Texas and Oklahoma had little temperature increase, but they were barely habitable to begin with (How many people would last without AC?). But even without increased temps, they have still had apocalyptic droughts and fires.
The greatest warming is occurring in the Arctic, just as expected.
In the northeast US where I grew up, we spent many days at the municipal swimming pool with our teeth chattering and our lips blue. We would go to Florida and marvel at people living in 87 degree weather. Now my hometown has had many hot spells of over 100 F.
Itâs almost comical how nearly every single âstatisticalâ post here in the forum is radically different than the others. This indicates to me that no one really knows whatâs going on (climate-wise) and therefore any game plan to correct or enhance our current weather state will sadly miss the mark.
The important thing to remember (I feel) is that weather records only go back 100-200 years - and the Earth has been around 4-5 BILLION years. Formulating any sort of stance on a microscopic amount of data is not only bad science, but itâs weird.
And what, weâre supposed to just trust that article over some webpage dedicated to explaining why relativity is false?
So far from agreeing with each other, many of the graphs use different resolutions, colors, and even fonts! I mean, they all show the same over-all result, with small differences based on exactly what theyâre measuring, but that hardly matters.
It would be weird. Maybe instead of assuming hundreds of scientists have all missed something very obvious, it should occur to you that they might know something you donât, and learn why they think they can draw conclusions. As a hint, there are ways to tell things about the climate more than 100-200 years ago, which people have been investigating, corroborating, and evaluating the accuracy of for a long time now.
MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen has a good chuckle too: âI think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.â
It is not true everywhere; regions with different policies have different outcomes. Therefore it is within leadersâ power to change things, they know these other countries exist and have chosen our current policies, so yes they have a greater share of the resonsibility
I love petrified tree rings. Especially with ketchup and a dash of tabasco
Iâm definitely not equipped to argue ice core samples and tree rings with the experts. It appears that the experts are doing a fine job without me. The latest UN Report on Global Warming says that not only has there been cooling of the planet, but that Global Warming is actually on a âHIATUSâ (their word) - but, of course, their findings are based on a mere 15 years of data. Whatâs the point of consulting ice core samples and tree rings when the UN has immediate data spanning a fantastic 15 years?
PS - Itâs important to marinate your tree rings for at least 24 hours before serving
* as temperatures have declined and climate models have failed to predict this decline, the IPCC has gained confidence in catastrophic warming and dismisses the pause as unpredictable climate variability
Well, we knew there were a tiny minority of climate scientists who disagree with all the others, but Iâm impressed you found one who is so completely willing to ignore what the IPCC has actually found. There is no mysterious decline, as several references posted here have already explained - and even your own posts earlier, where you were claiming a linear increase as the only acceptable analysis, would contradict.
Hey look, something else thatâs already been refuted in this comment thread. Nobody thinks global warming is on âhiatusâ as in stopped, they think surface temperatures havenât increased as much as heating would suggest, and itâs been confirmed that involves oceanic heating. If someone told you otherwise, they were misleading you, and you would do well to learn what climate scientists actually think and why.
YES. On September 12th, 2001, our president had the duty to come on the TV and say the following: âin the coming weeks, American diplomats, intelligence agents, and miltary officers will be engaging in negotiations. Negotiations with allies. Negotiations with friends. Negotiations with neutral parties. And yes, negotiations with our enemies. In order to negotiate from a position of strength, we have to get our own house in order. And that means all Americans need to help this effort by reducing and minimizing their need for fuel.â
He didnât. And even Obama has been to scared to come forward and say this. Yes, our leaders share the blame. For failing to lead.
you would do well to learn what climate scientists actually think and why.
NikFromNYCeeeee decided a long time ago he knows better than 97% of the worldâs climate scientists. You might as well be speaking gibberish to this guy by saying such things.
Obviously the UN thinks that Global Warming is on hiatus - itâs their word, not mine - and âhiatusâ means stopped. Otherwise, why didnât the UN say âdecrease in heatingâ? - the real fact is that climate science is big business. Climate science is science based on relatively few statistics. To put it bluntly, itâs a joke. Obviously you donât recall the Great Coming Of The Ice Age" fear-mongering hubbub of the early 1970s. Al Gore should be whipped with a wet noodle for the kooky scientific ridiculousness heâs fostered and profited from. Believing that thereâs such a thing as Global Warming is like believing in phantoms or mysterious sprites that live underground. Itâs misguided fear mongering is what it is. Yeah, I believe in scientists to tell me the truthâŠthe same scientists who invented the processes of coal conversion, combustion engines and polluting factory processing. I think science also invented the plastic bottle and bag and DDT. Science. Yep. Always looking out for our best interest!
I guess the phenomenon of âmanâ is somehow separate from the Earth and its other more ânaturalâ inhabitants. Is man not a natural being? Are we supernatural or perhaps even unnatural? Are we gods? Are we not naturally evolved inhabitants of the Earth? If so, then the human organism is just that, an indigenous organism and this is our natural habitat. How easy it is to pretend we are somehow EXTRA-natural special beings and not a part of the Earth herself. Remember the great oxygenation event? If you can google then you can read about that and understand that the history of organisms altering their environment is nothing new and that we evolved because of that change. The arm wavers need to take a pill.
[quote=âcarlosdanger, post:31, topic:10978â]
Obviously the UN thinks that Global Warming is on hiatus - itâs their word, not mine - and âhiatusâ means stopped.[/quote]
There is no need to be disingenuous here. chenille specifically replied to the assertion that there had been a âcooling of the planetâ⊠and âhiatusâ most definitely does not mean âreversalâ. You should also make sure itâs clear that youâre talking about short-term trends - I sincerely doubt the intention was to claim that temperatures are expected to remain at the same average from now on.
Thank you. I was taking the long odds that you had merely been misinformed, and for instance didnât notice how hiatus was actually defined in the paper. But in mentioning the standard talking points of climate science being about money, the lie about few statistics, the entirely fictitious ice age thing, and the imaginary leadership of the evil Al Gore, I can be certain that you actually donât care if what you say is true or not.
Whatâs the deal with this âclimate science is big businessâ thing anyway? I mean, Iâve heard the saying that we fault in others what we see in ourselves, but it seems like the far right have made it their raison dâĂȘtre:
Bush had a questionable military record, and Kerry an excellent one, so they made Kerryâs horrible record a major campaign issue;
Insurance companies regularly decide to cut people off or charge more than they can afford leading to tens of thousands of deaths per year, and Obamaâs health care would help mitigate that, so itâs described as introducing death panels;
Climate deniers receive large amounts of funding via think-tanks, while actual climate scientists donât get any privileges beyond what a normal research career earns you, so of course climate scientists are only in it for the money (and sex-slaves per Nik).
And so on and so on.
Youâd think if there were something you were so obviously doing worse than your opponents, you wouldnât want it at the forefront of the conversation, but for some reason they lead with it all the time. I donât understand why it ever works.
Evolution is all a question of rates - many species can adapt to a change over a million years that would wipe them out in a hundred. Not everything made it through the âoxygen holocaustâ, as it is also called, and that was not actually a fast change at all, with lots of time for others to adapt and find new niches. Whether people should be included under the definition of ânaturalâ or not is a semantic diversion; the real question is what the effects of our actions are, and whether we want to suffer through them.
âHiatusâ means a gap in continuity, not a change of direction; a pause in activity that does not change the overall trend of activity. It means, âit has paused for the past few years, and will resume - just as it has paused and resumed countless times over the past century.â You can refer to the drawing crenquis posted above for a visual explanation of the term âhiatusâ in this context.
Their word, but your misinterpretation of the word.
A hiatus usually means to stop for a short period, then resume.
Whatever the case, itâs a mis-use of a simple word or (even worse) a simplistic definition of global weather conditions. Itâs like saying âThe tree growth in Yosemite was constant, then took a hiatus while the trees did something elseâ - in other words, if a scientific body is attempting to state their case, why would they use such awkward and hokey language? Hiatus is a business word or a word one sees in connection with TV shows (âBreaking Badâ broke for summer vacation) - âhiatusâ as used by the UN GW group makes it sound as if weather is a conscience entity that can stop and start processes at will (or maybe it canâŠ?)
Also, they didnât say that âGlobal Warmingâ is on hiatus â they said that the global mean temperature rise is on hiatus. Very different things.
Sea levels are continuing to rise. Hereâs a succinct statement from a JPL scientist:
Other climatologists, such as Bill Patzert of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge, say sea level rise is "unequivocal proof" that greenhouse gases are continuing to heat the planet, and that much of this added heat is being absorbed by the oceans.
As ocean water warms, it expands and drives sea levels higher, Patzert said. Currently, oceans are rising at an average of more than 3 millimeters, or 0.12 of an inch, per year. This pace is significantly faster than the average rate over the last several thousand years, scientists say.
âThereâs no doubt that in terms of global temperatures weâve hit a little flat spot in the road here,â Patzert said. âBut thereâs been no slowdown whatsoever in sea level rise, so global warming is alive and well.â
Whether that message is communicated successfully by the IPCC this week remains to be seen. In the days leading up to the meeting, the organization has found itself on the defensive.
Models of the cooling effect of the Pacific decadal oscillation predicted that the northern mid-latitudes were âinsulatedâ from the oscillationâs cooling effect during the summer months, as was the Arctic region. As a consequence of this shielding, 2012 marked two climate milestones: hottest year on record in the US; ice cover in the North Pole shrank to the lowest level ever observed by satellite.
