side is that it seems under represented. People have taken Global Warming to heart without ever trying to understand what is happening. I was taught Global Warming in grade school as a matter of fact, yet it still remains unproven in the eyes of many.
Basically, I just want people to at least be able to argue their point of view instead of just telling anyone that doubts Global Warming that they are an idiot. The idiot is the person that can not back up their convictions.
I remain skeptical of Global Warming as a man made phenomenon. Nothing more, nothing less. But so many people take that as a personal challenge I feel the need to step it up. And piss off TheArtist of course [:P].
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Just that I'm not sure Wevus.
The only reason I bother talking arguing the other side is that it seems under represented.
You're an awfully strong advocate
against warming for someone who's agnostic.
The reason I am advocating against it is because no one else is - I'm not even really advocating against it, just reminding people of the rules of the game. And as of yet, no one has shown nor pointed me to anything that raises a strong case FOR Global Warming. Honestly, perhaps if I understood or read a well written piece on it I would change my view. But I'm frustrated by anecdotal evidence being shown on the news as proof.
In a scientific endeavor, in the absence of proof you have to assume the negative of the hypothesis. Thus, absent evidence of Global Warming...
I really truely don't know the answer, and in my perspective most people don't have a clue either.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
QuoteAll four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
http://www.global-dumbing.com
I am pretty sure that it is generally accepted that global warming is directly responsible for the wild shifts in weather patterns we have been experiencing, i.e. Baghdads first snow ever, or for instance last year Oklahoma's firsy blizzard warning ever. The heating in the atmosphere doesn't neccesarily mean everywhere is going to be warmer than average. It also means weather patterns get jacked up. Places that have shorter growing season begin experiencing longer season and vice versa. just what i have learned from reading about it.
quote:
Originally posted by hoodlum
I am pretty sure that it is generally accepted that global warming is directly responsible for the wild shifts in weather patterns we have been experiencing, i.e. Baghdads first snow ever, or for instance last year Oklahoma's firsy blizzard warning ever. The heating in the atmosphere doesn't neccesarily mean everywhere is going to be warmer than average. It also means weather patterns get jacked up. Places that have shorter growing season begin experiencing longer season and vice versa. just what i have learned from reading about it.
We've only developed instruments to accurately record weather and climatology in the last 100 to 150 years. Much of this is speculation and improperly interpreted (and reported) data.
I don't deny that pollution and added Btu's being sent into the atmosphere are having some effect, it's the ****ed up hysteria like NYC being under water in 50 years which is totally unbelieveable and far out.
I agree that is hysteria, however if the cahin of events are put into place for that to happen, for instance the ise cap in greenland slides off in to the atlantic ocean and causes sea levels to rise it could be possible.
quote:
Originally posted by hoodlum
I agree that is hysteria, however if the cahin of events are put into place for that to happen, for instance the ise cap in greenland slides off in to the atlantic ocean and causes sea levels to rise it could be possible.
Hellooo?? Precisely the hysteria I was mentioning.
HMMMMMM.....
http://www.citizensugar.com/1093812
thanks for pointing that out
After thinking about it I change my mind, I don't believe it is hysteria. These are scientific models based on atmospheric studies, precedents and events that are possible, are they imminent? who knows.
Natural events of this magnitude have occured in the past, they will occur in the future.
The christmas earthquake off the coast of indonesia causes a tsunami and hundreds of thousands of people are killed.
Will the ice fields slide off of Greenland? I don't know. Is it possible? yes
If it never happens in your life time it is considered hysteria, but is it still hysteria if happens in your great grandchilds lifetime?
If it does happen in your lifetime and no one does anything about it we quickly point our fingers at people and try to place blame for the negligience.
just my 2 cents
what to do.
quote:
In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
Is anyone else that was buying into this at least starting to question the doom and gloom of Global Warming? Study after study that is being released is antagonistic to the theory - not from fringe groups or junk science but the National Oceanographic Agency, the Whether Service, NASA, and on and on. But the panic on the issue continues to grow, with no understanding.