Is this a sign of Global warming?

Question

I am very sure that someone is totally convinced that Global Warming is happening, but did you look at what happend as far as the weather goes in the upper midwest of North America lately? I would think that if you had snow falling in late April, it may put a small dent in your argument. When you can use a statistically signifigant argument, such as grass growing outside at either the North or South pole , then you may be able to prove something.

Answer 1

Global Warming doesn't mean that you get hot weather. What it means that the average temperature is rising due to heat not escaping the atmosphere. Like in Australia we've had a drought in parts lasting 9 years and there are water rations. The polar ice capes are melting at a rate never seen in recorded history due to the amount of CO2 in atmosphere...This is want is causing global warming.

Also, if you understand weather were there is a high then must be a low...so if one part of the world has extreme temps then another part of world may have severe cold at unsual times.

Remember you need to look at this at global level on local level.

Answer 2

It is a sign of global warming.  It does not put a dent in the argument at all it actually solidifies the fact that the climate is changing at a pace faster than in recorded human history.  Global warming or climate change what ever tag you wanna give it is not a belief system it is something that is actually happening. It is also something that can not be put into a package.  It is a macro view of the earth and its systems that in order to understand you need be able to look at the Earth as a system not just what you see out your window.  

Global warming as a theory is really a American phenomena.  Its not a theory that our climate is in a state of flux and changing at a pace quicker than anything we have ever recorded before, it is happening.

Answer 3

Droughts in Australia ?   They had them when I was there in Xmas of 1979, so this is some thing new ?  When I can fish at the N. pole or swim at the S. pole, then you may have something.

Answer 4

It doesnt really matter. They dont even like to use the term global warming anymore (especially since the temps have decreased over the last 10 years) now it is "climate change" and now they can fit any anomaly in that category.

Temperatures go up= climate change.

Temperatures go down= climate change

I would like to know what the Earths perfect climate should be. Is it the one where the Western Hemisphere has optimum temperatures for agriculture etc... or what? At which period of time was the Earth at "the right temperature"?

Answer 5

I agree

The world IS going through a slight warming period...but it's a cycle. Nothing lately proves a huge difference in the weather. Especially this past winter. NH got one of the greatest snow falls in NH history. Not global warming.

Answer 6

I heard years ago that the earths axises has shifted and the weather patterns will not be the same as they were.

Answer 7

The idea of global warming is just a theory, nothing more.  More and more people are coming out against the idea too. (Google the 'Manhattan Declaration').

Even additional carbon in the atmosphere is harmless. It's plant food, and they turn it into oxygen.  The average temperature of the globe hasn't warmed at all in the past 10 years, but minor changes and fluctuations are normal, natural and have always happened.  Regardless of what mankind does, they always will.

Why throw trillions of dollars at something when the outcome will be the same?  If man had any part in this global warming thing (now known as climate change hehehe!!)  it has been so minimal that it can't be measured.  Forget about this theory of g/w because just as you can't change or stop earthquakes, hurricanes or snowstorms you can't stop normal and natural temp. fluctuations  from happening.  Spending any money on trying is just a waste.

Answer 8

It doesn't necessarily mean that we are getting warm weather all the time and jsut means that gradually, it will get warmer.

Answer 9

no one could answer even great scientist  .....only God knows .

Answer 10

You cannot prove or disprove Global Warming...it is just another vague belief movement which is probably nothing more than man reacting to his own fear of meaninglessness and death by fabricating a purpose.

Answer 11

You are talking about weather - not climate.

And you are talking about relatively local weather.

And you are talking about one winter, climate would be like 30 years.

You are not talking about climate change and certainly not Global climate change.

The skeptic answers here demonstrate the depth of ignorance on this subject.  

The evidence for AGW is overwhelming.  The number of climate scientists who are skeptics is tiny and their numbers are shrinking.

The IPCC report on climate change is the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in the history of science.  Science doesn't get much more certain than that.

Here's the kind of source that skeptics use.

"The conclusions reached by Robinson et al., upon which The Wall Street Journal news item was based, in my opinion and that of my class, cannot stand the scrutiny of objective peer-review. Our judgement notwithstanding, The Wall Street Journal presented an unpublished manuscript as actual science to a gullible business world. Giving support and credence to an unpublished manuscript certainly reflects poorly on The Wall Street Journal and its standards of reporting and objectivity. We know The Wall Street Journal’s science reporting cannot be trusted if they don't know the difference between opinion and science, or worse, if they do know the difference, then they're just dishonest."

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...

This is what real climate scientists say.

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...

"Honest skeptics persist at trying to convince their colleagues of alternative conclusions, and they do it by submitting their manuscripts for publication. If they do not get published, then it is because their data, their arguments, their assumptions, and their conclusions did not stand up to careful scrutiny, not because reviewers were predisposed to a different opinion. Oh sure, some reviewers can be opinionated and have their own political ax to grind, but with persistence, you can find enough fair academics to get any legitimate conclusion published. My years as a journal editor, as a reviewer, and as an author of scientific articles validates my position that most academics will give a valid minority position a fair evaluation."

"Scientific skepticism is a healthy thing. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge, improve their understanding and refine their theories. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog, study or 15 year old that refutes AGW"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

"The global warming is a hoax believers don't understand the difference between informed opinion, uninformed opinion, misinformed opinion and totally ignorant opinions."  from comments at  gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/236...

posted by LeeAnnG

Here's the truth on predictions of global cooling in the 70s.  There were 7 science papers predicting cooling.  There were 42 papers predicting warming--AGW.

"So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case. Most interesting about Peterson's paper is not the debunking of an already well debunked skeptic argument but a succinct history of climate science over the 20th century, describing how scientists from different fields gradually pieced together their diverse findings into a more unified picture of how climate operates. A must read paper."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-197...

The popular press got a hold of the cooling story and popularizded it.  That's why skeptics should stop listening to the popular press and listen to real scientists.

"And please don't forget that anthropogenic global warming has been for a centruy the underdog theory, it is only very recently that the mountains of research have dragged a generally conservative scientific community inexorably to a very unpleasant conclusion"

from  http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10...

Climate scientists have actually understated the threat of global warming, they are not alarmists.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparin...

"The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact."

"So we end up with the absurd but pointless spectacle of the leading denier in the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, R-Okla., who recently put out a list of more than 400 names of supposedly "prominent scientists" who supposedly "recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming."

"As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren't climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus."

"But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does "think global warming is real"). Or, for that matter, my opinion -- even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical oceanography in the Greenland Sea."

"What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0... The Cold Truth about Global Warming by Joseph Romm

"A handful of "contrarian" scientists and public figures who are not scientists have challenged mainstream climatologists' conclusions that the warming of the last few decades has been extraordinary and that at least part of this warming has been anthropogenically induced. What must be emphasized here is that, despite the length of this section, there are truly only a handful of climatologist contrarians relative to the number of mainstream climatologists out there."

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics".

Dr. James Baker - NOAA

Bush Administration treatment of climat science:

"When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice."  

And read the book "Censoring Science"

"The small group of skeptic scientists has a disproportionate amount of influence among both Congress and the mass media.  Many Senators, scientists, and ABC broadcasts (VIDEO) attribute this phenomenon to the millions spent in Washington by oil companies like Exxon.  ABC news reported a 1998 American Petroleum Institute memo has even blatantly stated "Victory will be achieved when average citizens “understand” (recognize) uncertainties in climate science."  Even president Bush’s former chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Philip Cooney, was a former American Petroleum Institute oil lobbyist.  Numerous mainstream newspapers ran stories showing proof of Cooney editing statements by white house science advisors to remove warnings regarding climate change.  Cooney resigned two days later and was then hired by Exxon Mobil. 1, 2, 3   Exxon does not fund any alternative energy research."  

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

Great site showing overwhelming support for IPCC findings.

Skeptic argument:

"Scientists are creating a scare to get grant money." &

"Funding pressures push environmentalists toward alarmism."

Answer:

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_ar...

Then there is the argument that scientist are doing this only because controversy or the IPCC pays well.  Again, these people need to look at how much professors and research scientists earn for a living.  Of all the professional fields, hard science requires the most education and has one of the lowest levels of pay.

"One of the many absurd arguments against global warming is that scientists are only in it for the money....  The idea that there are vast wealth and perks to be made from climate science is wrong, and would raise a laugh (albeit a rather bitter one) from anyone "inside""- William Connolley Ph.D.

"Money and perks! Hahahaha. How in the world did I miss out on those when I was a lead author for the Third Assessment report? Working on IPCC is a major drain on ones' time, and probably detracts from getting out papers that would help to get grants  

Answer 12

Here is a sure sign of global warming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p_d8Z2ka...

Answer 13

global warming is when gases build up and cause a shild around the earth which causes the gases not to be able to leave the earth. and their for the sun causes the gases to heat and that is why some places are getting hotter in the summer and colder in the winter. and it also cause more bad weather to happen.