Update on global warming!

[H2Andy]

How about the people that ignore record cold because they wont open there eyes?

see?

you simply don't understand why you drive me crazy



(it's the average that matters. say that again: average. average temperatures. global average temperatures. over the whole globe. over a year's period ... average global temperature .... which has been climbing steadily as predicted for quite a while now ... avergae global temperature ... average ... average ... let's say it again .. average .... what's the word? hmmm... average? yes, average!)

 

[Hockeynut]

see?

you simply don't understand why you drive me crazy



(it's the average that matters. say that again: average. average temperatures. global average temperatures. over the whole globe. over a year's period ... average global temperature .... which has been climbing steadily as predicted for quite a while now ... avergae global temperature ... average ... average ... let's say it again .. average .... what's the word? hmmm... average? yes, average!)

Say Andy, it wouldn't be the "average" that your talking about?

 

[H2Andy]

why, yes!

give that man a Humvee for a prize...

wait...

 

[Wildcard]

I understand exactly what average is and record cold brings it down for the year. I also understand long term averages. My point is while everyone is yelling global warming, it's been very cold. I find that ironic/funny. Like someone yelling fire in a snow storm.
PS, I do understand why I drive you crazy and I have a lot of fun with it!

 

[LeFlaneur]

From an MIT leading researcher:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

Richard Lindzen contributed to the Channel 4 film mentioned earlier in this thread. So was Patrick Michaels from UVA. Call me crazy, but I still find myself skeptical of Cato institute studies funded by Exxon Mobil.

 

[LeFlaneur]

. I find that ironic/funny. Like someone yelling fire in a snow storm.

I'd sure yell fire in a snowstorm if something was on fire. No irony in that.

This whole issue is a bit like smoking. I know several people who smoked and never got cancer. Nevertheless, I don't smoke -- even though there is no guarantee that smoking will absolutely give me cancer, I think the evidence of a connection is strong enough.

The anti global warming people seem to apply the opposite logic. They seem to want indesputable proof that disaster will befall us before taking one step to avert it. Well in these situations, the only proof you get is the "cancer" itself. Too late then.

So why not take appropriate steps while we continue to study and debate. It's not as though curbing emissions and reducing oil dependency would be a bad thing. (Unless you work for the fossil fuel industry and are used to record profits year after year).

 

[lamont]

The anti global warming people seem to apply the opposite logic. They seem to want indesputable proof that disaster will befall us before taking one step to avert it. Well in these situations, the only proof you get is the "cancer" itself. Too late then.

Not only that, but it takes 50+ years for the climate to settle down and for the feedback reactions to reach equilibrium and the CO2 we emit persists in the biosphere for 50 years. So by the time the last skeptic has realized that we've created dangerous anthropological interference in the climate and we clean up our emissions we'll still have 50 years of steadily worsening climate beyond that level.

Its also very likely that there are global 'tipping points' which are difficult to recover from. There may be points where the ice is retreating fast enought that the Earth will become 'committed' to melting the ice caps completely and it will take millions of years of natural sequestration of carbon and GHGs to start regenerating the polar ice caps. The geological record tends to show that the Earth's climate is not a stable homeostatic system, and very long term, the ice age cycles and the cold Earth has only been around for about the past 20M years.