It could possibly be. If you want to do research and show that's the case, more power to you. The hypothesis so far has been that the increase in temperatures has been due to increased carbon dioxide. That hypothesis has been supported time and again, and have not been refuted. There has not been a successful competing hypothesis put forth. This is why the consensus is that there's more than a 90% probability that most of the warming is due to human activities. There is a chance, although less than 10%, that it is not.
We have continued to see periods of cooling because there are natural warming and cooling cycles. Just because the global temperature is getting warmer on average doesn't mean that all cooling suddenly stops. It's just that in addition to the normal warming and cooling cycles, there is also a long-term trend of global warming. Surely this isn't too hard to comprehend, is it?
The prediction of rise is sea level is due to climate models, not simple extrapolation. Those climate models do include cloud cover, and I'm not sure what would make you believe otherwise. If you have any facts to suggest that global warming is not occurring, I'd like to see them. So far, I haven't come across any.
It is global warming. The warming is the greatest on the land, because there is not much water to help absorb the heat, and at the poles, where hotter temperatures mean ice and snow melt and therefore less sunlight is reflected back into space.
Yes, even with global warming some winters will be unusually cold. But if the overall trend is warming, the overall trend will be for Arctic ice and glaciers to melt. And that is exactly what they have been doing.
Its not the marketing, its the reality that the the Global Warming crowd has painted but that has not come to pass
Given that it will take decades for most of the predictions of global warming to become obvious, I think the conclusion that they haven't come to pass is a bit premature. The most obvious short-term predictions are that global termperatures will rise and the Arctic ice will melt, and they have been. So exactly what predictions do you think were made that have not come to pass?
It's based on climate models. There's a large amount of uncertainty in the estimate, because we don't really know how ice sheets will react to such fast warming, but one meter seems likely.
Glaciers are on land. When glaciers melt, the water runs into the sea. More water in the sea means the sea level rises. Time to repeat 3rd grade science.
Humans have been burning fossil fuels for more than 100 years. Burning fossil fuels causes the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to increase. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and an increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere cause the Earth's temperature to rise. The rising temperature causes glaciers to melt and the water in the ocean to expand. This is what's causing the rise in sea levels.
There has also been some warming due to increased solar output, but it looks like most of the warming has been due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If there's another possible cause for the rise sea level, I haven't heard of it.
I don't see any climate scientists using "single data points" and "localized weather" as proof of global warming. You need to look at the overall trend in global temperatures, over the past several decades. If you even glance at such a graph, you can easily see the rise.
Climate change, in itself, is not bad. The climate has changed in the past and will continue to change.
But when the Earth gets significantly warmer due to human activity, and when the change in climate causes millions of people to relocate because the coasts get flooded, or if it causes shortages of fresh water and food, humans may tend to view it as something to try to prevent.
You may be referring to the abnormally warm year of 1998, which was caused by a strong El Nino. The fact is that the mean global temperature is continuing to rise, at an increasingly faster pace. This is why the Arctic ice is melting.
So, therefore, a rise in carbon dioxide cannot cause a temperature rise? Sounds like a non sequitur to me.
It seems to me that whatever happened in the past, if we dramatically increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it will cause temperatures in increase, because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That's simple enough to follow, isn't it?
Most of your post sounds like a nonsensical rant. You do have one question that I can answer. You're asking why the sea levels are not rising, even though the glaciers are melting. Sea levels are rising, around 1.7 mm per year for the past century. This rise is due to both melting glaciers and the expansion of oceans as they warm. Sea levels may rise about another meter during this century. One meter may not sound like much, but that amount of rise could flood many urban coastal areas.
Given that the change in global mean temperature is 0.7 degrees Celsius, 30% of that is about 0.2 degrees Celsius. That leaves about 70% or about 0.5 degrees Celsius due to anthropogenic global warming.
Science never proves anything. Science can either refute or support a hypothesis. No one has been able to successfully refute the hypothesis of manmade global warming. On the contrary, there's lots of evidence to support it.
Yes, solar output has been making the Earth warmer. But it doesn't seem to account for most of the warming over the past fifty years. There is a consensus that there's at least a 90% chance that most of the warming has been due to increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere caused by humans burning fossil fuels and forests.
There will still be cold winters and warm summers no matter whether the mean global temperature is rising or falling. The variation from year to year swamps the slow, gradual rise in temperatures.
Think of the stock market. After one or two days of going up, we don't suddenly say the bear market is over. Once again, it's long-term change we're looking for, and you're noticing short-term change.
if this or that was proven in science, makes it into a science book, and is proven wrong later... what would you call it?
I'd call it something you made up. Science does not prove hypotheses. It only collects evidence to support or falsify them. The hypotheses that have the best evidence for them get to be called theories and make it into textbooks, but they are not proven.
We can argue all we want about proof and get absolutely nowhere. Look at global warming. Both sides think it's proven.
No, neither "side" thinks it's proven. The vast majority of climate scientists think there at least a 90% chance that most of the global warming over the past fifty years is due to humans burning fossil fuels and forests. Those climate scientists that do not agree seem to have a widely diverging opinions, ranging from claiming that the warming is due to other causes to denying that the warming is happening at all.
I heard on the news that it was getting colder and certain ice caps or something were growing, not shrinking, and that that is "exactly what is expected with global warming, because with something like global warming, the unexpected is going to occur."
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but the Arctic ice caps are growing because it is getting colder. This is exactly as expected with global warming. It's still colder in winter and warmer in summer.
Now if, on the other hand, global temperatures showed a long-term (more than ten years) decreasing trend, that would be evidence that global warming is not happening. The problem is that people who don't understand the long-term view hear that there is cooling over a period of a few months or a few years, and think that it somehow disproves global warming. These are the same people who lose big in the stock market because they panic when the market drops and pull all their money out, locking in their losses. It's all about the long term, folks!
Slashdot Mirror
It could possibly be. If you want to do research and show that's the case, more power to you. The hypothesis so far has been that the increase in temperatures has been due to increased carbon dioxide. That hypothesis has been supported time and again, and have not been refuted. There has not been a successful competing hypothesis put forth. This is why the consensus is that there's more than a 90% probability that most of the warming is due to human activities. There is a chance, although less than 10%, that it is not.
We have continued to see periods of cooling because there are natural warming and cooling cycles. Just because the global temperature is getting warmer on average doesn't mean that all cooling suddenly stops. It's just that in addition to the normal warming and cooling cycles, there is also a long-term trend of global warming. Surely this isn't too hard to comprehend, is it?
The prediction of rise is sea level is due to climate models, not simple extrapolation. Those climate models do include cloud cover, and I'm not sure what would make you believe otherwise. If you have any facts to suggest that global warming is not occurring, I'd like to see them. So far, I haven't come across any.
It is global warming. The warming is the greatest on the land, because there is not much water to help absorb the heat, and at the poles, where hotter temperatures mean ice and snow melt and therefore less sunlight is reflected back into space.
Yes, even with global warming some winters will be unusually cold. But if the overall trend is warming, the overall trend will be for Arctic ice and glaciers to melt. And that is exactly what they have been doing.
Given that it will take decades for most of the predictions of global warming to become obvious, I think the conclusion that they haven't come to pass is a bit premature. The most obvious short-term predictions are that global termperatures will rise and the Arctic ice will melt, and they have been. So exactly what predictions do you think were made that have not come to pass?
It's based on climate models. There's a large amount of uncertainty in the estimate, because we don't really know how ice sheets will react to such fast warming, but one meter seems likely.
Glaciers are on land. When glaciers melt, the water runs into the sea. More water in the sea means the sea level rises. Time to repeat 3rd grade science.
Humans have been burning fossil fuels for more than 100 years. Burning fossil fuels causes the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to increase. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and an increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere cause the Earth's temperature to rise. The rising temperature causes glaciers to melt and the water in the ocean to expand. This is what's causing the rise in sea levels.
There has also been some warming due to increased solar output, but it looks like most of the warming has been due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If there's another possible cause for the rise sea level, I haven't heard of it.
If we've had a cooling trend since 1998, isn't about time someone told the Arctic ice so it can stop melting?
Yes, of course. But do you know of any glaciers in the ocean? I can't think of any.
No, the people claiming that the temperature is currently rising are not lying or wrong. Global mean temperature is still showing an upward trend.
I don't see any climate scientists using "single data points" and "localized weather" as proof of global warming. You need to look at the overall trend in global temperatures, over the past several decades. If you even glance at such a graph, you can easily see the rise.
Climate change, in itself, is not bad. The climate has changed in the past and will continue to change.
But when the Earth gets significantly warmer due to human activity, and when the change in climate causes millions of people to relocate because the coasts get flooded, or if it causes shortages of fresh water and food, humans may tend to view it as something to try to prevent.
You may be referring to the abnormally warm year of 1998, which was caused by a strong El Nino. The fact is that the mean global temperature is continuing to rise, at an increasingly faster pace. This is why the Arctic ice is melting.
So, therefore, a rise in carbon dioxide cannot cause a temperature rise? Sounds like a non sequitur to me.
It seems to me that whatever happened in the past, if we dramatically increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it will cause temperatures in increase, because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That's simple enough to follow, isn't it?
Most of your post sounds like a nonsensical rant. You do have one question that I can answer. You're asking why the sea levels are not rising, even though the glaciers are melting. Sea levels are rising, around 1.7 mm per year for the past century. This rise is due to both melting glaciers and the expansion of oceans as they warm. Sea levels may rise about another meter during this century. One meter may not sound like much, but that amount of rise could flood many urban coastal areas.
Don't buy an SSD to store a large database that gets lots of updates!
Given that the change in global mean temperature is 0.7 degrees Celsius, 30% of that is about 0.2 degrees Celsius. That leaves about 70% or about 0.5 degrees Celsius due to anthropogenic global warming.
Science never proves anything. Science can either refute or support a hypothesis. No one has been able to successfully refute the hypothesis of manmade global warming. On the contrary, there's lots of evidence to support it.
Yes, solar output has been making the Earth warmer. But it doesn't seem to account for most of the warming over the past fifty years. There is a consensus that there's at least a 90% chance that most of the warming has been due to increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere caused by humans burning fossil fuels and forests.
There will still be cold winters and warm summers no matter whether the mean global temperature is rising or falling. The variation from year to year swamps the slow, gradual rise in temperatures.
Think of the stock market. After one or two days of going up, we don't suddenly say the bear market is over. Once again, it's long-term change we're looking for, and you're noticing short-term change.
I'd call it something you made up. Science does not prove hypotheses. It only collects evidence to support or falsify them. The hypotheses that have the best evidence for them get to be called theories and make it into textbooks, but they are not proven.
No, neither "side" thinks it's proven. The vast majority of climate scientists think there at least a 90% chance that most of the global warming over the past fifty years is due to humans burning fossil fuels and forests. Those climate scientists that do not agree seem to have a widely diverging opinions, ranging from claiming that the warming is due to other causes to denying that the warming is happening at all.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but the Arctic ice caps are growing because it is getting colder. This is exactly as expected with global warming. It's still colder in winter and warmer in summer.
Now if, on the other hand, global temperatures showed a long-term (more than ten years) decreasing trend, that would be evidence that global warming is not happening. The problem is that people who don't understand the long-term view hear that there is cooling over a period of a few months or a few years, and think that it somehow disproves global warming. These are the same people who lose big in the stock market because they panic when the market drops and pull all their money out, locking in their losses. It's all about the long term, folks!
In the late 90s and early part of this decade, disk drive capacities were doubling about every year. Recently, this trend has slowed
Tom's Hardware reports that hard disks can still be more power efficient than SSDs. The good news is that SSDs are more efficient under load, and their idle power consumption is improving also.
Ah, but lots of others do not. And many of them will be buying SSDs instead of hard disks in the next few years.