Soooooo, where is the Warming?

[ammtd34]

We may be wrong about the apparent direction of climate change and its impact, but why not be wise for generations who will follow us?
It can't hurt us to be careful with this "tiny dot."

I'm cool with that. I think that this issue is oversimplified by a lot of people that I've read and listened. Why does it have to be either, "Man is responsible for the climate warming and the results will be catastrophic" or "Warming and cooling cycles are natural and we can't change it?"

Is it possible that man has accelerated an otherwise natural warming period and there could be positive and negative impacts because of that? Negative possibilities have been well-documented, but what about increasing the food supply by potentially growing food further North? Is it possible that our role in warming the planet has been overstated but we should work to reduce our emissions anyway to clean up our air and oceans?

The absolutism of each side of this argument, as with most modern arguments, is annoying.

[bjf123]

The absolutism of each side of this argument, as with most modern arguments, is annoying.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. Sadly, too many people are unwilling to consider anything that contradicts their point of view.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[XU Cowbell Kid]

If it's that simple, I wonder why all those scientists in the 70's who were declaring "global cooling" did not recognize this simple principle. What a bunch of dummies they were, and some of these global coolers who are still around are now claiming global warming.

This is a misconception. If you read this, you will see that more peer reviewed scientific articles in the 70s were published claiming global warming was occurring than global cooling. You can't use what is reported in the media as a replacement for peer reviewed science.

This is a good article from Time in 1974 which discusses global cooling:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/Time-I...24-1974-Sm.jpg

I know the original article was in Time Magazine, but just to give you a heads up about the website that is still propping up 1970s "science" that wasn't even accepted in the 1970s - the National Center for Public Policy Research gets most of their funding from ExxonMobil.

And this article gives a laundry list of articles discussing the dire consequences of global cooling:

http://www.populartechnology.net/201...-alarmism.html

Of that entire laundry list... there are zero cases of peer reviewed scientific research, and one government organization statement from NOAA. And the NOAA statement says "Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes." Check out this picture and you can see the "cooling" between 1940 and 1970. But the overall trend of the past 140 years is still pretty clear.

[XU Cowbell Kid]

And this article gives a laundry list of articles discussing the dire consequences of global cooling:

http://www.populartechnology.net/201...-alarmism.html

And one other thing - I've clicked on three links now that actually say that the temperatures are expected to rise due to an increase in CO2 levels. From one of the NYT articles: "The observations come at a time when a warming trend could have been expected from the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to the extensive fuel burning" - so they did know the science back then.

[Masterofreality]

MOR will never get it...climate is not the same thing as the weather outside one's house.

Except that Caf was the one who brought up one occurrence to determine that Climate Change was the cause.

Who's the instigator here?

[X-man]

Except that Caf was the one who brought up one occurrence to determine that Climate Change was the cause.

Who's the instigator here?

Reread Caf's post (#1596). The "one occurrence" he cited involved multiple storms, and he was arguing about a false equivalence.

[SemajParlor]

I'm cool with that.

Yes but how cool is it in Northeast Ohio??

[XU 87]

This is a misconception. If you read this, you will see that more peer reviewed scientific articles in the 70s were published claiming global warming was occurring than global cooling. You can't use what is reported in the media as a replacement for peer reviewed science.



I know the original article was in Time Magazine, but just to give you a heads up about the website that is still propping up 1970s "science" that wasn't even accepted in the 1970s - the National Center for Public Policy Research gets most of their funding from ExxonMobil.



Of that entire laundry list... there are zero cases of peer reviewed scientific research, and one government organization statement from NOAA. And the NOAA statement says "Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes." Check out this picture and you can see the "cooling" between 1940 and 1970. But the overall trend of the past 140 years is still pretty clear.

So if I understand what you're arguing- back in the 70's, the so-called "science" was dead wrong about global cooling and the disastrous effects it was going to have on the earth. If that's your argument, I agree.

[Masterofreality]

To answer the original thread question: Houston.

It's horrible to have to watch our climate change denying President tweet about how this is an unprecedented storm but not connect the dots.

Reread Caf's post (#1596). The "one occurrence" he cited involved multiple storms, and he was arguing about a false equivalence.

This is Caf's "original" post. Answer to 1st question? "Houston".

One occurrence. This storm. Not any past ones. That's not connecting any dots without further mention. Then he launches into a screeching diatribe against a President who he obviously hates.

[Caf]

This is Caf's "original" post. Answer to 1st question? "Houston".

One occurrence. This storm. Not any past ones. That's not connecting any dots without further mention. Then he launches into a screeching diatribe against a President who he obviously hates.

Have you nothing to say of the other posts or storms or floods?