- Joined
- Jun 23, 2005
- Messages
- 32,513
- Reaction score
- 22,793
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Well, for one, those mountains aren't the same place on the globe as they were 30 years ago. The plates are moving and they may be located in a place where 40 feet to the west or south makes a difference. There's probably a whole lot more blacktop in the area than there was 30 years ago, blacktop collects and reflects heat pushing weather higher up the mountain (that's what happens when warm wind strike a mountain range). Could be your memory isn't what it used to be, Have you checked old Almanacs going back thirty years to see what actually happened?
Just a little something to foster debate on the forum :argue
Then we have yet one more reason, too many Americans don't believe the science
"See, I told you warmists - it's not getting any hotter, in fact temperatures have dropped slightly." say far too many clueless folks who for some reason think their personal experience is good for the whole world.
You are argung with one of the few remaining pause deniers in the warmist camp.even the hard core warmists like Trenberth and Schmidy have have given up on that one. LOL
Water stores an immense amount of heat compared with air. It takes more than 1000 times as much energy to heat a cubic metre of water by 1 degree Celsius as it does the same volume of air. Since the 1960s, over 90% of the excess heat due to higher greenhouse gas levels has gone into the oceans, and just 3% into warming the atmosphere (see figure 5.4 in the IPCC report (PDF)).
Globally, this means that if the oceans soak up a bit more heat energy than normal, surface air temperatures can fall even though the total heat content of the planet is rising. Conversely, if the oceans soak up less heat than usual, surface temperatures will rise rapidly.In fact, most of the year-to-year variability in surface temperatures is due to heat sloshing back and forth between the oceans and atmosphere, rather than to the planet as a whole gaining or losing heat.
The record warmth of 1998 was not due to a sudden spurt in global warming but to a very strong El Niño (see figure, right). In normal years, trade winds keep hot water piled up on the western side of the tropical Pacific.
You only have 130 years to work with, I have thousands.I've read your posts.
You haven't demonstrated much reason to trust you.
The guys who are educated and spend their professional careers on this stuff say it was warmest vs. Some anonymous dude on the net that's either too lazy or incompetent to find a link to his claim.
Seriously? Was that with a Fahrenheit or Celsius thermometer?Well, when you look at the long term stuff, it looks worse.
View attachment 67176738
Chew on that a while.
Seriously? Was that with a Fahrenheit or Celsius thermometer?
Coming out of an iceage....yup it has been getting warmer,
with or without man.
I wonder if you can see the "trends" in this graph a little more clearly. Warming has not stopped at all.
The Oceans have continued to warm also....
Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998 - environment - 15 August 2008 - New Scientist
See how easy it is to learn something?
Thanks for the nonsensical response. I know I could count on one, but I really am impressed you pulled all the stops out this time.
The continuous US constitutes less than 5% of the world's surface, so what is your point??
Who was recording the world's temps back in the early 1900s?
We have temperature records back to the 1900s. More importantly though, we also have various proxies that we can go back much farther with. Why would you be so arrogant to think that something has occurred to you that has not occurred to climatologists that spend their life working in their field?
Not all climatologists agree.
My point is that those methods and gauges are not accurate enough to make sound judgments when were talking about such a small variance.
The vast, vast majority of climatologists do agree though.
Some op/ed doesn't change reality, the consensus for AGW is about as strong as it is for evolution:
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We have temperature records back to the 1900s. More importantly though, we also have various proxies that we can go back much farther with. Why would you be so arrogant to think that something has occurred to you that has not occurred to climatologists that spend their life working in their field?
Some op/ed doesn't change reality, the consensus for AGW is about as strong as it is for evolution:
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If Wikipedia said it, then it must be true.
I'll admit that Wiki has gotten a tiny bit better since they booted William Connolley. He deleted everything on all the Wiki climate pages that dared to be skeptical of AGW.
The entire article is sourced and footnoted.
Sure. mr . science denier.I
See how easy it is to learn something?
Of course it is, sourced and footnoted to support the favored theory.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?