Hilarious - especially when we can view changes that are occurring already. Here, have a good read - https://www.edf.org/climate/how-clim...lunders-planet
Hilarious - especially when we can view changes that are occurring already. Here, have a good read - https://www.edf.org/climate/how-clim...lunders-planet
And? There is a first time for just about everything. The record temps for Ohio was set back in the 1930's. -39 F. But the record only goes back a hundred or so years. It was -37 F here in the 1980's one winter. I am sure the -39F will be broken too, eventually. I am sure it was much colder than that here sometime in the past.
This ice age the thread is about, if it happens, will not be the result of anything man has did, but what the sun on occasions does. Nether of us will be alive to know what the future of ice on Greenland and Antarctica will be 100 - 500 years from now. It may even grow thicker. Al Gore predicted back in 2008, within 7 - 8 years, there would be times, during the summers, the North Pole regions would be completely free of any ice. I saw the video. He was full of shit of course.
- - - Updated - - -
https://www.eh-resources.org/timeline-middle-ages/ was more than just 1600's, but during the 1600's. Earth was experiencing what they call a Little Ice Age. It actually started in the 1300's.
It's been mentioned already, but that's just a name. It wasn't an actual ice age. Sort of like how The Big Bang wasn't a 'bang' of any sort at all.
- - - Updated - - -
And what did scientists predict? This is probably rude, but frankly, Al Gore is simply an excuse to not address actual scientists at this point.
Did you look at the chart? It said that North America may have experienced average temps drops of 2 degree C. And there is solid evidence parts of Europe during that period experienced much colder winters than normal. And they did not last just a few years. But decades.
But he is one the of the top spokesmen for the Man Made Climate change agenda. So he should be on top of the recent data. :P
Mean while in Fort Mcmurray alberta, one of the coldest places in canada typically, is currently -3 Degree outside...
America and Europe are not the globe.
And nobody appointed Al Gore as a spokesman. Any schmuck with enough prominence can become an advocate for anything. But at this point, you guys are insisting on addressing whatever Al Gore says instead of whatever scientists say.
If you know Al Gore isn't a reliable source of information, why keep looking to him for climate change arguments? It comes across as totally dishonest.
A decade ago, I was a skeptic. I actually sent "The Great Global Warming Swindle" to my physics teacher, which is a shame I'll have to live with. Why did I change? Because I grew a pair and actually started reading material from scientists instead of Al fucking Gore. In my experience, the people who stopped being skeptics all did so after they read or watched explanations from actual scientists.
Yeah. It was -10 F here this morning, but is suppose to warm up into the high 30's F here starting tomorrow. lol. Such is winters. I can remember one Jan, When I played golf here in Ohio, with a short sleeve shirt on. It was in the low 70's. Then I also remember the winter of 1977-78, when we had a record blizzard, with heavy snow and 70 mph winds. The road in front of our house was drifted over with 4 foot deep drifts. They had to use a bulldozer to open it up. The odd thing is the day before that storm hit, it was in the 50's and rainy.
You are free to believe what you want. As I am. It has nothing to with having balls however. lol! But it can be a sign of immaturity to resort to insulting attacks rather then just a simple rebuttal.
- - - Updated - - -
What was it a week or two ago?
It's not an insult. I'm saying that you're either too afraid or too lazy to look at actual climate info. And that is the cold hard truth, because only looking to non-scientists for information is a conscious choice.
You are free to believe what you want. I am free to point out the above.
It is nether and once again, you resort to insults with someone you do not even know. Which can be a sign of immaturity. Not saying you are however.
I am not saying humans have zero impact on global warming. The more serous impact they are having is not green house gases, but water, ground and air pollution. This is a far greater threat to the earth and all living species. Ice ages and such, are going to happen in spite of humans.
The end of the world cant come soon enough.
Results are one thing, conclusions are another. "In Theory", we only can conclude what we can by what we've observed thus far. The way we've evolved our understanding of quantum physics is a perfect example of this. Using ice core samples and studying rock layers isn't an exact science but it gives us a good idea of how certain regional and global climates have changed over time. In truth, no rational scientist will admit that that the world has never heated (or cooled) at the current rate before because it's impossible to determine that given the information we have. Again, not saying humans aren't contributing to the current trend but we don't know well enough about the Earth's past to be able to make 100% certain conclusions that humans are the main cause. It's about being realistic.
Then what is your reason for not reading actual scientists on climate change? Because you have participated in multiple climate change threads over the years, and take the time to offer up links. What is your reason for having the time to talk about a subject while refusing to actually educate yourself on it?
And 'I don't have time' is not a legitimate answer. Every second that you spend talking about a subject you don't know is time better spent learning that subject.
Just because a majority of a group of people think something is correct, does not necessarily mean it is. I have read other scientist's reports which refute the studies which say mankind is the major reason for the recent warming period. I think BronzeCondor explained it as well, if not better than I could. I think the truth could very well be somewhere in the middle of the two stances. I am still open to more however, so it is not a closed cut case for myself.
So from what I gather so far, you've looked at global warming advocates and skeptic scientists.
Well if you're open to more, as you say, why not look at what all the rest of the scientists are saying? I'll note that none of what you wrote here actually answered the question of why you don't read them.
Edit: Also, most skeptic papers are flawed:
https://static-content.springer.com/...MOESM1_ESM.pdf