And, btw, I viewed an IR photo of Antarctica..and it showed that most of the continent now has a much thicker ice-pack than a few years ago. This is real evidence...not just propaganda and B.S.
Where the changes are happening with an alarming rate is at the poles that in the middle is a by product of the rise at the poles the conveyer belt of exchange of cold from the extreme north & south is not predictable how ever its happening - there now is a division in what the outcome might be once earth reaches the tipping point and the majority of scientist studying the past climate and the info we do have now can agree if we shall once again become snowball earth or a green house. The answer is now "unknown" humans lack a lot of brain power and perhaps we can not use the brain to write a successful prediction - we do not have the capability even with all minds working on those problem to answer it with a answer (like most of the answers we feel that we do have they too are - buzz - wrong!
My understanding is that until recently, scientists didn't agree that it was even happening. Now we have gathered a mountain of statistics and photographic evidence that things such as Greenland's ice cap melting and the Alaskan permafrost turning to mush are really happening, but some scientists still disagree on whether the Earth is cooling or warming. I have read that a temporary cooling effect is to be expected, and this winter seems to bear that out. BTW I haven't heard anybody say "global warming" for a while -- now they all talk about "climate change."
Change is scary, particularly when it's something that can't be controlled, and I can see why some people deny it when it's right in their faces, so to speak. Folks can argue with computer simulations but they cannot argue with solid physical evidence for climate change, which we now have. I wonder what the Earth will be like in a hundred years, especially if we don't find a way to slow or stop these changes.
It's no great secret, what has been claimed as "Global Warming" occurs like clockwork every 100,000 years according to every
available climate record, as do opposing ice ages (. Milankovich, Tschumi-Stauffer), . This natural climate cycle has been going on for several million years. The fact that we are currently emerging from an Ice age (they taught us that in grade school, remember?) indicates we are most assuredly on a natural temperature upswing. Q & A time for Liberals: (1) How many ways can we blame this on other political ideologies, and (2) how can we use that knowledge to make money and publicize our leftist agenda?
Well I guess it depends o if the skeptics are just hunting for excuses as to why they are not accepting the evidence, or are sincerely evaluating the evidence and finding it lacking.
Now many others are not accepting evidence of low amount of warming, for example a 17 year pause that was unpredicted, and instead are hunting for reasons to not accept the evidence. It's hiding in the deep ocean, for example.
Skeptics won't, but deniers already have ignored the evidence that global arming is happening
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
And that the ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2013 and 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...
please tell us; Do you listen to Conservative Talk Radio or watch Fox News?
i've never met or heard of a 'denier' that doesn't
Sagebrush, you like to post that link but have your read this?
i found this on that site
Referencing this site
I am not an academic researcher and hence have no need for formal references. However, if you've found this site useful, an informal 'mention in dispatches' and a Web link wouldn't go amiss.
This cuts both ways, however: The algorithms used on this site have not been formally peer reviewed and hence should not be used unverified for academic publication (and certainly not for policy- making!). This site is only intended to help find interesting directions for further research to be carried out more formally.
And where do you get an idea that there is no tropospheric hot spot? Here is a discussion on the tropospheric hot spot.
http://www.climatedialogue.org/the-missi...
What you are question, then, is any warming at all when discussing the tropospheric hot spot not just anthropogenic warming. Do you agree the world is in a longer term warming trend even prior to 1998? If you think it is or was how do you explain your statement about there not being a 'strong tropospheric hot spot' giving that the hot spot is not a fingerprint of anthropogenic warming specifically but is instead an outcome in models concerning any type of warming and is a result of the differences between the dry adiabatic lapse rate and the moist adiabatic lapse rate?
You claim the Arctic is melting and the Antarctic is growing. This is false. The Arctic is indeed in melting in both sea ice extent and volume.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/...
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/...
Antarctic SEA ICE is increasing slightly. The trend in Antarctic sea ice growth is small compared to Arctic sea ice loss.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/...
I have previously stated that the loss of ozone and increased stratospheric wind speeds played a role. It has, however, recently been shown to me via peer reviewed literature that this is not the truth. Other factors that play substantial roles, and larger than I previously thought, are ocean oscillations and freshening.
http://www.atmos.albany.edu/daes/atmclas...
Your claiming that you read 'science sites also' couldn't be further from the truth I'm sure. for one, you stick mainly to Watts and post article after article from his blog. If you read science sites you would actually be interested in science. From your posts as well as your selections for best answers, most of which do not even answer your question but merely make fun of science, one can tell you are rather anti-science and stuck in your own little dream world.
Edit: The tropical hotspot is a consequence of any type of warming and is due to convection of moist air particles. You, yourself, have argued that convection plays a major role. The consequence of there being a tropical hotspot is less warming at the surface. You are trying to argue both sides.
Furthermore I have tried to point you to 'the science' but introducing you to free university courses dealing in a number of subjects. you declined and instead stated that you chose not to take them because you thought they were part of the conspiracy. Does it sound very scientific to you to ignore something that would teach you the ins and outs of what you are attempting to discuss rather than you doing it yourself by reading ill informed blogs?
Quote by Gerrit van der Lingen, scientist: “Being a scientist means being a skeptic.”
No it is rather obvious that the other side will not accept evidence. For example,
Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”
Another example,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
This is data taken by an organization that was set up to prove AGW. Hardly an unbiased opinion against GW. Yet the greenies deny that the earth is cooling. Who is refusing to accept evidence? Why the greenies of course.
The US Navy operates under the Artic Ice and they confirm that it's rapidly thinning. The only thing that can melt the underside of an ice pack is warm sea water. Ice at the South Pole is a different story. Most of that area is high mountains. That means that the temperatures in those mountains are always far below freezing. At the same time because of very slightly warmer atmospheric temperatures there's more moisture in the air surrounding this continent. As this sea level moisture rich air rises into the mountains it precipitates out as snow adding to areas glaciers.
From the above one serious face emerges... retained atmospheric heat doesn't stay in the atmosphere. It warms sea water which in turn melts floating ice fields and evaporates ocean moisture leading to more snow at the higher elevations depending on ocean currents, winds and other factors. The main thing to remember is that heat energy doesn't stay in the atmosphere...it migrates rapidly to a colder venue.
I have been labelled a denier, and told that I blindy am a skeptic and would refuse all new evidence, not true as yet I know of no evidence that will convince me of climate change, however I was once a climate change believer and evidence showed me it was wrong.
What could convince me, well with the coming solar minimum and the PDO in negative phase I do not expect much warming (except with El Nino) so if temperatures started to climb strongly I might have to have second thoughts, if a strong tropospheric hotspot formed, that could give doubts.
I am open to any new evidence you have.
>>with the coming solar minimum and the PDO in negative phase I do not expect much warming<<
>> (except with El Nino) so if temperatures started to climb strongly I might have to have second thoughts<<
So, you “expect” some warming, but you do not consider some warming to be real warming – only “strong” warming is real warming; but even “strong” warming is not real warming if anything else on the planet warms at the same time.
>>What could convince me<<
Good question – since you do not believe that warming is evidence of warming.
check out the evidence at NASA.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
Please define a "strong" temperature climb and a "strong" tropospheric hot spot. Otherwise, obviously, you can always weasel your way out by saying it wasn't strong enough. So give a precise requirement.
Obviously it would be a stronger argument if you gave a clear, physics-based argument to back up your choices, but I would never expect so much from you, so I won't ask.
No, just the contrary. I simply have higher standards then the average alarmist. It's gone from being alarmist sheeple to sluglets. Yes, I made those references up. I just couldn't make a more intelligent comparison between skeptics and the brain dead.
There is no evidence just made up fiction
When you read denier websites and refuse to read science books, where do you expect to find the evidence to convince you?
Ummmm, how about the Ice caps are melting, and we are having 100 year storms every few years.
