Global Warming Or Global Cooling?

Global Warming Or Global Cooling?

There are 29 comments on the Crop Life story from Dec 28, 2012, titled Global Warming Or Global Cooling?. In it, Crop Life reports that:

The debate continues. Recently, EPA issued a proposed finding that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Crop Life.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#1 Dec 28, 2012
WOW. If only science were debated in gossip circles!

There's no debate. There's manmade global climate change.

Understand?
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#2 Dec 28, 2012
Well which one global cooling or global warming?
Oh there is plenty of room for debate. Understand?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#3 Dec 28, 2012
Contrary to "information from David Dilley, a meteorologist and climate researcher with Global Weather Oscillations Inc. and a former meteorologist with the National Weather Service, is reported in his book," the natural cause is no other than the human actions resulting in everincreasing rates of greenhouse gases in our environment as the USEPA rightfully announced.

This Tilley dude should check with the American Meteorological Society:

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechan...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#4 Dec 28, 2012
How is climate changing?

Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901─2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.

The effects of this warming are especially evident in the planet’s polar regions. Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost significant amounts of ice. Most of the world’s glaciers are in retreat.

Other changes, globally and in the U.S., are also occurring at the same time. The amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events (the heaviest 1% of all precipitation events) has increased over the last 50 years throughout the U.S. Freezing levels are rising in elevation, with rain occurring more frequently instead of snow at mid-elevations of western mountains. Spring maximum snowpack is decreasing, snowmelt occurs earlier, and the spring runoff that supplies over two-thirds of western U.S. streamflow is reduced. Evidence for warming is also observed in seasonal changes across many areas, including earlier springs, longer frost-free periods, longer growing seasons, and shifts in natural habitats and in migratory patterns of birds and insects.

Globally averaged sea level has risen by about 17 cm (7 inches) in the 20th century, with the rise accelerating since the early 1990s. Close to half of the sea level rise observed since the 1970s has been caused by water expansion due to increases in ocean temperatures. Sea level is also rising due to melting from continental glaciers and from ice sheets on both Greenland and Antarctica. Locally, sea level changes can depend also on other factors such as slowly rising or falling land, which results in some local sea level changes much larger or smaller than the global average. Even small rises in sea level in coastal zones are expected to lead to potentially severe impacts, especially in small island nations and in other regions that experience storm surges associated with vigorous weather systems.

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechan...
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#5 Dec 28, 2012
So no one really really knows.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#6 Dec 28, 2012
PHD wrote:
So no one really really knows.
Whether you are ph'd or not, you are still much mistaken about it.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#7 Dec 28, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Whether you are ph'd or not, you are still much mistaken about it.
Maybe prove it with your own work.
litesong

Everett, WA

#8 Dec 28, 2012
phudd wrote:
Maybe prove it with your own work.
You ain't no teacher, scientist or anyone who can order up some science........ because you can't do science, haven't done science or can understand science.
phudd is fuddy-duddy.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#9 Dec 29, 2012
pinheadlitesout wrote:
<quoted text>
You ain't no teacher, scientist or anyone who can order up some science........ because you can't do science, haven't done science or can understand science.
phudd is fuddy-duddy.
I create more science when I pass gas than you could conger up with that single cell brain. Try again "pinheadlitesout".
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#10 Dec 29, 2012
The moon huh? Well that's an interesting concept, makes sense when you think about the moon and the oceans. Worth looking into.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#11 Dec 29, 2012
Could be Mars.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#12 Dec 29, 2012
PHD wrote:
Could be Mars.
Well, according to the Milankovic Cycles, Mars plays a part in the gravitational forces of our solar system. It could be Mars.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#13 Dec 29, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, according to the Milankovic Cycles, Mars plays a part in the gravitational forces of our solar system. It could be Mars.
Exactly, the normal cycle of climate change. Are you the only one here that really really gets it?
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#14 Dec 30, 2012
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly, the normal cycle of climate change. Are you the only one here that really really gets it?
I can't speak for anyone else, they speak for themselves. I just read what they say.

I didn't know much about climate functions before the IPCC lost the MWP. When the MWP got lost, I knew there was a problem.

What I have learned is that climate is like a 3-D puzzle or that chess game that is played on multiple levels, never tried it. Each climate function has it's own playbook and to understand it you must be able to conceptualize each function and how it is impacted by the other functions and then layer them on top of each other to see the puzzle picture.

I have found it facinating.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#15 Dec 30, 2012
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't speak for anyone else, they speak for themselves. I just read what they say.
I didn't know much about climate functions before the IPCC lost the MWP. When the MWP got lost, I knew there was a problem.
What I have learned is that climate is like a 3-D puzzle or that chess game that is played on multiple levels, never tried it. Each climate function has it's own playbook and to understand it you must be able to conceptualize each function and how it is impacted by the other functions and then layer them on top of each other to see the puzzle picture.
I have found it facinating.
Ahh facinating and unsolved.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#16 Dec 30, 2012
Deniers understand one another because they are dumb liars.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#17 Dec 30, 2012
SpaceBlues wrote:
Deniers understand one another because they are dumb liars.
So you can't explain.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#18 Dec 30, 2012
There's only one thing to explain: ph'd is a dumb liar.
litesong

Everett, WA

#19 Dec 30, 2012
'fun farts' wrote:
I have found it facinating.
//////////
phudd wrote:
Ahh facinating and.......
/////////
litesong wrote:
Two blind men following each other into the spelling bog.
Where's 'steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling' when you need him?

Ah! He never would have corrected them. They are toxic topix AGW deniers, just like him.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#20 Dec 31, 2012
There is another thing to say spaceblues just can't explain.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Obama Kept His Promise, 83,000 Coal Jobs Lost A... Thu californio 182
News UPDATE 1-Obama power plant rules face key test ... Thu Le Jimbo 4
News DC appeals court set to hear Clean Power Plan case Sep 27 Solarman 1
News Obama's Clean Power Plan Heads to Court: What t... Sep 25 Kisser6439 2
News A sensible pause on pipeline project, but not t... Sep 19 the Stand 1
News Scalia gets his facts wrong in EPA dissent (Apr '14) Sep 13 Divorce Attorney 23
News Ky. tests find lead-tainted soil near homes Sep 4 Lynn 1
More from around the web