"Climate change is a liberal socialist hoax+conspiracy by Al Gore to get rich in his mansion and the UN to cause wealth redistribution."
Yes, I have heard this nonsense before, so if you were inclined to repeat any part of it, please save us from hearing it again.
Well, the hysteria seems very emotional to me, based not on science, but on the typical left-oriented, environmentalist claptrap that's been around since the Sixties. By the way, I remember seeing lots of ice melting nature movies back in the early 1960s, when there was a cooling period, so more photographs of the same aren't really that convincing. And, our storms don't seem all that much more devastating than previous years, especially highpoint years in the distant past that would be much more troubling than today's storms.
Claptrap huh? Is that why 2012 was the warmest year on record for the continental USA? Sandy storm was particularly devastating - lower Manhattan was flooded. The Arctic is disappearing. The global temperature is rising. Even if we stop all emissions now, it'll still take several decades or more to see any positive effects from it. We are doomed.
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/
I'm with you. Hysteria, ha!
When the smoke alarm goes off and wakes them up, do they smash the thing and go back to bed? They are ostriches.
I went through NY & NJ afterwards. It was a huge disaster, plain and simple. I have never seen such nor heard or read about anything like it.
"I have never seen such nor heard or read about anything like it."
Obviously, you haven't "heard or read about" Hurricane Camille in 1969, the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane or the Galveston Hurricane of 1900. Those were vastly more powerful storms.
I have heard of Camille, but have never researched either storm you mention. Thanks for the information. Not sure what your point is, since both storms are well into modern times and climate change started with land use changes and forest destruction well before 1950, but certainly afterwards.
Also these only affected the Gulf. My post is focused on the Northeast.
As to Sandy's uniqueness: it was the largest storm by diameter and lowest barometric pressure ever recorded north of Cape Hatteras, affected more states (24, including Maine to Florida) and was composed of 2 storms converging. It was caught and held by an atypical jet stream, itself stalled and kinked due to low arctic sea ice. The storm surge in NYC was 3 feet above the previous record.
And by the way, the WMO retired the name "Sandy", so no other storm will ever be named that.
Arguing for your position: the costiliness of modern storms is due not just to power of the storm, but to more expensive infrastructure in their path.
You're full of bull. Sounds like you've been watching too much Fox News.
"Old Man look at my life, I'm a lot like you were."
EARTH goes through cooling and warming periods every 100, 200, 1000, 10,000, 1,000,000 years - ..just because some overfunded geeks with high-def cameras and a liberal philosphy regarding "climate change" (btw, "global-warming" is no longer a relative term) get Nat Geo funding does not mean we are doomed, self-destructing or even within a pubic hairs' reach of changing ANYTHING on a climactic level in terms of core water temperatures.
If you have an open mind, research the true relative factors of the sun and how it heats/cools the oceanic waters and understand that THAT is what causes "climates" to fluxuate every 100, 200, 1000, 10,000, 1,000,000 years.
Al Gore should be sued for his fallacies by the Board of Education in the US fyi.
Seacrest out~
The change is happening. The entire scientific community is in consensus except for a few people on the fringes getting a lot of attention from people trying to argue about the source of the changes. It's important here to not get baited into debating that question because that question hardly matters when compared with questions about what to expect and how exactly we should respond to what we now know is happening. It's also happening much faster than people were guessing just a few years ago. I suggest we first work together to save ourselves. If that works, then there will be time afterwords to figure out whose fault it was. If it doesn't work, it won't matter.
sharejust because some overfunded geeks with high-def cameras and a liberal philosphy regarding "climate change"He documented 30,000 y/o glaciers disappearing in 3 years. Every penny spend on those high-def cameras was worth the research made. This shows that you are too invested in proving your point to treat this movie impartially.
If you have an open mind, research the true relative factors of the sun and how it heats/cools the oceanic waters and understand that THAT is what causes "climates" to fluxuate every 100, 200, 1000, 10,000, 1,000,000 years.Since 1978, output from the Sun has been precisely measured by satellites. These measurements indicate that the Sun's output has not increased since 1978, so the warming during the past 30 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth.
Ironically, the reason that you know anything at all about warming and cooling periods of the earth, is due to the work of the exact same scientists and climatologists who for the better part of 30 years have been trying to tell you that the earth is now warming at an unprecedented rate.
share[deleted]
"Sounds like you've been watching too much Fox News."
Got anything better to offer than that exhausted cliche?
I'm skeptical as to whom is a scientist in this thread? Should I believe Joe Bloe posting on an internet message board or the general scientific community? So unsure..
---
I have to return some videotapes.
Check out the genuine pix of Arctic sea ice from NASA. None of the photo-shopped Green propaganda!
And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic- ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html
Three More Years! Carbon Taxes!
Even if that's true, there are always going to be short-term fluctuations from year to year. When examining a trend rationally, what you want to look at is not just the short-term possibilities but also longer-term possibilities that concern you. For the planet as a whole, it is reasonable to concern ourselves with the trends for the next 100 years. Correspondingly, if you use the past 100 years as any indicator, there is clear evidence of ice loss, global warming, and climate change.
The takeaway point for you is: when suggesting a trend for the next x years, use data for the past x years.