So the only thing stopping warming in the US was pollution?

[Laize]

How ironic.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOT...tdrss&id=77966

[eriseis]

Are you pointing out the "irony" for shits and giggles or is it part of a larger agenda (considering your vocal conservatism, I doubt it isn't).

[Deadvolcanoes]

Title is a little misleading. Sulfates are only one type of pollution. The reflective phenomenon doesn't happen with CO2 because it only absorbs infrared and not visible. Air pollution=still a bad thing.

[Deleted]

Not surprising considering global warming is natural.

The amount humans are speeding it up is negligible at best. And even if we did stop all manufacturing and all pollution, and brought it down to 0. Global warming would probably only slow by like 0.00005%.

The Earth has had temperature curves of cooling and heating up for ages. This is nothing new even though Al Gore would like you to believe otherwise.

[eriseis]

Title is a little misleading. Sulfates are only one type of pollution. The reflective phenomenon doesn't happen with CO2 because it only absorbs infrared and not visible. Air pollution=still a bad thing.

Well, one of the articles cited does point out how the sulfate has affected rain patterns in areas of the US.

---------- Post added 2012-05-19 at 10:02 AM ----------

Not surprising considering global warming is natural.

Except the article points out the climate change in this zone in particular occurred due to human intervention?

[Zecora]

How ironic.

Nah, if you want high irony, look for people who refuse to accept scientific data from government sites when it shows that anthropogenic climate change is real, yet pounces on the chance to push the same sites when an article there shows something they agree with, or think they agree with.

Now THAT is ironic.

[eriseis]

Nah, if you want high irony, look for people who refuse to accept scientific data from government sites when it shows that anthropogenic climate change is real, yet pounces on the chance to push the same sites when an article there shows something they agree with, or think they agree with.

Now THAT is ironic.

He he, you win the thread.

[Zecora]

Not surprising considering global warming is natural.

The amount humans are speeding it up is negligible at best. And even if we did stop all manufacturing and all pollution, and brought it down to 0. Global warming would probably only slow by like 0.00005%.

The Earth has had temperature curves of cooling and heating up for ages. This is nothing new even though Al Gore would like you to believe otherwise.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/huma...termediate.htm

Read it. Knowledge is good, buying into "Climate Sceptic" lies is not.

[Deadvolcanoes]

And even if we did stop all manufacturing and all pollution, and brought it down to 0. Global warming would probably only slow by like 0.00005%.

Do you have any evidence to support these numbers, or is this just opinion stated as fact?

---------- Post added 2012-05-19 at 10:11 AM ----------

Now THAT is ironic.

+1. Good day sir.

[Deleted]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/huma...termediate.htm

Read it. Knowledge is good, buying into "Climate Sceptic" lies is not.

Yeah sure, go ahead and link random website articles that aren't even peer reviewed.

Why don't you take your own advice and acquire some actual factual knowledge?

You can start with the precautionary letter sent to Secretary General Ki-moon by 100 world-renowned scientists and PHDs.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/un-signatories.html

• Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

• The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

[Zecora]

Yeah sure, go ahead and link random website articles that aren't even peer reviewed.

Why don't you take your own advice and acquire some actual factual knowledge?

You can start with the precautionary letter sent to Secretary General Ki-moon by 100 world-renowned scientists and PHDs.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/un-signatories.html

As opposed to the thousands that can prove that it is real, right. Oh, by the way, wasn't that the letter signed by scientists working in the fields of among other, aviation metallurgy and so on?

As for the site, the material there is all taken from peer-reviewed journals.

[Deleted]

Global warming is a problem that needs to be acknowledged. Humanity has advanced significantly over the ages and it strikes me as ignorant to deny that we are part of the problem when a lot of what we do in day to day life disrupts the natural balance and cycles that our planet has gone through. We're cutting down large swathes of the natural greenery at an alarming rate and have been directly responsible for the extinction of countless species. So with that in mind, why is it such a stretch for people to admit that we're most likely a contributing factor to global warming?

[gingerlemon]

Global warming is a problem that needs to be acknowledged.

I think the USA is the only country left that doesn't acknowledge it ;p

[fizzbob]

i like the warm weather. we just had the warmest year in history due to the lack of a real winter for the first time in my life. 80 degree xmas this year vs. snow and 27 degrees last year

---------- Post added 2012-05-19 at 09:39 AM ----------

I think the USA is the only country left that doesn't acknowledge it ;p

that's a cheap shot considering the USA is at the forefront of dealing with it

[Deleted]

Isn't Earth supposed to be cooling now, aka temperatures should be dropping and not rising? That's what I have heard at least, as the 1500 cold period ended somewhere in the 17-18 hundreds with the 1800 warm period, which should be ending about now.

[semaphore]

You can start with the precautionary letter sent to Secretary General Ki-moon by 100 world-renowned scientists and PHDs.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/un-signatories.html

Yeah because 100 academics in mostly unrelated fields are obviously more authoritative than the thousand plus actual scientists who study the climate. Obviously economists and comptuer sciencists know more about the climate than people who, well, study the climate!

I don't know how is it that people can actually believe that a random small number like 100 carries any weight. Reminds me of when the Discovery Institute made that list of like 700 scientists who (kinda sorta) disagree with the theory of evolution - so actual scientists made a list of 1,200 scientists who do support evolution - all called Steve.

Science isn't done by a couple of hundred of people. It's an entire community, and you can always find fringe voices in any large community. Doesn't mean it is rational or even sensible to base major policy on fringe ideas. Moreover, not everyone in the academic community knows everything about each other's field of expertise. Simply having a PhD does not make you an expert in a completely different field in which you happen to have an opinion.

[Deleted]

As opposed to the thousands that can prove that it is real, right. Oh, by the way, wasn't that the letter signed by scientists working in the fields of among other, aviation metallurgy and so on?

LOL are you actually gonna try and attack the credentials of the scientists?

Some of the signatories are members of the freaking IPCC council!

Global warming is a sham. Yes, the earth is warming up, but we are not the cause. Our contribution is negligible and changing our lifestyle will not result in anything except us having a crappy lifestyle.

And if you think I'm some random conservative nutjob, you are wrong. I'm a staunch liberal but this entire Global Warming debate does not have it's roots in science. The scientific method is not being implored to investigate, and that's why we have a severely divided scientific community when it comes to this matter. If it was such a fact, I highly doubt Nobel laureates for science would be questioning it.

A more rational response to Global warming is finding more efficient ways of farming crops to feed the increasing world population. Better methods of water desalination, and finally more funding for space exploration and tera-forming of alternative planets.

Anything else is just unscientific BS.

I don't know how is it that people can actually believe that a random small number like 100 carries any weight.

If you honestly think that IPCC consultants don't know anything about climate change then....[LOL].

No offense, just saying.

[semaphore]

LOL are you actually gonna try and attack the credentials of the scientists?

I don''t know where you went to college, but I think in most places economics is not taught by the Faculty of Science.

[Deleted]

I don''t know where you went to college, but I think in most places economics is not taught by the Faculty of Science.

Firstly, nearly all of the signatories are either climatologists or physicists.

Secondly, rash action taken by governments against a non-existent threat has economic implications...

[Deleted]

Isn't Earth supposed to be cooling now, aka temperatures should be dropping and not rising? That's what I have heard at least, as the 1500 cold period ended somewhere in the 17-18 hundreds with the 1800 warm period, which should be ending about now.

short answer is no. Technically the planet is still in an ice age and wont "reset" itself until that's over. The cycles are a bit more complex than you've put there. generally the earth should cycle about every 15000 years. Data does imply we are "overdue" on our next apparent ice age but as we haven't fully left the last one it wont trigger any time soon.

Personally id be more worried about yellowstone volcano erupting than global warming atm