Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think you may have accidentally mistitled the thread. Global warming implies the entire globe. You only included the temperature for Tulsa.Originally posted by TUMe:
July 16 at 6pm in Tulsa 68 deg. F.
Now I know that it's just weather. But remember that if it is 112 in couple of weeks.
Also not the entire globe, but more importantly it's not a report from the NOAA, but rather a flawed analysis of data provided by the NOAA (specifically the US Climate Reference Network) from the Heartland Institute.Originally posted by lawpoke87:
NOAA just reported that temperatures in North America have actually cooled by 0.4 degrees C over the past decade. While it's a very short time period the data is good news at least for our part of the world.
Thanks, for playing Captain Obvious. The words "Now I know that it's just weather" concede that in my post. Both sides are guilty of taking local weather as an example of what they believe. If you will read the second part and have been a reader of this board, you will notice that the advocates of "climate change" have been more than happy to blame droughts and high temperatures on climate change. I'm simply saying that you can't have it both ways. If unusually hot, dry local weather is a given as an example then unusually cool weather can be reported as well.Originally posted by voetvoet:
I think you may have accidentally mistitled the thread. Global warming implies the entire globe. You only included the temperature for Tulsa.Originally posted by TUMe:
July 16 at 6pm in Tulsa 68 deg. F.
Now I know that it's just weather. But remember that if it is 112 in couple of weeks.
So... only a govt agency can accurately skew the data?Originally posted by voetvoet:
Also not the entire globe, but more importantly it's not a report from the NOAA, but rather a flawed analysis of data provided by the NOAA (specifically the US Climate Reference Network) from the Heartland Institute.Originally posted by lawpoke87:
NOAA just reported that temperatures in North America have actually cooled by 0.4 degrees C over the past decade. While it's a very short time period the data is good news at least for our part of the world.
Originally posted by rabidTU:
Reality is what you feel
Originally posted by rabidTU:
And all the hoping and wishing ... won't make it so.
I must say that I am disappointed Voet. That is the kind of post I would expect from WATU2. Find the weakest thing that you can from the other side, post it, and feel superior.Originally posted by voetvoet:
Originally posted by rabidTU:
Reality is what you feelOriginally posted by rabidTU:
And all the hoping and wishing ... won't make it so.
Eastcane, you are right...but that makes it really too easy.Originally posted by eastcane:
Please TUME, there is a wealth a comments from Rabid that can be singled out for ridicule, it's really an endless list man. Like where do you start?
This post was edited on 7/21 2:01 PM by eastcane
So reality isn't real? If it feels cool it isn't? If the thermometer over the furnace reads its hot but in the next room its cold to the touch, then in reality is it hot? If manufacturing data and models prove wrong then it won't make it right no matter how you wish it to be so.Originally posted by voetvoet:
Originally posted by rabidTU:
Reality is what you feel
So if you hope the temperature is what it isn't and the weather proves you are completely wrong, your position is still right because you believe what you want, not the reality? OK. Got it!Originally posted by voet
Originally posted by rabidTU:
And all the hoping and wishing ... won't make it so.
This post was edited on 7/22 3:59 PM by TUMeOriginally posted by rabidTU:
Originally posted by voetvoet:
Originally posted by rabidTU:
Reality is what you feel
So reality isn't real? If it feels cool it isn't?
--------------------------------------------
Okay, your post makes a bit more sense, Rabid. You didn't mean "feel" in the sense of emotional feelings or beliefs, you meant what you are able to actually physically perceive.
My feelings are hurt.Originally posted by TUMe:
Originally posted by rabidTU:
Originally posted by voetvoet:
Originally posted by rabidTU:
Reality is what you feel
So reality isn't real? If it feels cool it isn't?
--------------------------------------------
Okay, your post makes a bit more sense, Rabid. You didn't mean "feel" in the sense of emotional feelings or beliefs, you meant what you are able to actually physically perceive.
This post was edited on 7/22 3:59 PM by TUMe
Thank you for being reasonable.Originally posted by TUMe:
First, the greenhouse principle seems pretty secure. But seems rather odd that of all the forces that could change the earth's temperature only CO2 concentration can be going on now. Secondly, the greenhouse does not predict temperatures. Most people would recognize that a trend that has been followed for the last 10 or 20 may not be predictable for 100 or 200. Finally, these predictions come from computer simulations. Things called parameters are plugged in. Small errors in these compounded over decades can be significant.
There seems to be a policy that if you are not believed you need to say it LOUDER, more often and more dire. And by the way NOAA, USGS, and NASA need more money to study it.
Good post Voetvoet,Originally posted by voetvoet:
Thank you for being reasonable.
Yes, there are many factors in play when considering climate change and global warming. The reason that we discuss CO2 isn't because it's the only factor, but because we can directly trace the source of this CO2 increase and that CO2 emissions are increasing at a rate much faster than these other factors.
The greenhouse effect alone does not control temperatures, but increasing the effect increases the temperatures. That's the issue.
When considering projections, I often think we'd all be better off ignoring these complex models and just considering the simplest model possible:
We know CO2 emissions have increased since the Industrial Revolution.
We know that CO2 emissions will continue to increase if no changes are made.
We know that increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases the global average temperature.
We know that increased global temperatures lead to many other, potentially damaging changes to the climate.
Acknowledging that, it seems obvious that we should be addressing this issue, not ignoring it.
Not any time soon, but I don't think that means we stop trying. We have to hope that our advancements in alternative energy become economically feasible enough to be attractive alternatives for these countries.Originally posted by Tu Geo:
Does the decrease in the West have any hope of offsetting the increase in the East?
Oh, btw, what problem is it this time?Originally posted by WATU2:
Keep in mind that the 'leader of the free world" has been unwilling to participate in multinational efforts to address these problems. The US's refusal to participate much less lead undermines global efforts to address these problems and gives other countries an excuse to avoid hard decisions as well.