Please, someone tell me why this is a problem and why you think that humans have ANYTHING to do with this climate change. Just over 10,000 years ago there were big hairy elephants elephants roaming the midwestern US. It has been a lot colder ... glaciers all the way to the Ohio and Missouri Rivers ... the climate has been changing for a long while.
With 'ya on just about everything. I love it when we have a couple of colder days than usual and folks say, "See, there can't be any global warming". The other side based on a couple of days is stupid as well. An overall pattern has to be looked at and we only have records back to about 100 years. The pattern has been established and is what you say. Some areas, like the northeast may have more severe winters due to warmer air coming down from the warming arctic.
The reason nothing is being done now is because the big polluters are big contributers to the Bush Admin. Oh, and of course, Dubya tells us he's waiting for "good science" and others tell us it could be those pesky "sun spots". Puuuhhhhlease.
There is so much science about the weather that is not understood...here is one that most people problably haven't considered:
Of the 2907 stations in the database, only 161 (or 5.5%) have complete temporal coverage from 1900 to 1990. All but 19 of these stations are in the United States. The US, with the most complete record anywhere, has no trend in temperatures during this century. In 1989 and 1990 about 30% of the stations ceased reporting. This may account for the difference in global temperature trends derived from surface observations when compared to balloon and satellite observations. Support for this idea comes from the fact that 135 stations in the USSR ceased observing at the end of 1989. Subsequently there appeared to be a warming in the USSR but this warming is not supported by pressure observations. Thus, it appears half or more of the reported global warming from ground observations is arising from this change in station coverage. It is possible that as much as 0.2 C of the 0.25 C warming for 1979-1999 can be explained by this change in stations, although more study is required to refine this number. Other locations where the surface network has notable problems include South Africa, Nigeria, Timbuktu, Algeria, Peru, central and coastal Brazil, the Seychelles, Diego Garcia, New Guinea, and several Polynesian islands.
There is so much science about the weather that is not understood...here is one that most people problably haven't considered:
Of the 2907 stations in the database, only 161 (or 5.5%) have complete temporal coverage from 1900 to 1990. All but 19 of these stations are in the United States. The US, with the most complete record anywhere, has no trend in temperatures during this century. In 1989 and 1990 about 30% of the stations ceased reporting. This may account for the difference in global temperature trends derived from surface observations when compared to balloon and satellite observations. Support for this idea comes from the fact that 135 stations in the USSR ceased observing at the end of 1989. Subsequently there appeared to be a warming in the USSR but this warming is not supported by pressure observations. Thus, it appears half or more of the reported global warming from ground observations is arising from this change in station coverage. It is possible that as much as 0.2 C of the 0.25 C warming for 1979-1999 can be explained by this change in stations, although more study is required to refine this number. Other locations where the surface network has notable problems include South Africa, Nigeria, Timbuktu, Algeria, Peru, central and coastal Brazil, the Seychelles, Diego Garcia, New Guinea, and several Polynesian islands.
But by looking at layers of ice in the Antarctic it is possible to approximately measure global warming and cooling back for over 400,000 years. These temperature readings have helped explain the ice ages and other worldwide phenomenon that happened long ago. They also support the global temperatures measured over the past 100 years. You can spout as many conspiracy theories as you want (such as the Earth warmed in one place, but no one measured it there), but there has actually been tons of research just on how to measure the global "temperature" and it generally supports the current numbers.
What you are doing is trying to dispute the facts that go against your argument, but you do it without responding with your own facts. If we believe you, then we cannot believe any temperature data. In that case, there is absolutely no evidence for global warming or cooling, so you end up losing the argument anyway. In order to discuss global temperatures we must use the numbers that are accepted by every real atmospheric scientist, otherwise there is nothing to debate.
I don't know about global warming, but it's freezing in my office today...that's what happens when the Ex Phys lab has about a 30 ft ceiling...can't warm this room like the rest of 'em!
Just like there's "no evidence" -- ??? brain warp -- there are less than 10% the amount of trees on earth as 150 years ago.
All those pictures that trees really existed must have created by Green Peace.
I'm guessing that you're trying to connect a lack of trees to the gain in carbon dioxide? Well, trees on land only account for 10% of the Earth's photosynthesis, so a 10% decrease in trees (which sounds about right, although I haven't looked that number up) would only account for a 1% change in CO2 levels. Actually, CO2 levels have risen by much more than that over the past 100 years, so the change in tree covering is negligible.
But, again, it's not clear how much of a factor CO2 is in the current warming of the Earth. Research in the ice sheets of Antarctica suggest that CO2 growth is caused by temperature growth, and not vice versa, which means that some other factor must be counterbalancing the CO2. Again, more research must be done.
Yeah, I was kinda thinking that too, but I have no life and when I saw the heading, I just had to jump in. Besides when the weather gets weird (70's here in the NorthEast yesterday), gets you thinkin' about it.
Weather may have been shitty on the east coast, but it was quite f***ing toasty in Gunni, Colorado! Not enough snow, it was f***ing weird, running in shorts in March! It was really warm there. Who knows?
Both sides of this debate don't seem to understand that weather can't be used as indicator for global warming.
The science behind increased greenhouse gases causing warming is sound. The uncertainty lies in how much impact it has to which scientists do not agree. I certainly don't believe climate change is an existential threat. Take a look at Bjorn Lumbourg's video's. As he discusses climate change could have a 4% impact to GDP by the end of this century. However, along with that is the anticipation that GDP well have grown so much over this century making climate change a minor inconvenient truth. I have heard some scientist think we could get several decades of global cooling. Everyone will love that. There are also less alarming predictions coming from current models and the mainstream media.
Science is not a consensus and you have not done your homework. Scientists have varying degrees of agreement over a variety of issues including how much warming there really is, how much warming can be attributed to humans instead of natural forcing, how much warming can we expect if CO2 emissions double, how bad it will end up being this century, whether we can get to net-zero and on and on. Flashing the banner of 97% of scientists agree just means you don't know anything other than what has been fed to you by your liberal main stream media.
Science is not a consensus and you have not done your homework. Scientists have varying degrees of agreement over a variety of issues including how much warming there really is, how much warming can be attributed to humans instead of natural forcing, how much warming can we expect if CO2 emissions double, how bad it will end up being this century, whether we can get to net-zero and on and on. Flashing the banner of 97% of scientists agree just means you don't know anything other than what has been fed to you by your liberal main stream media.
Science is not a consensus and you have not done your homework. Scientists have varying degrees of agreement over a variety of issues including how much warming there really is, how much warming can be attributed to humans instead of natural forcing, how much warming can we expect if CO2 emissions double, how bad it will end up being this century, whether we can get to net-zero and on and on. Flashing the banner of 97% of scientists agree just means you don't know anything other than what has been fed to you by your liberal main stream media.
Dude, replying to a post from 19 years ago?
Thanks for informing me. Proof to me we are still getting the same BS.
