loyds1000

Of course climate has been warming, cooling and changing through the history of the earth. Science teaches this, quantifies it, models it, and describes the changes mathematically (these collections of mathematical equations that correspond to what we observe and called SCIENTIFIC THEORIES) so that we can recreate it. Scientist have modeled the Milankovitch cycles, solar cycle, volcanic activity that are all among the primary natural drivers of NATURAL changes. Scientists have recreated past climate using these models accurately. The current warming is unique in that CO2 typically rises AFTER temperature rises because of the increased rate of decay. Now, CO2 concentrations are rising BEFORE temperature, and the concentration of additional greenhouse gas in the atmosphere corresponds with the amount of f****l f**ls being combusted. This is caused by humans. The concentration has increased at an extremely fast rate, and temperature changes have been equally fast - much faster than most natural change. About half of human emissions are absorb by the ocean at this point in time as the differentials in partial pressures of the gases allow the ocean to absorb more. But the ocean is warming. At some point, the process will reverse because as the oceans warm and the warmer water mixes into the deeper layers of the ocean. The increase in heat content of the ocean means that the ocean will not absorb as much greenhouse gas in the future and could become a source instead of a sink. The acidity level has already increased because of the additional CO2 it adsorbs from the atmosphere. Here is information if you are interested in reading a little science.

http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

This is no fairytale. This is what the science has suggested will happen based of what we know of physics and chemistry, and what we can observe and tests.

What are your opinions based on? Not scientific concepts and observable facts. If you have anything more than political propaganda from blog sites that can be discussed, please post it. Some intelligent ideas and concepts from denialist would be a welcome change. You have no scientific foundation or evidence to back up your opinion. All you have is an opinion that is completely unsubstantiated by facts. That is the fairytale you have bought into, hook, line and sinker. Time to rub the sleep out of your eyes and put on your big girl panties and face reality.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rest assured I am not trying to convince you of anything, but merely answering your challenge to provide some sources of my thinking re g****l w*****g. There are numerous sources backing my statements, but am sure you will accept none of them as having any credibility as you are a dyed in the wool believer in the h**x.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/05/global-warming-theory-has-failed-all-tests-so-alarmists-return-to-the-97-consensus-h**x/

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55939

http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm

loyds1000

Two out of three are bogus. The are nothing but opinion pieces that do not even link too anything to back-up their claims. Just take their word for it. Do you believe everything conservative political blogs tell you? For example, the "Canadian Free Press" article (the author is not a scientist,what makes him qualified as an "expert" on the subject) repeats statements from other experts that are unpublished, anywhere. No links to support their claims. The Heartland institute is a well-known conservative denialist group paid by Exxon-Mobile to seed doubt about g****l w*****g. That is fair enough, but Exxon's own geologist looked at the methods and results related to g****l w*****g and found it credible. But, ignoring their own scientist, Exxon continues to fund them despite repeated vows to stop funding denialism.


http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/01/03/scientists-exxonmobil-paid-groups-to-mislead-public-on-global-warming//gcr_contributions_publicpolicy12.pdf
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business



Keep in mind that exon makes more money in 1 quarter than has been spent of g****l w*****g research since the 1890s, so funding denialsim to put off regulations another few months could earns them 10s of billions. Great investment.
Still, what you present is not science. It is politics.

wnho site - only links to blogs with more unsubstantiated information. No science involved. Just lame.

I like the James Watts site. It raises some valid questions that need to be addressed. Note, this leveling off does not mean that there is no g****l w*****g - mean temperatures have not declined to what they should be with no human impact, but it does have points that need to be addressed.

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#globalTemp

The temperatures are the mean observed change temperatures derived from stations all over the planet since the late 1800s. The change is relative to the mean temperature from 1951 through 1980.

Note that the temperature between 1880 and 1920 fell or is flat. From 1920 until WWII, it increased. It then leveled off until about 1970 - it did not fall significantly, just leveled off. The temps climbed until the early 2000s. Note that temps have leveled off again and not fallen significantly. This suggest that the long term temperature trend has not changed. And you claim that the "no increase " period for the past 10 to 15 years means g****l w*****g is wrong? I think you read too much into a very small time period. But I'll try to research it more over the next couple of weeks and post what I find. It could be a reversal, but it could take one or two decades to see a true downward trend emerge.

carolyn

I believe people who work outside are the one's who notice temperature change more. I garden extensively and can be witness to the wet weather we have been having for the last two years. But I have had people who work in offices or other indoor jobs all day try and tell me that the weather has not been "all that wet." I can attest to the wetness because of the mud I fight to try and raise quality food, when these people go to the supermarket and buy their junk that is supposed to pass as food. Now who should be more informative as to when it rains and when it is dry outside?

As to whether the seasons were colder when we were kids is also noticed more by the outside person than the ones cooped up in a warm house all day. And one has to also consider that clothing is made more for warmth today than it was 60 years ago. When some of us were kids, we wore itchy, scratchy long underwear that was neither comfortable or all that warm. But today we have access to down-filled clothing that a person could lie down in the snow on a below zero day and still be toasty warm. If they had tried that 60 years ago, they would have been a solidly frozen block of ice.

BTW, how many have researched HAARP? Maybe more should do this.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

The above quote is accurate, so why do you believe that CO2 is the cause of warming? Usually the cause happens before the effect.

Also, you think you know the amount of warming over the past century, but you don't. The only data released by the Met office is the homogenized data they created from the raw data. When ordered to release the raw data under the UK's equivalent of FOIA, they claimed they "accidentally" deleted it.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Moved to Florida in 78 from Maine. While I was in the service when my father wrote it was always cold when he wrote, in the evening, -20 or better from Jan thru Fed. Two years before going in the service I cracked vinyl seats by sitting on them. Was reported after I got to school it was -92 with the wind factored in. Three cars at school that day.

Then when I moved here (78) it rained everyday at 1700 (5:00 PM) for about two years. Now it's back to the afternoon almost everyday with night time also. Extra rain when we have a near hurrican but almost the same every year.