Yeah it's getting pretty scary. The world needs to make some serious changes more quickly then we are now. It's not like we can just pack things up and move.
What make anyone think man can change the weather? The weather goes in cycles it alwas has and always will no matter what man does or doesn't do..
Lol, global warming denialism.
Holy crap... A simple experiment can show how the stuff we put up in the air can impact the climate and temperatures. The denialist movement has repeatedly been shown to be fraudulent.
And before someone will try to use the antartica argument...
Objection: The Antarctic ice sheets are actually growing, which wouldn’t be happening if global warming were real.
Answer: There are two distinct problems with this argument.
First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.
In the case of this particular region, there is actually very little data about the changes in the ice sheets. The growth in the East Antarctic ice sheet indicated by some evidence is so small, and the evidence itself so uncertain, the sheet may well be shrinking.
But even this weak piece of evidence may no longer be current. Some recent resultsfrom NASA’s GRACE experiment, measuring the gravitational pull of the massive Antarctic ice sheets, have indicated that on the whole, ice mass is being lost.
Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees — say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C — would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn’t melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass.
While on the subject of ice sheets: Greenland is also growing ice in the center, for the same reasons described above. But it is melting on the exterior regions, on the whole losing approximately 200 km3 of ice annually, doubled from just a decade ago. This is a huge amount compared to changes in the Antarctic — around three orders of magnitude larger. So in terms of sea-level rise, any potential mitigation due to East Antarctic Ice Sheet growth is wiped out many times over by Greenland’s melting.
I feel the most for those living in the more under-developed regions who must deal with the effects of global warming even though they are by far the smallest of contributors to it. I also really feel for the animals as well.
What make anyone think man can change the weather? The weather goes in cycles it alwas has and always will no matter what man does or doesn't do..
Lol, global warming denialism.
Holy crap... A simple experiment can show how the stuff we put up in the air can impact the climate and temperatures. The denialist movement has repeatedly been shown to be fraudulent.
And before someone will try to use the antartica argument...
Objection: The Antarctic ice sheets are actually growing, which wouldn’t be happening if global warming were real.
Answer: There are two distinct problems with this argument.
First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.
In the case of this particular region, there is actually very little data about the changes in the ice sheets. The growth in the East Antarctic ice sheet indicated by some evidence is so small, and the evidence itself so uncertain, the sheet may well be shrinking.
But even this weak piece of evidence may no longer be current. Some recent resultsfrom NASA’s GRACE experiment, measuring the gravitational pull of the massive Antarctic ice sheets, have indicated that on the whole, ice mass is being lost.
Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees — say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C — would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn’t melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass.
While on the subject of ice sheets: Greenland is also growing ice in the center, for the same reasons described above. But it is melting on the exterior regions, on the whole losing approximately 200 km3 of ice annually, doubled from just a decade ago. This is a huge amount compared to changes in the Antarctic — around three orders of magnitude larger. So in terms of sea-level rise, any potential mitigation due to East Antarctic Ice Sheet growth is wiped out many times over by Greenland’s melting.
Global warming occurs naturally if it didn't we would not be able to live on the planet. The weather come in cycles. At the last global summit the US committed over $200,000,000 to help fund poor countries deal with global warming. The money will end up in some tyrant or dictators pocket. All this is a wealth transfer. The US spent millions on levies for the Mississippi River. Local governments had control of the money and it was spent on everything but levies. Until Katrina hit then Bush was blamed for everything including blowing up the levies and steering the hurricane into New Orleans. The science on global warming is questionable leaked emails revealed.
What make anyone think man can change the weather? The weather goes in cycles it alwas has and always will no matter what man does or doesn't do..
Lol, global warming denialism.
Holy crap... A simple experiment can show how the stuff we put up in the air can impact the climate and temperatures. The denialist movement has repeatedly been shown to be fraudulent.
And before someone will try to use the antartica argument...
Objection: The Antarctic ice sheets are actually growing, which wouldn’t be happening if global warming were real.
Answer: There are two distinct problems with this argument.
First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.
In the case of this particular region, there is actually very little data about the changes in the ice sheets. The growth in the East Antarctic ice sheet indicated by some evidence is so small, and the evidence itself so uncertain, the sheet may well be shrinking.
But even this weak piece of evidence may no longer be current. Some recent resultsfrom NASA’s GRACE experiment, measuring the gravitational pull of the massive Antarctic ice sheets, have indicated that on the whole, ice mass is being lost.
Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees — say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C — would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn’t melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass.
While on the subject of ice sheets: Greenland is also growing ice in the center, for the same reasons described above. But it is melting on the exterior regions, on the whole losing approximately 200 km3 of ice annually, doubled from just a decade ago. This is a huge amount compared to changes in the Antarctic — around three orders of magnitude larger. So in terms of sea-level rise, any potential mitigation due to East Antarctic Ice Sheet growth is wiped out many times over by Greenland’s melting.
Global warming occurs naturally if it didn't we would not be able to live on the planet. The weather come in cycles. At the last global summit the US committed over $200,000,000 to help fund poor countries deal with global warming. The money will end up in some tyrant or dictators pocket. All this is a wealth transfer. The US spent millions on levies for the Mississippi River. Local governments had control of the money and it was spent on everything but levies. Until Katrina hit then Bush was blamed for everything including blowing up the levies and steering the hurricane into New Orleans. The science on global warming is questionable leaked emails revealed.
Global warming and other forms of climate change does to some extent occur naturally as well. However, we humans are only making it worse.
And stupid local governments has no impact on the validity of the science.
Climategate was a manufacontroversy, and thus the emails matter little to me (I assume that is what you were referring to). And if anything, it is the denialists that are questionable, http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/
I also remember reading an article not too long ago, which further showed intellectual dishonesty where a few "scientists" refused to list where they got their funding from in their articles trying to attack the theory.
Neither side is being honest, and both sides have a huge financial gain if they can sway the public in their direction. So before I'm willing to sacrifice comfort for squalor, I need more proof than a general statement, claiming "hottest year on record." Where are they measuring these temps? The upper Midwest was mild, if not cooler than normal. Besides a two week stretch of above average November temps, we have been sitting under an artic airmass since thanksgiving. Also our snowfall is average.
You also have to consider it being an El Niño year, so the south side of the jet stream should theoretically be above average. Also the Atlantic has been way below average for nearly a decade.
What make anyone think man can change the weather? The weather goes in cycles it alwas has and always will no matter what man does or doesn't do..
Lol, global warming denialism.
Holy crap... A simple experiment can show how the stuff we put up in the air can impact the climate and temperatures. The denialist movement has repeatedly been shown to be fraudulent.
And before someone will try to use the antartica argument...
Objection: The Antarctic ice sheets are actually growing, which wouldn’t be happening if global warming were real.
Answer: There are two distinct problems with this argument.
First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.
In the case of this particular region, there is actually very little data about the changes in the ice sheets. The growth in the East Antarctic ice sheet indicated by some evidence is so small, and the evidence itself so uncertain, the sheet may well be shrinking.
But even this weak piece of evidence may no longer be current. Some recent resultsfrom NASA’s GRACE experiment, measuring the gravitational pull of the massive Antarctic ice sheets, have indicated that on the whole, ice mass is being lost.
Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees — say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C — would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn’t melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass.
While on the subject of ice sheets: Greenland is also growing ice in the center, for the same reasons described above. But it is melting on the exterior regions, on the whole losing approximately 200 km3 of ice annually, doubled from just a decade ago. This is a huge amount compared to changes in the Antarctic — around three orders of magnitude larger. So in terms of sea-level rise, any potential mitigation due to East Antarctic Ice Sheet growth is wiped out many times over by Greenland’s melting.
Global warming occurs naturally if it didn't we would not be able to live on the planet. The weather come in cycles. At the last global summit the US committed over $200,000,000 to help fund poor countries deal with global warming. The money will end up in some tyrant or dictators pocket. All this is a wealth transfer. The US spent millions on levies for the Mississippi River. Local governments had control of the money and it was spent on everything but levies. Until Katrina hit then Bush was blamed for everything including blowing up the levies and steering the hurricane into New Orleans. The science on global warming is questionable leaked emails revealed.
Wait, so if global warming wasn't being caused by man, what is the all that carbon dioxide we release doing in the atmosphere?
Neither side is being honest, and both sides have a huge financial gain if they can sway the public in their direction. So before I'm willing to sacrifice comfort for squalor, I need more proof than a general statement, claiming "hottest year on record." Where are they measuring these temps? The upper Midwest was mild, if not cooler than normal. Besides a two week stretch of above average November temps, we have been sitting under an artic airmass since thanksgiving. Also our snowfall is average.
You also have to consider it being an El Niño year, so the south side of the jet stream should theoretically be above average. Also the Atlantic has been way below average for nearly a decade.
Mainstream science lives and dies by its honesty. Hence why I trust scientists on everything they can prove. On the opposite side, corporations or quacks, will often bribe whoever they can to spread any doubt they can for commercial or political gain. "Global Warming is a hoax", "The world was created", "GMOs are bad", "Tobacco is not harmful"... ect. In most of these cases its about spreading doubt, because that doubt is all they need. As long as they can permanently postpone the potential threat to their wallets. they are safe.
As for the article. They seem to have taken averages across the entire country.
meanwhile it was like 70 degrees in ny the week before xmas. el nino has fucked everything up this year :)
He He. I doubt those in NYC were complaining. El Nino isn't aways bad. It sucks for the poor saps out east. But, the rain and snow are welcome here out west. ;)
meanwhile it was like 70 degrees in ny the week before xmas. el nino has fucked everything up this year :)
He He. I doubt those in NYC were complaining. El Nino isn't aways bad. It sucks for the poor saps out east. But, the rain and snow are welcome here out west. ;)
nah. **** the cold. i'll take 67 in late december any day
EDIT: wtf? back to censoring expletives again here???
Yeah. Al Gore was spot on. In 2010 the ice caps were supposed to be melted but we had record breaking amounts of ice. Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change, Y2k, you people fall for the new "problem" everytime.
Yeah. Al Gore was spot on. In 2010 the ice caps were supposed to be melted but we had record breaking amounts of ice. Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change, Y2k, you people fall for the new "problem" everytime.
As expected. Always blaming Al Gore for one little misstep on his comment about the ice caps should have had melted by now. You NeoCons are to easily over won by fears of TERRORISM even though the chances of you or anyone else in the west being killed in a terrorist attack are very slim at best.
Yeah. Al Gore was spot on. In 2010 the ice caps were supposed to be melted but we had record breaking amounts of ice. Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change, Y2k, you people fall for the new "problem" everytime.
As said be for. If they focus on our health to change to "GREEN ENERGY" I think it will get more positive votes. When I go out for a walk I always think why bother its more healthier just been in all day then breathing in these car fumes. I live off a very small industrial estate and even that is terrible for pollution and leaves a horrible smell in the air.
Yeah. Al Gore was spot on. In 2010 the ice caps were supposed to be melted but we had record breaking amounts of ice. Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change, Y2k, you people fall for the new "problem" everytime.
Yeah. Al Gore was spot on. In 2010 the ice caps were supposed to be melted but we had record breaking amounts of ice. Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change, Y2k, you people fall for the new "problem" everytime.
Denying scientific evidence is not very smart.
Science can be wrong.
Yes it can be. The keys are that scientific consensus is built on the the best peer-reviewed data at the time, and if that data changes or new data is found it is incorporated into existing or new theories.
Whereas the denialism strain running through the populace is largely built on FUD, and when data changes or new data is found the FUD campaign only intensifies in response.
Yeah. Al Gore was spot on. In 2010 the ice caps were supposed to be melted but we had record breaking amounts of ice. Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change, Y2k, you people fall for the new "problem" everytime.
Denying scientific evidence is not very smart.
Science can be wrong.
Yes it can be. The keys are that scientific consensus is built on the the best peer-reviewed data at the time, and if that data changes or new data is found it is incorporated into existing or new theories.
Whereas the denialism strain running through the populace is largely built on FUD, and when data changes or new data is found the FUD campaign only intensifies in response.
Weatherman can't even get it straight if it's going to rain or snow in 5 hours, I don't have faith in their limited data on analyzing the earths weather system over the last few billion years.
@comp_atkins: There's a very long list of words that CAN (but won't necessarily) get you moderated in the new guidelines. Most of the typical curse words are absent, but a few of the "big ones" are not. It also contains a lot of ones that are offensive to groups of people (naturally) as well as a few that I can't comprehend why they would be included.
Just something to be aware of if you find yourself wanting to use a questionable term, I guess.
Yeah. Al Gore was spot on. In 2010 the ice caps were supposed to be melted but we had record breaking amounts of ice. Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change, Y2k, you people fall for the new "problem" everytime.
Denying scientific evidence is not very smart.
Science can be wrong.
Yes it can be. The keys are that scientific consensus is built on the the best peer-reviewed data at the time, and if that data changes or new data is found it is incorporated into existing or new theories.
Whereas the denialism strain running through the populace is largely built on FUD, and when data changes or new data is found the FUD campaign only intensifies in response.
Weatherman can't even get it straight if it's going to rain or snow in 5 hours, I don't have faith in their limited data on analyzing the earths weather system over the last few billion years.
Interesting. What hard data do you have to call into question the hard data used to arrive at the global warming consensus? Frankly, there's a great deal of inventive for you if you can disprove the current models.
What make anyone think man can change the weather? The weather goes in cycles it alwas has and always will no matter what man does or doesn't do..
Of course we can.. Mankind has the power to make the world uninhabitable with a nuclear exchange of just a fraction of the weapons we have stock piled in the world....... It's pretty naïve to think that 6 billion people with the massive industries backing them doesn't have any impact on weather over decades of influence.. During the 1930s we had a bunch of farmers over farm their lands to the point of creating the dustbowl in which vast tracks of weather through out the United States were affected by it directly.. That was just from a few farmers compared to this..
Yeah. Al Gore was spot on. In 2010 the ice caps were supposed to be melted but we had record breaking amounts of ice. Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change, Y2k, you people fall for the new "problem" everytime.
Denying scientific evidence is not very smart.
Science can be wrong.
Yes it can be. The keys are that scientific consensus is built on the the best peer-reviewed data at the time, and if that data changes or new data is found it is incorporated into existing or new theories.
Whereas the denialism strain running through the populace is largely built on FUD, and when data changes or new data is found the FUD campaign only intensifies in response.
Weatherman can't even get it straight if it's going to rain or snow in 5 hours, I don't have faith in their limited data on analyzing the earths weather system over the last few billion years.
If your looking that far down the scope, you should be worried bout ANY change due to the fact that Earth's climate has largely been inhospitable to human life for the majority of the planet's life span..
What make anyone think man can change the weather? The weather goes in cycles it alwas has and always will no matter what man does or doesn't do..
Lol, global warming denialism.
Holy crap... A simple experiment can show how the stuff we put up in the air can impact the climate and temperatures. The denialist movement has repeatedly been shown to be fraudulent.
And before someone will try to use the antartica argument...
Objection: The Antarctic ice sheets are actually growing, which wouldn’t be happening if global warming were real.
Answer: There are two distinct problems with this argument.
First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.
In the case of this particular region, there is actually very little data about the changes in the ice sheets. The growth in the East Antarctic ice sheet indicated by some evidence is so small, and the evidence itself so uncertain, the sheet may well be shrinking.
But even this weak piece of evidence may no longer be current. Some recent resultsfrom NASA’s GRACE experiment, measuring the gravitational pull of the massive Antarctic ice sheets, have indicated that on the whole, ice mass is being lost.
Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees — say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C — would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn’t melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass.
While on the subject of ice sheets: Greenland is also growing ice in the center, for the same reasons described above. But it is melting on the exterior regions, on the whole losing approximately 200 km3 of ice annually, doubled from just a decade ago. This is a huge amount compared to changes in the Antarctic — around three orders of magnitude larger. So in terms of sea-level rise, any potential mitigation due to East Antarctic Ice Sheet growth is wiped out many times over by Greenland’s melting.
Global warming occurs naturally if it didn't we would not be able to live on the planet. The weather come in cycles. At the last global summit the US committed over $200,000,000 to help fund poor countries deal with global warming. The money will end up in some tyrant or dictators pocket. All this is a wealth transfer. The US spent millions on levies for the Mississippi River. Local governments had control of the money and it was spent on everything but levies. Until Katrina hit then Bush was blamed for everything including blowing up the levies and steering the hurricane into New Orleans. The science on global warming is questionable leaked emails revealed.
Talk all you want, but can you site when piece of evidence Jim?
Weatherman can't even get it straight if it's going to rain or snow in 5 hours, I don't have faith in their limited data on analyzing the earths weather system over the last few billion years.
While we cant predict everything. We can find models and patterns... and it is those patterns we are observing that is why most sane people in the world accept global warming.
Yes it can be. The keys are that scientific consensus is built on the the best peer-reviewed data at the time, and if that data changes or new data is found it is incorporated into existing or new theories.
Whereas the denialism strain running through the populace is largely built on FUD, and when data changes or new data is found the FUD campaign only intensifies in response.
Weatherman can't even get it straight if it's going to rain or snow in 5 hours, I don't have faith in their limited data on analyzing the earths weather system over the last few billion years.
If your looking that far down the scope, you should be worried bout ANY change due to the fact that Earth's climate has largely been inhospitable to human life for the majority of the planet's life span..
I'm just not worried about it period. It's just the "sky is falling" trend for this year.
@n64dd: global warming warnings have been around for while derp, and I know you're not so stupid that you actually believe that it's not, so why even say that?
@n64dd: global warming warnings have been around for while derp, and I know you're not so stupid that you actually believe that it's not, so why even say that?
It's amazing there has to be clear and present danger for any one to get up off their asses and attempt to do anything.. Even if there is no immediate impact for this generation, we are condemning future generations to hardship that is possible to avoid/lessen..
@n64dd: global warming warnings have been around for while derp, and I know you're not so stupid that you actually believe that it's not, so why even say that?
I've been around long enough to know that the earth has natural weather cycles and not to flip out when we experience a change in one. You watch too much tv.
One year doesn't really mean much. Instead show me the average temperature for US for the last 30 years.. Or 50 years.
With this said. I do think we need to shift to a greener economy... well fuel and energy sources. And that is easily justified by other reasons than warmer weather. When working an 8 hours shift in the city equals a 20-pack of cigarettes for your lungs. That isn't good. The rate of people getting allergies and/or asthma increases due to pollution. Not good.
@n64dd: global warming warnings have been around for while derp, and I know you're not so stupid that you actually believe that it's not, so why even say that?
I've been around long enough to know that the earth has natural weather cycles and not to flip out when we experience a change in one. You watch too much tv.
Oh really, you've been alive for thousands of years? Please do go on!
@n64dd: global warming warnings have been around for while derp, and I know you're not so stupid that you actually believe that it's not, so why even say that?
I've been around long enough to know that the earth has natural weather cycles and not to flip out when we experience a change in one. You watch too much tv.
Oh really, you've been alive for thousands of years? Please do go on!
Even if both sides of our political spectrum can come to the agreement that global warming is result of human pollution, so what? As with most issues, there's an aspect of reality most liberals seem to be missing here. The classic example of prisoners dilemma is the perfect analogy. The naive and the left ostensibly believe that collaboration of all involved is the ideal outcome (maybe all hold hands and sing kumbaya afterwards) but there's genuine incentive for the ones that don't adhere to the agreement and the reality is that most will not honor whatever international agreement they sign while doing everything they can to insure the others do.
For several years, a University of Maryland professor prose a similar question to all of his students. Each have a choice of adding 2 or 6 extra points to the grade of their final paper, but if more than 10% of the class choose 6 points then everyone get 0. Of all of the classes this professor has taught, only one class has ever managed to receive extra points. That's reality of human nature; nice guys DO finish last. It's something liberals continue struggling to understand.
Log in to comment