Reply With Quote
Accepting the OP at face value, I agree.
I'll say this too.
What's the big ing deal?
I admitted it was the hottest recorded year in the US. The US represents 2% of the Earth's surface. What is it I'm denying? Are you saying it was the hottest year globally?
Accepting the OP at face value, I agree.
I'll say this too.
What's the big ing deal?
No, that would be the subject and predicate of the question. If anything that would be grammar not what the words mean but instead word ordering and who the question is asked of and the predicates apply.
Do you do anything other than try and mislead?
At a 71.7 degree average, 2012 was only a tenth of a degree cooler than 2011 for San Antonio. Not exactly a mild year.
I heard today from a coworker that southern California is colder than normal. Anyone know?
You must live in air conditioning 24/7 if you believe that .
Weather instability was predicted 30+ years ago to be result of global warming.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...alifornia.html
Temperature Records
- 356: Number of all-time temperature highs tied or broken in the United States in 2012
- 5-to-1: The ratio of daily record highs to daily record lows in 2012 – the largest ratio of this kind since record-keeping began in 1895
- 55.3°F: The average temperature in the United States in 2012 (3.3°F higher than the 20th Century average)
- 76.9°F: Average temperature in July 2012, the hottest month ever recorded in the contiguous United States (3.6°F above the historical average)
- 19: Number of states experiencing a record warm year
Impacts
- 99.1 million: Number of people experiencing 10 or more days that exceeded 100°F in temperature – more than one-third of America’s total population
- 65.5 percent: Area of continental United States experiencing drought during its peak in September
- 11: Number of estimated disasters in 2012 that caused more than $1 billion of losses each.
- 8.5 million: Total number of homes that lost power during Hurricane Sandy
- 300,000: Number of acres burned during the largest wildfire in New Mexico’s recorded history
- 350: Number of homes destroyed by Colorado’s Waldo Canyon wildfire, the state’s most destructive wildfire in history
- 19: Number of named storms and hurricanes in 2012 – an above-average amount of tropical cyclone activity
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ear-on-record/
Off-The-Charts Heat Wave Brings Australia Its Hottest Average Temperature And New Map Colors For Temps Above 122°F!
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ew-map-colors/
And in January, too! Imagine what July will be?
Serious?And in January, too! Imagine what July will be?
1st, stop with the daily weather comments, has nothing to do with global warming. The global temp doesn't need to climb 30 degrees in order to up. It's real, stop toeing the party line and use your heads for something other than a nut cracker. It's like front porch talk listening to this "well they say global warming is happening but it's cold as today, so I don't believe it" . It's still cold in the Arctic, but it's getting warmer on a global scale. If nothing else, just the fact that humans are producing heat and changing lay of the land should be enough for some to give it consideration. Instead it's all party line ignorant ass jesus bull . Sure, believe a dead man will come back from the sky and take you all to an invisible land where the streets are made of gold, but this well do ents global event cannot be happening because it's not hot today.
More semantics
Why do people always focus on America when it comes to climate change or global warming? Isn't this phenomenon suppose to be a global problem meaning that the whole world is responsible for it?
That doesn't even make sense.I guess you think the recorded temperatures are wrong because you proclaimed it a mild year.
What word am I disputing the meaning of?
Semantics
You repeated the premise. Also you brought up semantics and are playing word games with it. Circular argument. Your schtick is lame.
What if it's just a natural process and there's really nothing to worry about? I mean what would be so bad with that possibility? Why all the gloom and doom?
Pretending like scientists havent analyzed climate cycles in determining change in temperature that is naturally occurring so as to distinguish from man made effects is fun I guess. They even cross reference those conclusions to predictions based on greenhouse models. It holds up.
All your statement does is indicate that you have no conception of climate science.
1. Because the US is the second largest producer of CO2 emissions after China.
2. Because the US has refused to commit to international treaties intended to reduce emissions.
3. Because the US has a government that can ostensibly be changed to suit the needs/desires/interests of its citizens as opposed to an intransigent plutocratic totalitarian regime like China's or developing nations without the infrastructure, financial resources, and/or political will to pass/enforce legislation concerning greenhouse emissions.
4. Because articles posted here are written for American audiences -- perhaps in hopes of appealing to readers' reason and setting political action in motion (see point 2).
5) Because there our long term climatic cycles and our CO2 output does very little to perturb them.
What study can you cite that says a particular climate cycle --something like ENSO-- correlates for the climate we currently experience? I can show you the BEST analysis that tested multiple climate cycles and determined that the patterns deviate significantly. You know this too as it's been discussed several times ie about once a season.
Cause aside, and catastrophic weather events aside as well, global warming is something to worry about because it will inevitably lead to the displacement of large populations, as well as the destabilization of national and global economies and essential resource supply chains that cannot adapt to changes quickly enough (ie, all of them).
These consequences suck in and of themselves, but they also create conditions which lead to war, be it civil or international. All to say that if the pattern of warming continues (and no climatological research that hasn't been underwritten by industrial PACs suggests otherwise), you shouldn't kid yourself: there's plenty to worry about.
Can you cite an open peer reviewed study that disproves my claim? 2013 is expected to be very hot globally because of the combined known natural cycles.
Can you show me anything that shows Black Carbon over the Arctic Ice as insignificant? Have any idea how much Asia dumps in the air, that ends up over the northern ice?
Can you show me conclusive studies that show Heat islands as insignificant, or not messing with the temperature readings?
Stop pushing your CO2 agenda. Yes, there is anthropogenic warming. However, CO2 is not properly shown to have significance.
Oh... Don't forget... CO2 levels change with temperature...
Says the climatologist with the education, field experience, and technological infrastructure to defend his conclusions. Hubris.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
