Global Warming. Hotter Summers = Colder Winters. GET IT>>??

I've put this in Rant because that's what it is. I'm getting SICK and TIRED on conservative types laughing it up every time it gets cold outside and thumbing their noses at the scientific facts. You know what I mean, The Drudge report (conservative go-to msm site) mocks Al Gore continuously every time a snow flake falls, as do many other "no brain" columnists and blogs. Also the odd denying, "I want it all screw the earth" FB couch junkie.
Imo it just makes them look un-informed (aka dumb) -and is a blatant attempt to deceive an easily deceived public.
-It's all politics, problem is that it's stupid politics, Listen..Cold weather is a product of global warming.
Can you understand that? ??

Get it through your heads deniers!!

The world is getting warmer, which should mean warmer winters - right? Wrong - a new study shows that global warming produces colder winters and heavier dumps of snow for large swathes of the northern hemisphere.

environmentalresearchweb.org...

Warmer summers in the far Northern Hemisphere are disrupting weather patterns and triggering more severe winter weather in the United States and Europe, a team of scientists say, in a finding that could improve long-range weather forecasts. Blizzards and extreme cold temperatures in the winters of 2009/10 and 2010/11 caused widespread travel chaos in parts of Europe and the United States, leading some to question whether global warming was real. Judah Cohen, lead author of a study published on Friday in the journal Environmental Research Letters, and his team found there was a clear trend of strong warming in the Arctic from July to September.

www.reuters.com...

New research, however, goes further, showing that global warming has actually contributed to Europe's winter blues. Rising temperatures in the Arctic -- increasing at two to three times the global average -- have peeled back the region's floating ice cover by 20 percent over the last three decades. This has allowed more of the Sun's radiative force to be absorbed by dark-blue sea rather than bounced back into space by reflective ice and snow, accelerating the warming process. Read more at: phys.org...

phys.org...


why can't conservatives wrap their brains around this?
Is oil seriously that important to you?
Get your heads out of the stone/oil age folks.

reply to post by canucks555


So you're saying the polar ice is melting?

DeepVisions
reply to post by canucks555

 

So you're saying the polar ice is melting?

Global average temperatures are going up. Fact.

I believe the climate has been changing on this planet since it began. It ebbs and flows,freezes and melts. What I refuse to believe,is that man or anything he has done in the last 200 years has hastened a naturally occuring cycle.

canucks555

DeepVisions
reply to post by canucks555

 

So you're saying the polar ice is melting?

Global average temperatures are going up. Fact.

edit on 8-1-2014 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)

If it's a fact why did the IPCC, Al Gore and other promoters of the Church of AGW have to commit fraud and/or fudge numbers to get their point across? Go into court sometime and try and prove a point based on real factual physics, you'll find that the judge is able to change reality. We are going into an ice-age, cold is a lot more persistent than heat. I imagine you've seen glaciers before.

Cheers - Dave

What caused this.....

Little Ice Age (1350 - 1850)

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries,[3][4][5] or alternatively, from about 1350 to about 1850,[6] though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. NASA defines the term as a cold period between AD 1550 and 1850 and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.[7] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the LIA suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation. At most there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.[8]

Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, an inherent variability in global climate, or decreases in the human population.

I don't think many disagree that the climate is changing. Just that it's not man that is responsible.

reply to post by canucks555


I am not saying that humanity has no effect on this planet, and I wholly agree that we need to stop the destruction of the rain forests, and minimize polution.

I am, however saying that this planet, like all of the other planets in the solar system go through cyclical weather changes. To blame climet change solely on humanity is as dumb as saying that humanity has no effect at all.

Cyclical, abrupt and dramatic global and regional temperature fluctuations have occurred over millions of years. Many natural factors are known to contribute to these changes, although even the most sophisticated climate models and theories they are based on cannot predict the timing, scale (either up or down), or future impacts- much less the marginal contributions of various human influences.

While global warming has been trumpeted as an epic climate change crisis with human-produced CO2, a trace atmospheric “greenhouse gas” branded as a primary culprit and endangering “pollutant,” remember that throughout earlier periods of Earth’s history CO2 levels have been between four and eighteen times higher than now, with temperature changes preceding, not following atmospheric CO2 changes.

www.forbes.com...

There is no doubt that some on the global warming issue have finances influencing their actions.
There is no doubt that some of the global warming 'debunkers' have financial reasons for their actions.

Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, said: “We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”

Experts from across the scientific spectrum accept that temperatures have levelled off and Britain’s Meteorological Office has produced three reports on the subject.

In July, one of the studies by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre, in Exeter, said: “Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s.

“But there has been little ­further warming over the most recent 10 to 15 years to 2013. This has prompted speculation that human-induced global warming is no longer ­happening, or at least will be much smaller than predicted.”

www.express.co.uk...

reply to post by canucks555


OP?

I've looked (and couldn't find) average yearly temps going back 5,000 years, or 50,000 years. I did find the "hockey stick" chart that was proven false, but have not found anything that would indicate that temperature extremes are occurring.

I want to put this at a geological scale.

Finding something of that nature that would indicate that this is indeed, man-made, would go a long way of convincing the skeptics.


Never mind!

Found it!

If liberals want to be taken seriously about global warming they need to put a muzzle on people like al gore. He declares that the ice caps will be gone by now and they get bigger. He says reduce our carbon footprint, then lives in a house thats bigger than the high school I went to.
How about Leo decaprio, he buys an electric car.. At $100k no less.. To be green. Then he buys a ticket to space on a private spaceship. How much carbon is he blowing into the atmosphere for that little joy ride?
They gotta start practicing what they preach..

Well this is ATS so there is nothing at all wrong with having an opinion that is in the minority.



www.wunderground.com...

see the little grey "hills" on the bottom? That's the "deniers" view. Or at least the scientists that disagree. It's too lop sided to be political people.


Wall of fricken orange and red. Opinion of the experts.

It's kinda like the Niburu threads here. Sure people post them and they have every right too, but the majority of us know that these stories of Niburu (spll) are hog wash.

In the face of such staggering stats I believe 80% of deniers do so for political reasons.

AccessDenied
I believe the climate has been changing on this planet since it began. It ebbs and flows,freezes and melts. What I refuse to believe,is that man or anything he has done in the last 200 years has hastened a naturally occuring cycle.

You seriously believe humans have no impact on the climate? Seriously?

reply to post by canucks555


Deniers don't get the funding that the others get.

It's all aboot the money!

(little Canadian twist in there)

Hoosierdaddy71
If liberals want to be taken seriously about global warming they need to put a muzzle on people like al gore.

SCIENTISTS. It's SCIENTISTS that want you to take this seriously.

When you get so wrapped up in an agenda to where even the freakin' weather is a political hot button... I don't even know what to say.

reply to post by Cuervo


When politicians use weather to motivate their campaign, how can you not approach it with a cynical bent?

abeverage

AccessDenied
I believe the climate has been changing on this planet since it began. It ebbs and flows,freezes and melts. What I refuse to believe,is that man or anything he has done in the last 200 years has hastened a naturally occuring cycle.

You seriously believe humans have no impact on the climate? Seriously?

edit on 8-1-2014 by abeverage because: (no reason given)

I believe I stated, as you quoted, that man has not contributed to the natural occuring cycle of a changing planet. Being the extremes of weather that everyone is discussing recently,as well as whether or not the polar ice is melting.
I think it honestly egotistical to think in a short span of time, humans have made such an irrevocable " mistake" in managing the planet, as some would have us believe.
Sorry, but the history of volcanic activity, and for gosh sakes, cow flatulence are no doubt more of a threat if one needs a scapegoat.
Make no mistake, humans have caused damage to this little blue marble, but not to the extreme that it has caused millions of years of planetary weather to suddenly alter at our presence.

Cuervo

Hoosierdaddy71
If liberals want to be taken seriously about global warming they need to put a muzzle on people like al gore.

SCIENTISTS. It's SCIENTISTS that want you to take this seriously.

When you get so wrapped up in an agenda to where even the freakin' weather is a political hot button... I don't even know what to say.

When you say (SCIENTISTS) i say refer to the post above yours. The scientists say what the funding tells them to, if not directly they present it in a way that flatters their sponsors politics.

beezzer
reply to post by Cuervo

 

When politicians use weather to motivate their campaign, how can you not approach it with a cynical bent?

Then attack the politics, not the science.

Hoosierdaddy71

Cuervo

Hoosierdaddy71
If liberals want to be taken seriously about global warming they need to put a muzzle on people like al gore.

SCIENTISTS. It's SCIENTISTS that want you to take this seriously.

When you get so wrapped up in an agenda to where even the freakin' weather is a political hot button... I don't even know what to say.

When you say (SCIENTISTS) i say refer to the post above yours. The scientists say what the funding tells them to, if not directly they present it in a way that flatters their sponsors politics.

Holy nuts, how can I even respond to that? You have a scientific method in place to conduct studies. You have TONS of peer reviewed papers supporting the claims and only a comparative hand full disputing it.

Anybody can say what you are saying! If there's something in science I don't like, I can just say it's "funding"?!

Cuervo

beezzer
reply to post by Cuervo

 

When politicians use weather to motivate their campaign, how can you not approach it with a cynical bent?

Then attack the politics, not the science.

Exactly!

As I've tried to illustrate with my wee chart prior.

We have to put climate in context.

Climate didn't just start a few hundred years ago.