A few things man, i read most of your posts here.....you seem to be the only person against GW that is intelligent, but you also seem misguided. I think that we need people like you to make us defend our position and make sure it's the right one......but unfortunatly the world of science is against you, and it's only going to get worse.
Can you find me one peer-reviewed, scientific paper published in a journal in the past ten years that provides evidence against climate change? In the academic world, there is no debate. In the media world, there is debate because people watch it! An aid in the white house admitted two years ago to editing scientific reports in an attempt to add ambiguity to the climate change debate.
Two years ago I read a SCIENTIFIC, PEER REVIEWED report, that stated in the five years previous to that particular report, out of the 100 SCIENTIFIC, PEER REVIEWED papers published on the issue of climate change, 100 stated that the earth's temporal change was accelerating. ZERO denied an accelerated change.
As for your weather in a week vs 100 years. It's actually easier to predict long term trends. It is for this reason. Say you want to measure your average speed in a car by using the time it takes you to travel a certain distance over hilly terrain. Are you going to time yourself over 100m of your 100km journey, or for maybe 10km? Which average speed will prove to be more accurate? The longer one. So when predicting weather for next week you are looking at the weather in the last couple days and where it.s going, but for the next 100 years you are looking at trends over the last 30 years! Trends in temperature are easier to predict over long term because yes the temperature will flucuate and may get hotter than ever for a week, or colder than ever for a week, but the trend is still upwards. Basically for weather you are looking at all the airmasses in your area, and trying to predict where the wind is taking them. But for climate change you are looking at ALL THE AIR ON THE PLANET, and you are seeing its temperature rising...what is there to cool it down? nothing. If you local area get's really hot, what's there to cool it down? Wind from the arctic, or somewhere else. Local weather is different from GLOBAL weather is my point.
Your graphs that you posted, prove you wrong! Yes the value change is not that great, but those are MEAN temperatures. a 2 degree change is HUGE....right now at whistler it's minus 2, if it gets two degrees warmer its going to be raining half the season. For long-term predictions we are looking at TRENDS, which your graphs show to be increasing.
As for Antarctica, you guys are arguing about two different things. "thickening" is different from losing area's off the edges. The antarctic could be thickening but it is shrinking in area, and when its up against the ocean, it doesnt really matter how thick it is. It's the change in sea temperature thats melting it and causing it to drift off.
I read creighton too, and i do appreciate his work, but in the end, he
is seiruosly a writer, trying to sell books. Stir up controversy?
Probably doubled his sales. Does that make him wrong? Not neccesarily.
But he researches with a topic already in mind. His work is not
reviewed by scientist's or anything. Can you imagine a scientist reading it after he's done and saying, "hey you need to change this and this." He isn't going to listen, cause it's a work of art, to sell, not to educate. He just qoutes what he wants. Is
his book based on science? Sometimes, yes. But in the end he always
streches the truth. Jurrassic Park (I know you don't like this example,
but that's for the reason it doesn't help you out) could it in theory
be possible to make dinosaurs? We might be able to get close, but the
answer is no. He reasearches to a point and then takes it further with
his own ideas and stories. NEVER TRUST FICTION, I don't care what
happens, he has liscense to change anything in that book to whatever he
wants because in the end, IT"S FICTION.....just look at Dan Brown, in
the beginning of his book it states anti-matter is real, all this is
science, blah blah blah, but in the end he contains it in some silly
contraption that wouldnt actually work, and the science falls apart
beacuse it's fiction!
Anyways I enjoy a good debate, but find me that paper I asked for up there. If you do, I'll read it. When hundreds of scientists get together (with no money on the line) and state that this is serious, it probably is, because they have done far more reasearch than you and I could ever read.
The media is the biggest source of misinformation. A good story always has two sides debating on the truth. That's what people watch. A one sided argument is no fun. Think of this thread, if you weren't arguing against it, this thread would have died long ago and we would be reading some other thread about 'billy's cousin that totally just discovered weed and it's too bad he's emo, pat's suck and check out this hot girl thread'.
Global Warming was not blamed for Katrina, that's what the media said. Global warming will contribute to the increased frequency of events LIKE Katrina. Hurricanes are fueled by warm water. You get them over land, they die out, get them into cold waters, they die out. Warmer oceans = more huricanes that are more violent. Basically in your graph up there, the individual spikes are getting higher or lower (higher difference in extremes) while the overall graph is still going up. Supports both increase in extreme weather and mean temperatures rising.
Kyoto might not be the answer, maybe its too hard a goal to set, but the point is SOMETHING SERIOUS must be done, and Kyoto is the only thing we have going that some countries are agreeing on. But the end result is we have to live cleaner. I love skiing man, like we all do. And right now, climate change means bc is slightly warmer, which means we get more precip, which means more snow. But its still cold enough to snow. But eventually it will be more and more rain and the day I have to travel to Alaska to see powder will be painful.
Anyways there are so many facets to this argument, and so many variables to consider. I am a skeptic also, and at first I was skeptical like you. How could us little people be changing so much? But to put it in perspective if someone farts in a room (I know ha ha) it's a miniscule amount of gas, but god damnit if you don't cover your mouth.
