This kind of thinking is becoming the norm

finally a global warming thread

 

You want proof?

Here's proof !!!


LSU 8 Georgia 4
Mason Katz had an eighth inning grand slam !!


Baseball analyst blames rise of homers on global warming

A lot of things have been blamed on global warming over the years, but the always quotable MLB broadcaster Tim McCarver has a new theory: maybe "climactic change" is to blame for a rise in home runs.
The bizarre idea was noticed by Deadspin. In the video, McCarver says "it has not been proven," but he believes thin air is a factor for the rise in long balls.
"There have been climactic changes over the last 50 years in the world, and I think that's one of the reasons that balls are carrying much better now than I remember," he said.
Home runs are actually down over the last five years in comparison to the late-1990s and early 2000s.

http://www.wwltv.com/around-the-web...obal-warming-on-rise-of-homers-149377485.html

 

The point is: Although it is a single point, it is completely unbiased by the heat island effect produced by urbanization. Further, there there is no geographic reason that East Texas would be biased for climate variation. Also, I said "global warming here". You are pretty good at putting words in other people's mouths, but you whine when I claim to know what you are trying to say. IMHO, you are better at putting your nose up in the air than trying to discuss a topic intelligently.

 

i know.

right. its a common thing to say, and you have said it, that "i cant believe it isnt damaging to dump X amount of Y into the environment". this is called argument from incredulity and has no validity. you have to actually know how much of the whatever is being dumped and how much we can manage.

 

Or, prove that what, the 1.5 degree change in the last 15 years is a bad thing or wouldn't have happened if humans weren't here.

Why is being a human so dirty.

 

http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php


"A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation. Proponents of the notion that increases in the air's CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past century's weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global air temperature as proof of their contention. However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history."



"Strong negative climatic feedbacks prohibit catastrophic warming. Strong negative feedbacks play major roles in earth's climate system. If they did not, no life would exist on the planet, for some perturbation would long ago have sent the world careening into a state of cosmic cold or horrendous heat; and we know from the fossil record that neither of these extremes has ever occurred, even over billions of years, and in spite of a large increase in the luminosity of the sun throughout geologic time.

Consider, in this regard, the water vapor that would be added to the atmosphere by enhanced evaporation in a warmer world. The extra moisture would likely lead to the production of more and higher-water-content clouds, both of which consequences would tend to cool the planet by reflecting more solar radiation back to space.

A warmer world would also mean a warmer ocean, which would likely lead to an increase in the productivity of marine algae or phytoplankton. This phenomenon, in turn, would enhance the biotic production of certain sulfur-based substances that diffuse into the air, where they are oxidized and converted into particles that function as cloud condensation nuclei. The resulting increase in the number of cloud-forming particles would thus produce more and smaller cloud droplets, which are more reflective of incoming solar radiation; and this phenomenon would also tend to cool the planet.

All of these warming-induced cloud-related cooling effects are very powerful. It has been shown, for example, that the warming predicted to result from a doubling of the air's CO content may be totally countered by: (1) a mere 1% increase in the reflectivity of the planet, or (2) a 10% increase in the amount of the world's low-level clouds, or (3) a 15 to 20% reduction in the mean droplet radius of earth's boundary-layer clouds, or (4) a 20 to 25% increase in cloud liquid water content. In addition, it has been demonstrated that the warming-induced production of high-level clouds over the equatorial oceans almost totally nullifies that region's powerful water vapor greenhouse effect, which supplies much of the temperature increase in the CO2-induced global warming scenario."

 

Water vapor overwhelms all other natural and man-made
greenhouse contributions.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html