Global Warming?

[SPYDERLK]

Well then you have a confession to make too then don't you: you think science should be influenced by the scientists "optimism." What if the guy is on drugs? What if he has an agenda, which "optimism" and "pessimism" suggests. What if his wife has him sleeping in the dog house? What if he hates his boss but loves his mistress?

To me, having to admit he is wrong is an eye opener, but it happens, and I suppose there is some honor in the admission, but it should raise flags...like how certain did he maintain he was about his testimony at the time? But to get cutesy and say he was "too optimistic" implying that he was actually even MORE right than he stated just strains all credibility with me. You are free to think otherwise, but in a time where consensus it being touted as a part of science, I am starting to want to draw the line at "optimism" and/ or "pain due to hemorrhoids."

I think "too optimistic" is used as a conversational introductory or summative expression. I think your reponse is distorted.
larry

 

[Dustier]

I recall, somewhat painfully, how I once defended Ronnie Raygun. Don't usually admit such folly, but rejecting the influence of man made, global warming problems is an indication of a complete disconnect with the Earth. Gotta stop believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, et al.

 

[toppop52]

If hes right about the one hes wrong about the other.

That's an absolute statement, that you absolutely can't prove. Unless of course you are an eminent environmental scientist with as yet unreleased data.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Richard Muller, a known skeptic has changed his mind.
But even for those liberal greenies that will glom onto this report take note, he says that local events such as the drought and heat wave have nothing, repeat nothing to do with the "tiny" global warming

If hes right about the one hes wrong about the other.

That's an absolute statement, that you absolutely can't prove. Unless of course you are an eminent environmental scientist with as yet unreleased data.

It is provable by inference ... but only in the direction of GW influencing major weather/climate. That is what I meant. NOT that a single or limited set of hot weather patterns indicate that GW is actually a fact.
larry

 

[LWG]

The earth is not getting appreciably warmer. Whatever slight warming there was stopped about 10 years ago. Increasing temperature means more crops, longer growing seasons, larger cultivation bands. We now have seven billion people on earth. Imagine the problems if the earth were cooling. I'm concerned that the earth is not warming fast enough.

 

[tcreeley]

Just drought info.


Drier and hotter than it was in 2005.

 

[tcreeley]

Record Low Snow Extent
Jul 9, 2012; 4:22 PM ET
Snow cover extent in the northern hemisphere for June 2012 was the lowest in the 45-year record for June, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.



According to the NSIDC, this rapid and early retreat of snow cover exposes large, darker underlying surfaces to the sun early in the season, fostering higher air temperatures and warmer soils.

Warmer world.

 

[toppop52]

Wow! 45 whole years of records, so how did Neanderthal get those early records those 45 long years ago? LOL

 

[Dustier]

It looks like "reading comprehension" is an issue for some people, so, I provided you a little teevee screen that I'm sure will attract your attention.

James Hansen: Extreme Heat Events Connected to Climate Change - YouTube

 

[newbury]

Record Low Snow Extent
Jul 9, 2012; 4:22 PM ET
Snow cover extent in the northern hemisphere for June 2012 was the lowest in the 45-year record for June, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.<snip>
According to the NSIDC, this rapid and early retreat of snow cover exposes large, darker underlying surfaces to the sun early in the season, fostering higher air temperatures and warmer soils.

Warmer world.

One of the BIG problems with warmer soils is the release of methane from permafrost type soils. Arctic methane release - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It looks like "reading comprehension" is an issue for some people, so, I provided you a little teevee screen that I'm sure will attract your attention.

James Hansen: Extreme Heat Events Connected to Climate Change - YouTube

So often it is not reading comprehension but inability to click on a link.

 

[toppop52]

It looks like "reading comprehension" is an issue for some people, so, I provided you a little teevee screen that I'm sure will attract your attention.

James Hansen: Extreme Heat Events Connected to Climate Change - YouTube

Actually your typical liberal condescending manner gets way more attention and a big round of ignoring for any so called "facts" you may have.:thumbsup:

 

[toppop52]

One of the BIG problems with warmer soils is the release of methane from permafrost type soils. Arctic methane release - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So often it is not reading comprehension but inability to click on a link.

I bet the 5 other liberals think you're just hilarious!

 

[toppop52]

The major lack of credibility most of us see with you guys is you continuously cut and paste from the same school of liberal grant seeking, climate change agenda following "scientists". Some are genuine believers but far too many are trying to keep the checks coming and are way more political than scientific. All the while you're unable to answer the simple question put forward here for months. So until that happens.......

 

[Dustier]

You don't distinguish yourself with constant negative, snarky retorts designed to dodge the issue. I have yet to read any troll's thoughtful opinion on the matter of global warming or any scientific paper that might refute any science based conclusions.

So, just like the snarky post above, there is nothing that could even remotely be considered definitive on science. Opinions are free and do not require evidence and thus serve only to express what you "believe". Complaining about science you reject out-of-hand is juvenile.

Crazy Weather: 'Virtually No Other Explanation Than Climate Change'

 

[toppop52]

And you post another opinion of a government scientist to prove your point.
Answer the question already on the floor, and when someone can definitively do so, I'll start to believe, until that very simple and obvious flaw in AGW is answered, the believers lack credibility. What I said in #1793 wasn't "snarky", it's a legitimate position. Simply explain why earlier warming events, some much warmer and more rapid in their onset could not possibly have been AGW, but this one must, without possible variance be so. When you can, then we have a discussion.

 

[toppop52]

It seems strange that virtually all AGW believers are concentrated, with a few exceptions, in the Pacific Northwest, New England, upper Midwest, and the places those residents retire to. While the skeptics are all over the map. Must be the climate!

 

[Dustier]

Whatever your question is can be found in scientific papers. Read.

In an op-ed published on Saturday, Hansen explained that the new analysis, which looked at the past six decades:

revealed a stunning increase in the frequency of extremely hot summers, with deeply troubling ramifications for not only our future but also for our present.

This is not a climate model or a prediction but actual observations of weather events and temperatures that have happened. Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change. (emphasis added)

 

[toppop52]

Whatever your question is can be found in scientific papers. Read.

In an op-ed published on Saturday, Hansen explained that the new analysis, which looked at the past six decades:

revealed a stunning increase in the frequency of extremely hot summers, with deeply troubling ramifications for not only our future but also for our present.

This is not a climate model or a prediction but actual observations of weather events and temperatures that have happened. Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change. (emphasis added)

If you'd read and understood the question you would know that your last post doesn't address the question at all. The question is the warming events of the last 10,000 years, which is very recent, 60 years is an hour ago in historic perspective.

 

[Dustier]

Whatever your question is can be found in scientific papers. Read.

In an op-ed published on Saturday, Hansen explained that the new analysis, which looked at the past six decades:

revealed a stunning increase in the frequency of extremely hot summers, with deeply troubling ramifications for not only our future but also for our present.

This is not a climate model or a prediction but actual observations of weather events and temperatures that have happened. Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change.

60 years is an hour ago in historic perspective.

Well, there it is - the definitive science we have all been pining for.

 

[houstonscott]

If you read the whole piece you find in the last few paragraphs that much of the data collected and used to come to this is bogus. Much of the collection stations are on roof tops next to AC units and the like. The article really shoots down the data being used as unreliable and not useful. Read it all.

HS

Whatever your question is can be found in scientific papers. Read.

In an op-ed published on Saturday, Hansen explained that the new analysis, which looked at the past six decades:

revealed a stunning increase in the frequency of extremely hot summers, with deeply troubling ramifications for not only our future but also for our present.

This is not a climate model or a prediction but actual observations of weather events and temperatures that have happened. Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change. (emphasis added)