3 ms·

Yes there really are and not just two but many. Don't take my word for it, here are the latest numbers from the IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/ind

Yes there really are and not just two but many. Don't take my word for it, here are the latest numbers from the IPCC http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=29 I don't know about you but I see a range, a wide range. It IS cycles, it's always been cycles historically and the climate is always changing. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.... The discussion is not whether humans have an effect but how much. Again no certainty even closely resembling evolution. https://www.wired.com/story/the-dizzying-science-of-climate-change-gets-a-bit-clearer/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-dizzying-science-of-climate-... But you can take the same argument and turn it against the climate alarmist. First, they said new york would be under water by now. Then, they said the temperature was rising rapidly (but they had to adjust that claim down quite dramatically) Then, they said the oceans are getting toxicated. There is no clear consensus on this. We might or might not effect the climate more or less than we think. But try and find any official number for how much humans affect the climate and you will be very dissapointed. Science is not about certainty it's about testing hypothesis. The way climate scientist teste them is by using computer models. That's nowhere close to providing us with the scientific evidence and testability of gravity. And evolution is a model, the best model we have to explain the evolution of species there is a lot of discussion inside of evolution. Trying to close down any dissent or argument simply by saying there is nothing to discuss because science, is the most anti scientific thing you can do IMO.

jschwartzi 9y ago
They said New York would be under water by now, so we took steps back then to limit emissions, and that never came to pass.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  Ok, can you provide any sources for that claim?
  - jschwartzi 9y ago
    Are you familiar with CAFE? Or the EPA in general? You were the one who made that statement about New York being underwater. Find me a date and a quote and I'll tell you exactly how things changed afterward. The point I'm trying to make is that we've already taken steps to limit impact which is why the apocalyptic scenarios of yesteryear haven't come to pass.
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      "Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times. Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections. In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly Professor Peter Wadhams "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm And here is Al Gores predictions https://www.snopes.com/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/ https://www.snopes.com/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/
      - bigbugbag 9y ago
        Where exactly does this predict that new york would be under water by now ? The BBC article quotes: "In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040." and "A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate." "My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of." The snopes articles says Al Gore sometimes inaccurately represented studies that predicted the timeline for an ice-free Arctic. Not even close to your initial claim.

jschwartzi 9y ago

They said New York would be under water by now, so we took steps back then to limit emissions, and that never came to pass.

ThomPete 9y ago
Ok, can you provide any sources for that claim?
- jschwartzi 9y ago
  Are you familiar with CAFE? Or the EPA in general? You were the one who made that statement about New York being underwater. Find me a date and a quote and I'll tell you exactly how things changed afterward. The point I'm trying to make is that we've already taken steps to limit impact which is why the apocalyptic scenarios of yesteryear haven't come to pass.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    "Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times. Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections. In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly Professor Peter Wadhams "Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. "So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm And here is Al Gores predictions https://www.snopes.com/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/ https://www.snopes.com/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/
    - bigbugbag 9y ago
      Where exactly does this predict that new york would be under water by now ? The BBC article quotes: "In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040." and "A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate." "My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of." The snopes articles says Al Gore sometimes inaccurately represented studies that predicted the timeline for an ice-free Arctic. Not even close to your initial claim.