Prove that, there are literally thousands of square miles of gelled methane on the ocean floors, none of it is monitored regularly, much less daily or even weekly. That methane comes to the surface, the amounts are irregular as is the frequency, but since its not monitored anyway, it seems very naive to say man's impact can be stated to a percentage when we know for a fact it cannot. Set aside methane, for a second as that is only one factor in climate, show us the all inclusive model that demonstrates ALL factors that effect climate, then we can see for ourselves what has the greatest impact or not. Oh wait, we don't have that model, so until we do, all this voodoo science should be taken with a grain of salt, and certainly never be used to influence our long or short term economic models...
Prove to me that you exist, first, and then I'll give you all the data you want. Otherwise I'm not going to waste my time on an entity that doesn't even exist.
I remember years ago before the hysteria over the warming reading that we will not be out of the ice age until both poles melt. So, that was inevitable, and I guess what has people alarmed is that the pole melting will be a few years sooner rather than later? For me, when we start addressing the co2 levels with land management, worldwide, increasing flora, halting and reversing rain forest deforestation...only then will I believe this is anything more than a scheme to take money from the middle and redistribute it to the top. The scheme of globalization, and the scheme of AGW and carbon taxes is just more of the insatiable greed with some sociopaths at the top. There just isn't near enough money to be made by the elites by addressing it with forestation, obviously. Why are the environmentalists only screaming for carbon taxes and not forestation and land management? I thought they hugged trees?
One thing to consider. This is a water world. The biggest repositories and sequestration of CO2 happens in the oceans. What we do on land is fairly minuscule in comparison.
I regret to say that the Environmental activism of years ago isn't near as prevalent today. Apathy has taken over. I'm an ECO-Nut, and most of my friends, like me, are holed up in Earthships in New Mexico and Colorado. These are the people who used to hold hands in a circle, around a tree, to protest logging. The people who laid down on the road, blocking a semi-truck of radioactive waste. People who rode bicycles, wearing a gas-mask. The Right loved to complain about us, but we got things done - The Clean Water, The Clean Air Act. Worldwide people started paying attention to rainforest destruction, nuclear wastes, and yes - Climate Change. These issues are no less true today than they were then. As a matter-of-fact - they are worse, as we are approaching "point of no return" threshholds - climate change, radioactive waste, deforestation, etc. Don't ask where I am - show us where you are!
You have proven this by replying to a post you obviously read and he obviously wrote. If THAT is not sufficient "Proof", then he does not exist and neither do you.
So global warming science is a fraud because 70% of studies are not reproducible? Wouldn't this argument prove all science is fraudulent too? Don't you think you need to actually show how the specific studies showing global warming are fraudulent instead of just throwing out a blanket statistic? Most science papers are published by individual scientists trying to write papers on small topics related to their research because papers helps their reputation, but they are usually small, insignificant, and forgotten. Often there isn't a lot of funding for each topic, and only a small group even know about it, and there are so many small individual papers that its impossible to thoroughly peer review each one. These papers are usually about slightly new topics making new hypotheses that haven't been confirmed with strong evidence yet. In addition a lot of papers are written by interns, post-docs, and grad students, not just experienced professors and researchers. Also, most scientists aren't the top ones in their field, and a scientist is just one out of the hundreds of thousands with a PhD (4 years post-grad study and a thesis) who do research at a lab or university for their job. A lot of research comes from only ordinary labs and universities, not the best, and often has limited or error prone equipment and staff. I know this because my wife is a scientist. I am not surprised that because of these limitations that 70% of research isn't reproducable because most papers don't have any real impact, are just hypotheses, and aren't the best quality. However more significant research coming from higher quality scientists from better universities, with better funding and equipment, and are famous enough to get more peer review won't necessarily have the same problems as the average science paper which isn't significant anyway. The research science is based on in all areas of science tends to disproportionately come from these more legit papers. So, the problems with the average paper doesn't disprove all of science.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/fc1a3511-ce61-32ac-8448-229fe4b97710/california-storms:-wettest.html California storms: Wettest water year, so far, in 122 years of records The first five months of California’s water year are the wettest in 122 years of record keeping, according to federal scientists. Between October 2016 and February 2017, California averaged 27.81 inches of precipitation, the highest average since 1895, according to data released Wednesday by the National Centers for Environmental Information, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This current water season slightly outpaced 1968-69 (27.34 inches average), when a series of powerful storms in January and February resulted in widespread flooding in Central and Southern California, resulting in at least 60 deaths, according to a federal report. The statewide precipitation values given by NCEI “represent area weighted average of values observed at weather stations across the state,” according to Nina Oakley, a California Climate Specialist with the Western Regional Climate Center, part of NOAA. Yup, that's exactly what I'd expect in a global warming scenario. So evident. It's all Global Warming's fault. It is as predicted, or shoulda been Moi
Are we together on the fact that a few months ago before the rains that the Calif. news headlines were about how the lack of rain was proof of AGW?
Yes, that's the great thing about Global Warming. Too much rain. Too little rain. etc. At the moment it adds up to Global Warming. What part does Moi have incorrect? Trust Moi. Weather Happens. It don't mean nothin' Moi oldman with no emoticon r > g They Play with Weather Weapons
1 degree of global warming won't magically stop rain storms. Think about it, if the temperature goes up 1 degree from 74 F to 75 F is that going to keep rain storms for happening? Florida is very warm but also has a lot of rain as well. Also, a warmer ocean will be more violent resulting in more hurricanes and rain storms.
I suppose that it is too obvious to point out that, yes, they might have an impact based on what dew points were, but sure.... To put a fine point on it, weather is a function of differences, pressure, wind, lift, etc. A more homogenized climate would significantly limit these kinds of influences that create our weather. So, a warmer ocean more broadly warm acts to hold down the propensity of violent weather. But he, don't let science get in the way of a good strawman....
But, but, butt, ( )0( ) that 1 degree or whatever took the blame for the drought. Go figure! Moi has. Global Warming is more political than science. Any weather catastrophe, Blame Global Warming. Historical records from 1200 years ago demonstrate it was warmer during the Medieval Climate Optimum. Yes it was. I don't need no CO2 data to prove otherwise. There are no wild grapes growing in Newfoundland nor anywhere near. Is there? Now, if YOU do believe Global Warming is real and is man made Then please do something about metropolitan areas where building materials are heat reservoirs. Too bad construction material isn't required to be more thermally identical to grasslands or forests. I have watched Doppler Radar as rains move east across the heartland. And as the storm approaches a metropolitan area, it weakens. True? Moi oldman emoticon gone Weather Happens! r > g Got Weather Warfare Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
WTF? I am one of those that no longer have an imaginary friend, and yes, science is our only hope. If you are saying you are anti-science, then the GOP is for you. The Luddite party. The Flat Earth party.
The media has a way of over-hyping everything. Please don't listen to them and instead read what the real scientists are saying. Global warming will increase the severity of droughts and rain storms, so the massive drought in California is record-breaking because of global warming but without global warming it would have still happened but wouldn't have been as record breaking. For the media and politicians it is more political. However the same can't be said for scientists without proof. That claim is false. Its about .5 degrees warmer today than back then. That still doesn't prove that today's warming isn't CO2 or that it isn't dangerous. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png I don't think buildings are warming up the entire planet only the local areas. Also, how much is the warming?
According to NASA a warmer ocean will lead to fewer storms but more powerful ones. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ClimateStorms/page2.php
Oh How We Disagree. Witness the loss of a,ll that California, concretely funneled to the Ocean with no flood plains to add to the water table. Moi suspects you are some urban fool with no clue, tell me it ain't true. And I Hate The New Improved Quote Function that don't work! Moi oldman emoticon, lost. r > g Get it now or pay for it later Canadian State Police State sharing information about . . Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
Either Way, Distraff's Global Warming politik will be interpeted as correct by the "faithful" What can one do with "fact" that don't fit Distraff's Politik - condemned like a . . And so it goes. Moi oldman with no emoticon r > g fools don't get it Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
You didn't actually address anything I said. If you don't have the decency to actually address the arguments I took the time to write out then we have nothing more to discuss.
Too Hot. Not Hot enough. Drought Rains & Flooding.All in the same geography over the last 10 years - witness the Greatest State of California And on the day it occurs, "Blame Global Warming" the paid for Scientist editorialize and the alarmist eat it up like the Hillary candidacy (liar, thief, graft, corruption, etc. yum yum) Tell me it ain't so! I like history. I like biology and studied ecology before it was a political word. Yes I did. Biological and Historical evidence demonstrates it is not as "hot" today as it was 1200 years ago. Written Chinese & European records. The disruption of Ancient American civilizations. I don't need no editorialized Scientist to flim-flam this or that or CO2 to say otherwise. Editorialized Science? Do you believe grants are issued on Scientific Neutrality? Then you be a fool! I have professional and family experience that demonstrates otherwise. Grants corrupts Scientific Neutrality in too many cases. What do alarmist have? "I believe!" "I believe and can regurgitate too" "I read the editorialized Science and I believe" Weather happens. Yes it does. When was a time a people did not feel a weather disruption upon them? Global Warming Alarmist play both sides. Their arguments are the Win-Win style we all wish for. Moi oldman emoticon, gone. r > g Their Polar Vortexes create droughts in the West Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
Why so resistant to the truth? The longer you doubters wait before taking up action, the more difficult it will be to fix. Your grandchildren will be the ones affected. How will they judge you?
How do you know that increased solar activity into the 1980's didn't increase water vapor our most common greenhouse gas, causing a sort of snowball effect of temperatures spiraling upward? From 1980 - 2000 we saw increases in water vapor, and increases in temperatures. From 2000 - 210 we saw decreases in water vapor, and even started seeing a drop in temperatures around 2007 - 2008. This seems to confirm my suspicions that it's mostly water vapor, rather than CO2 at play.
The average California temperate has risen 2.5 F since 1900 which is similar to the 2 F rise we have seen globally. Because of this when California goes into a hot spell it is 4 F hotter than the average for the 20th century instead of 1.5 F before. So warming in California is radically increasing the severity of droughts. And a rainstorm doesn't make the drought problems disappear. http://wildfiretoday.com/2014/09/13/rising-temperature-trend-in-california-january-through-august/ This is simply not true. https://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm Grants allow science to happen and provides the funding for it to happen. Since every part of science receives grants than according to you all science is wrong and corrupt. Also oil companies and right-wing groups are pouring money into anti-global warming research so you can't say all the money is going one way.
Which is also one possible prediction. There are, of course others. Homogenization doesn't inherently cause more powerful storms. Creating power requires significant differentiation. Kind of belies the process of homogenization.
I guess we should stop funding all climate science and just rely on your seemingly confirmed suspicions. Science deniers are science deniers.
