U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds

I R HUMANITY!

So the science is settled?

By it's very definition science is never settled. Otherwise it would be more equal to religion or state-sponsored science.

That's an unfair way of countering our view.

That's like saying "Why are you guys pro-gun while it's killing babies and children?"

Just because we don't agree with you on some stance because of how you treat the research doesn't mean that we are for whatever you are against.

If by 'settled', you mean enough knowledgeable people getting together and agreeing on something, then yes.

To answer the question that the question that Chaosx can't/won't earlier, the reason why you can't 'prove' AGW is because we only have a sample size of one. Hence, the best you can do is to gather a scientific consensus, which we have, and it's in the high 90%s region.

No, it's not, since I didn't ask 'why you're pro-CO emissions which are killing babies and children'.

Why is everything a loaded question for you. Do you even know what a loaded question is?

So it's not settled

It's not settled, similar to how smoking causing cancer isn't settled.

And there will never be a point when it is settled because we only have 1 planet.

You mean 97% of 36%? Which is 35%....*shock*

But I guess to you 35% of people agreeing means that it must be true...

I'm sorry, I guess to you a loaded question is when it has a conspiracy within a conspiracy....

If the science was actually settled, we wouldn't be seeing research papers and studies about the changing climates all over the globe, or the papers and studies that talk about what kind of footprint humanity has had on it, or if it's all happening naturally.

What people are actually arguing for with the Anthropogenic Global Warming, is that we've effectively had our hand in helping to create this environmental mess we're in, specifically for our own well being.

The data collected and examined comes from the industrial revolution, where CO2 emissions and other pollutants reached an all time unnatural high for that period, and again when companies added additional waste to production, which emitted more pollutant green house gases than what could have ever happened naturally.

Unfortunately, we don't have another planet Earth to spare to make an absolute comparison or to use in an experiment. But researchers can still find a way to simulate the effect using working scaled down models of cities, and country-sides for analysis.

Hell, you can see pollution domes over large metropolitan cities that act like an insulator. You can see the effect of this warming in large scale events where the average temperature rises when there are more people in one place, than if it was sparsely populated.

Are you still clinging on to that? Yes, 36% of all climate studies that were looked at have an opinion on AGW, and of those 36%, 97% of them are for AGW.

People who support "global warming is a hoax" accusing others of buying into conspiracy theories.

Man...

I would actually like you to answer these questions one day. They're not that difficult to answer either.

You compared 'Why are you pro-CO2 emissions' with "Why are you guys pro-gun while it's killing babies and children?"

Do you not see what's wrong with comparing the two or are you that desperate to cling to your title as the stupidest person on this forum?

Who's saying that global warming is a hoax again?

And the rest of those studies, such as the 65% of the studies that are conveniently excluded from your "97%" number, don't know what's going on or don't think that AGW is the cause...

Or just cities in general. I rode across half the state this past weekend and spent the first half of the ride in a very dense fog... except when I was rolling through a town. People talk about how dark streets absorb and radiate heat to make them warmer than the countryside, but as I was on roads the whole way, there's clearly a lot more involved.

Not that humans are remotely unique in altering the properties of our environment. But we're probably the best at it.

Incorrect, as always. 66.4% have no position on AGW and .7% reject AGW.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

You've erroneously assumed that 'no position' means something other than 'no position'. Not every paper written about AGW is written about the cause of GW.

Actually, the 65% hadn't formulated an opinion either way.

So including an undecided population into this kind of census would have been pretty pointless.

Gathering researchers who actually held an opinion on the matter is where the focus is, and should be.

Ah yes, the "urban heat sink" One might make the correlation that growing cities have increased the heat absorption and lowered it's albedo over the land in which they occupy. One might suggest that this increased heat absorption might actually contribute to an increase in overall temperature.

Edit: Urban heat island

a heat sink doesn't store heat, it radiates heat away...

Well, you can never reason with radicals, so everything is moot at this point anyway.

Where do you think that heat goes?Misunderstood, nvm.

It's not contested that the urban heat island effect contributes to warming.

KB, are you going to answer me or are you going to pull a fone and not answer it, then later pretend that no one has answered your most basic points.

Copper ones don't radiate very well, just absorb very fast. Aluminum will radiate much better.

Speaking of radicals, a segment of the right wing is organizing a march on washington to demand their country back and they claim to be drawing 10 million people, possibly up to 30 million people.

Are you going to march with them?

Pretty sure I was handed this title earlier in this thread! I suppose I'd be willing to share the honor with KN.

Right.... No.

Protesting means you're willing to give something up for your cause. It's far easier to sit on the sidelines and be cynical than to get down in the trenches, risk being jailed, beaten or whatever the status quo can conjure up to make your life uncomfortable.

Protesting does work. You just need to be ready for some less-than-ideal circumstances.

back from what?

If the day or two before the event I hear of 2-3mil otw to Washington, I'll probably lock and load, if not.. I wouldn't waste the gas.