Global warming
- Thread starter mthbstr8
- Start date
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
No, I meant to add it on the bottom of my first comment...too late to correct it now. But, it's just about what some of you Righties/Libertarians would say, so it fits. I have no problem with faith, but when you ignore scientific fact, there is a big problem. It's evident that many of the 3%who are deniers have chosen to ignore scientific proof for a crazy theory that God created a homeostatic Earth.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
You have proven the opposite in this thread as you have ignored scientific fact that did not fit within your belief system. In my view you are no better than the ones that you claim to have a problem with.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
Huh? I know you think the Earth is flat and that Global Warming is a Commie plot to enrich Al Gore, but the facts are there and you choose to ignore them. BTW, I think Gore is a Climate Whore too, but just because he's a jerk doesn't mean the science is bad.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Huh?? What does that have to do with you ignoring science. Difficult to follow that bitter rant.
oldngray
nowhere special
Science from the same guy who doesn't even understand NASCAR
http://jalopnik.com/did-neil-degrasse-tyson-screw-up-a-tweet-about-basic-ph-1582030197
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Petty.
oldngray
nowhere special
oldngray
nowhere special
The House Science, Space and Technology Committee heard from scientists who poked holes in the prevailing catastrophic theory of man-made climate change and said researchers are under pressure to support more alarming scenarios.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...el-hears-debate-on-climate-cha/#ixzz33CY4XCvp
http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=ctd-fI3Dar4z1uacwqm_6r&u=washtimes
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...el-hears-debate-on-climate-cha/#ixzz33CY4XCvp
http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=ctd-fI3Dar4z1uacwqm_6r&u=washtimes
oldngray
nowhere special
British boffin tells Obama's science advisor: You're wrong on climate change
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/0...ence_advisor_you_are_wrong_on_climate_change/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/0...ence_advisor_you_are_wrong_on_climate_change/
I'm assuming you read the article, and maybe even a synopsis of the paper, so you are full aware that he agrees that there is warming , but doesn't agree that it will cause cold snaps like much of North America did last Winter. That is what he is disagreeing with, not hat there isn't AGW.
Meanwhile, warmest May ever:
http://mashable.com/2014/06/17/earth-warmest-may-spring/
oldngray
nowhere special
Did you read the article? It said climate change and not AGW.
You are correct, your article calls it 'climate change', not AGW. Here's what he says:
"Changes in climate variability are arguably more important for society and ecosystems than changes in mean climate, especially if they translate into altered extremes1, 2, 3. There is a common perception and growing concern that human-induced climate change will lead to more volatile and extreme weather4. Certain types of extreme weather have increased in frequency and/or severity5, 6, 7, in part because of a shift in mean climate but also because of changing variability1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10. In spite of mean climate warming, an ostensibly large number of high-impact cold extremes have occurred in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes over the past decade11. One explanation is that Arctic amplification—the greater warming of the Arctic compared with lower latitudes12 associated with diminishing sea ice and snow cover—is altering the polar jet stream and increasing temperature variability13, 14, 15, 16. This study shows, however, that subseasonal cold-season temperature variability has significantly decreased over the mid- to high-latitude Northern Hemisphere in recent decades. This is partly because northerly winds and associated cold days are warming more rapidly than southerly winds and warm days, and so Arctic amplification acts to reduce subseasonal temperature variance. Previous hypotheses linking Arctic amplification to increased weather extremes invoke dynamical changes in atmospheric circulation11, 13, 14, 15, 16, which are hard to detect in present observations17, 18 and highly uncertain in the future19, 20. In contrast, decreases in subseasonal cold-season temperature variability, in accordance with the mechanism proposed here, are detectable in the observational record and are highly robust in twenty-first-century climate model simulations."
Are you now saying that , to quote your source, "human-induced climate change" is in fact, agreed upon science? Took you long enough, maybe there is hope for you yet
"Changes in climate variability are arguably more important for society and ecosystems than changes in mean climate, especially if they translate into altered extremes1, 2, 3. There is a common perception and growing concern that human-induced climate change will lead to more volatile and extreme weather4. Certain types of extreme weather have increased in frequency and/or severity5, 6, 7, in part because of a shift in mean climate but also because of changing variability1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10. In spite of mean climate warming, an ostensibly large number of high-impact cold extremes have occurred in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes over the past decade11. One explanation is that Arctic amplification—the greater warming of the Arctic compared with lower latitudes12 associated with diminishing sea ice and snow cover—is altering the polar jet stream and increasing temperature variability13, 14, 15, 16. This study shows, however, that subseasonal cold-season temperature variability has significantly decreased over the mid- to high-latitude Northern Hemisphere in recent decades. This is partly because northerly winds and associated cold days are warming more rapidly than southerly winds and warm days, and so Arctic amplification acts to reduce subseasonal temperature variance. Previous hypotheses linking Arctic amplification to increased weather extremes invoke dynamical changes in atmospheric circulation11, 13, 14, 15, 16, which are hard to detect in present observations17, 18 and highly uncertain in the future19, 20. In contrast, decreases in subseasonal cold-season temperature variability, in accordance with the mechanism proposed here, are detectable in the observational record and are highly robust in twenty-first-century climate model simulations."
Are you now saying that , to quote your source, "human-induced climate change" is in fact, agreed upon science? Took you long enough, maybe there is hope for you yet
oldngray
nowhere special
The global warming hiatus? Climate models all wrongly predicted warming, so let’s call it a discrepancy
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/
