Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is what 90 degrees looked like in southeast Alaska up the Stikine river a week ago.
This was taken along that same section of the river the end of May several years ago.
While that's interesting, they still had snow on the ground in much of northern North Dakota, Minnesota and Montana - and this just a few days ago.
In addition, we just turned out air conditioner on yesterday, which is unheard of for this part of the country at this time of the year.
And my daughter is at camp in Northern Minnesota right now. She said it's absolutely freezing cold and wet. Usually, at this time of the year, it's pretty nice.
So should I not conclude that the United States is cooler than usual - based on those three anecdotal observations? And if the answer is "NO!" (which I agree with), why do the Global Warming Zealots draw absolute conclusions based on equally anecdotal observations?
Your religion is Global Warming, and Global Warming is NOT science. It's mostly hype, and keeps changing all the time because earlier spin points keep proving themselves wrong.
Just bring the name on one reputable scientific professional association that agrees with you -- The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the International Union for Quaternary Research, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to the conclusion that there is anthropogenic climate change and it poses a threat to our way of life. Those are religious organizations? At last count I think there were 50 scientific professional societies.
Now please before you "claim" that science is on your side, let's see some evidence. No Heartland Institute stuff, actual science.
Now please before you "claim" that science is on your side, let's see some evidence. No Heartland Institute stuff, actual science.
Moderator cut: No flaming
Shoot, even the intelligent Global Warming people are admitting there is no consensus. Moderator cut: No flaming
Moderator cut: No flaming
Actually the correlation between global climate change deniers and the Republican Party appears to be about 1.0. Of course many of you now claim to be "Independents." LOL
And the correlation between the Global Warming Worshipers and the Democrats is about 100%.
Tax all the people you decide are villains, and give each other more and more grants to keep putting your spin on the religion.
Bottom line: Follow the money trail. And the Religion of Global Warming is HUGE money right now!
Moderator cut: No flaming
The scientific article you link to references work on the solar cycle. I'm left with a feeling of "so what." Yes there is a solar cycle, yes it is important in global temperature. Moderator cut: No flaming
This is what 90 degrees looked like in southeast Alaska up the Stikine river a week ago.
This was taken along that same section of the river the end of May several years ago.
Nice photos GrammasCabin. I also saw your set in the Alaska forum. But a photo set of a few years is not proof of anything other than that the weather differs from year to year.
If you have a photo of the Stikine valley in, say May 1400, then that would be interesting from a climate perspective.
I think that we can safely agree that there has been global warming since the Little Ice Age of 1400-1800. And, yes, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen at the station on Mauna Loa in Hawaii, where they first documented the rise since, when?, 1959.
But other than that, there are scientists on BOTH sides of the issue. Most, however, seem to take the middle ground: we are not sure how much humans have caused the changes currently being seen.
Years ago, I talked with Dr. Sherwood Idso of the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona. I was writing a paper on the energy balance of trees and needed some information from him. He believed that the increasing CO2 levels would cause plants to become more productive, which would ameliorate the issue to a great extent. Thus, as a private citizen scientist, he did not believe that global warming was that big of an issue. But, as director of a U.S. gov't agency, he probably could not make that an official policy statement of his laboratory.
This arguing back and forth is useless.
No one can prove humans have been the major factor in the warming of the globe since the Little Ice Age.
No one can prove that humans have not been a major factor. But it is less likely.
Ever seen a volcanic eruption? Those are major factors!
The problem is that climate is looooonnnnggggg term, and we are only recently measuring things. Really, 1959 is just yesterday in geological/climatological time. Give me some data from 1400.
Last edited by Teak; 06-18-2009 at 03:57 PM..
Reason: spelling
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
