Global Warming? 2011 shows we are 1.5 degrees warmer! TwistedCharm: Climate change observations from the UK MET Office December 2010 was the second coldest and November 2011 the second warmest in the Central England temperature record dating back to 1659. The extreme warm average temperature in November 2011 is 60 times more likely to have occurred than in the 1960s. The change in odds of the extremely cold December was considerably less, however, being only about half as likely. Even without climate change, unusual circulation patterns can still bring very cold winter months. In 2011, Texas had its hottest and driest summer in records dating back to 1895. While the heat wave was associated with La Nina conditions in the Pacific Ocean, the heat wave was 20 times more likely in such conditions than it would have been only 50 years ago. There were some remarkable temperatures across Western Europe in 2011. Comparisons to the temperatures previously associated with the weather patterns seen in 2011 reveal the year was almost 1.5 deg C warmer than can be attributed to weather patterns alone.  Geoff: It has also been one of the wettest years on record, certainly for April and June both of which broke previous records on rainfall. The problem is, the issue of Climate Change is difficult to quantify clearly right up to the point that the world's meteorological patterns change irrevocably. The weather of this planet is a semi-stable dynamic system, while it remains largely balanced an event that knocks it off balance can cause it to become stable in a whole new way. This doesn't mean that the world's temperatures will all rise equally, the weather is used an example in the teaching of chaos theory for a reason. It is equally likely we are on the cusp of a new ice age. While there have been natural events in the past which have caused such a change, it is highly likely that humanities' activities are causing something similar. All that being said, if the climate change lobby are just a "conspiracy", then perhaps they are a beneficial one. Reducing our dependence of fossil fuels before they actually do run out would be an amazing achievement. Especially as it would result in: - Better air quality, especially in developing countries. - Reduced tensions in the world's oil producing regions (Middle East, Africa), after all - would Britain and America have invaded Iraq if there was no oil? - Reduced taxation on the consumers (even if you find a way to replace your fossil fuel driven car, everything you buy is affected by both the cost of oil derived fuels and the government's taxation of them). And the oil is going to run out one day. Perhaps we should not wait for it to happen and come up with a viable alternative now.  askquestions: Source: In order to prove that global warming is anything close to a "hoax" you'll have to debunk longstanding scientific evidence that predates the whole global warming controversy. It won't be easy, but you can do it! Be aware that in the 1800s, scientists like Tyndall & Arrhenius showed that CO2 has significant effects on temperature. The evidence was solidified in the 1950s by Revelle and others. But of course they were all lying from the start. Science conspiracies run deep - even backwards in time! Apparently they do know a few tricks laymen can't understand. Here's what's required to be taken seriously by elitist scientific panels who want hard-working Americans to live in caves: 1) PROVE that CO2 is not a significant, lingering, heat-trapping gas, and that it has no effect on atmospheric heat content. Water vapor (a common diversionary scapegoat) may trap more net heat, but CO2 creates a cumulative amplifying effect over many years. You have to add the effects of CO2 to water vapor, not just compare the two. See: http://goo.gl/nlN4E (NewScientist) 2) PROVE that Man is not raising CO2 levels far beyond natural levels in modern times. Despite repeated claims to the converse, humans put out over 100 more times CO2 than volcanoes. See: http://goo.gl/A88CZ (USGS) 3) PROVE that it's impossible or illogical for more CO2 to trap more heat over long periods time. Global temperature data show a heating trend that matches population growth and increased fossil fuel burning around the world. Skeptic Richard Muller verified this independently in 2011 but his disappointed backers chose to downplay or ignore the findings. See: http://goo.gl/hExGC ("BEST" study) Failure to prove those 3 main points leaves one with little more than conspiracy theories or paranoid anti-tax rhetoric. No amount of righteous indignation will correct the imbalance Man is causing. Good luck with your phony proofs.  duncan124: " anti-tax rhetoric." The oceans absorb and release CO2 as no-one has yet explained what effect this has, and because oceans are very much bigger then countries any assumptions about heat retention are without much true base. The Polish have predicted warming over the last century and their scientific expectations have been proved true over time. The warming is due to changes in the Earths orbit. (Edited by duncan124) TwistedCharm: Most of the scientists agree that is the future trend and we need to act now to make for an alternative future. duncan124: 'Climate Change' is not 'Global warming'. The 1,5 change was totaly predicted by Polish scientists and recently mentioned in contection with the storms in Poland. (Post deleted by askquestions ) askquestions: @Rad, chem trails: http://www.sprword.com/search.html?cx=partner-pub-9591029510325363%3As7p9dsuhdj5&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=chem+trails&sa=Search TwistedCharm: COME ON ASK! You know that FOX is a media company that is backed by the finances of the industrial machine!?!?!!? OF course they would want Global Warming to be a load of bullshit, its good business for them! You can't be this easily brainwashed by the media??????? TwistedCharm: It doesn't matter who, there is some degree of correctness, but it just reeks of 'lets burn tons more oil', its ok lets pollute the planet! AND that SUCKS! At the very least if Global Warming is a load of TOSH.... at least we will have a damn cleaner planet... is that such a bad thing?  OCD_OCD: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/ No cause for global alarm. TwistedCharm: OK, no one has come back to me, on the fact that regardless of global warming, we need to stop polluting the planet? Well? askquestions: Indeed. The obvious shouldn't be needed to be articulated into a question. Why ask a question that you already know the answer to Raddy boy! Silly Billy.  StuckInTheSixties: The Forbes article cited is based on the "work" by the Heartland Institute. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute They are ANYTHING but objective. Perhaps consider this rather lengthy list of CREDIBLE scientific organizations that endorse the idea of climate change: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change StuckInTheSixties: If you don't want to bother wading through that list, here's the essence of the article in a nutshell: 97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming. In another study 97.4% of publishing specialists in climate change say that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. StuckInTheSixties: All ... hundreds of them? Debunked by the likes of the Heartland Institute. Look at that list. You really think they're all wrong? Or is that 2 - 2.6% wrong? | Science Chat Room 1 Person Chatting Similar Conversations |