news.independent.co.uk — Researchers say the unusual heat was entirely consistent with predictions of climate change caused by rising emissions of greenhouses gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) from power stations, motor transport and, increasingly, aircraft.
Jul 19, 2006 View in Crawl 4
dielawnJul 20, 2006
well its 107 here...and was yesterday. quit complaining.
furoJul 20, 2006
Yeah, I've seen that as well. Very interesting theory, to be sure. Reducing pollution making global warming worse is quite the paradox. Doesn't matter how much evidence there is, though... planes aren't going to stop flying and cars aren't going to stop driving... actually, the more they do, the better it is for global warming!Kidding aside, that documentary confirms that society is in a position that we can't easily change, even if we wanted to. Throwing money and hype at two iconic words - Global Warming - isn't going to change the way that industry across the globe functions. There is simply too much reliance on too many identified contributing factors.-Furo
soxfannhJul 20, 2006
Another great point, just look at hurricanes, we have more ships and planes (and satellites as well) now than 50 or 100 years ago so we will see more/all of the tropical systems. So some of the "increase" in certain things such as these may just be an increase in monitoring sites/better equipment not a change in the weather patterns.
dotorgJul 20, 2006
SoxFanNH:The evidence is overwhelming that something is going on... just because an alternative explanation exists for the slice of evidence in your field of expertise, and may appear when standing alone to be the more likely explanation, the picture looks very different to people who explicitly study climatology, particularly those who focus on a wide swath of interdiciplinary sciences related to climatology. In each of those narrow fields, weird stuff is being found and there are alternative explanations. While it may be possible that a hundred weird things are going on with a hundred unrelated explanations, at that point its far more likely that the one explanation in common is, in fact, the correct one. Occam's Razor, when you look wide not deep.
steelchickenJul 20, 2006
thanks for proving that every article, no matter the subject, will always have an American bashing post in it.
vikingcoderJul 20, 2006
Feel good FUD.No. I'm not making any sort argument or shoving data in your face. Why bother? You wouldn't look at it anyways, would you?
soxfannhJul 20, 2006
Exactly.... thats what I have been trying to say all along
brokenrhinoJul 20, 2006
People are just too short sighted. They don't get how much the climate has changed over earth's history. We are powerless to stop it.
vikingcoderJul 20, 2006
No. It isn't. Did you even bother reading the provided links? I didn't write the text - it came from the listed source."Correlation does not imply causation" is the clarion call of those who would rather dismisss inconvenient data than change their mind; however, it seems that is all too readily forgotten if the data supports the presuppositions.The Stanford page links to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release.<a class="user" href="http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/">http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/</a>Many scientists have argued that the radiation change in a solar cycle — an increase of two to three tenths of a percent over the 20th century — are not strong enough to account for the observed surface temperature increases. The GISS model agrees that the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases, leading Shindell to conclude that greenhouse gasses are indeed playing the dominant role.
yahoofromJul 21, 2006
Thank God it wasn't Celsius.