Sure they could be, no denyin that. After all anything is possible.
I’m just amazed at the number of GCC proponents who have said the same stupid thing.
“I hate it when denier retards use cold winters as evidence against climate change. After all, look how fucking hot it is this summer! Douches!”
Makes being a GCC agnostic fun.
I’m a firm believer in the scientific consensus of global warming, but am skeptical about any given weather event being blamed on it. Even with a warming trend it should result in a few degrees over a number of decades and so on an individual year basis will be swamped by random fluctuations. That said, we’ve been having some crazy weather here in the US this year: record snowfall, record tornadoes, record floods, record drought. It does make me wonder.
Well I’m with you if you are talking about solar activity, but I don’t think that’s what OP had in mind.
It’s obviously due to the acceptance of gay marriage. If you don’t believe me, just wait for the swarms of locusts and the rivers running red with blood. :eek:
I live in the red corner of a red state that outlawed gay marriage pre-emptively.
Obviously it’s due to us rejecting gay marriage.
Or, you know, overall climate change can melt the snows sooner and throw off our summer water supply.
Or we’re getting less rainfall due to air pollution from China just as Africa got less rainfall due to air pollution from Europe in the 1980’s.
But the fact is, when people tell you things are getting worse overall, & the data support it, that’s possible evidence of a trendline.
You know, like the ones that scientists use to plot actual global warming!
Schmucks.
Well, lets start with some reality, remember the much maligned Dr. Jones from CRU? The deniers had a field day when in 2009 he was sincere and acknowledged that there was no significant warming trend from 1995. What the deniers forgot to mention to all their followers was that he explained that it was just barely under what statisticians would call a significant trend, deniers forgot to tell their followers also that now that 2010 is over the data can be looked at Dr. Jones reported now that now there is a demonstrated significant warming trend from 1995.
Having said that, please do learn that for more recent dates one has to wait longer to report that the warming is continuing, but looking at the data and taking the past into account, is a good bet that the trend is still up.
Well, yes and no.
This item has been also misrepresented by many climate change deniers and many on the media.
It works by asking the questions in a way that when climate scientists reply in the expected way then the deniers can come with great headlines.
A recent one was the headlines that claimed that scientists reported that there is no evidence that AGW was responsible for the tornadoes, and excessive rain in the central and north east regions of the USA, and the drying of the south west.
That is accurate, but only half of the truth.
That would be like asking if an increase in the energy or water vapor in some regions in the atmosphere could cause tornadoes or droughts, scientists then have to report the truth, natural phenomenons are still there, and AGW is not causing tornadoes, floods, etc.
The problem that is hidden by that line of questioning is that AGW is like an enhanced atmospheric tide growing as time goes by. Natural disasters then still come, but just like a hurricane is deadlier if the ocean tide is high when the hurricane makes landfall, so are the natural disasters that come stronger and deadlier thanks to AGW.
Goddamit, this is turning into a debate about whether AGW/GCC is a real phenomenon, which wasn’t the point of the OP. Nor, for that matter, was it the point the OP was ridiculed for.
Just to get things back on track, OP more or less stated that the fact that it was hot this summer is proof of global warming.
This makes him a nimrod and a schmuck.
Now:
The real problem is that this paragraph is speculation. Or, I should say, the theory that AGW will cause more deadly and stronger disasters is speculation; predictions based on models etc.
When we’ve been observing the climate scientifically for about 1000 years, I’ll commit one way or another. Wait…but…by then it may be too late!!! Spare me.
I know someone will probably throw all kinds of links at me, don’t bother. I’ve read them all, and remain uncommitted either way.
Hmmm … if the sea level goes up, don’t you get LESS coastline, not more? Since you have less land area to be bounded by water, and that’s what coastline is.
But if everybody who was living along the old coastline died, you’d have a lot fewer people and therefore the newer coastline would be up for grabs!
But that would probably require a much more rapid sea-level rise than global warming could possibly produce, since otherwise many of them would just move inland.
Greenland and Antarctica would suddenly be available, though, if all the ice covering them melted, and that’s gotta count for a lot of new coastline …
This is a difficult question! 
Yes and no
Only after looking at the overall year is that then we can compare it with the other ones, as it turn out, the last 10 years are the warmest on instrumental record, time will tell if this one follows those levels.
It is not only models that climate scientists use to base the predicted temperature increase based on the increase of CO2 emissions.
As it turn out very good analysis of the last 2000 years have been made, also the ones attempting to discredit the past proxy temperature records have been recently discredited (Wegman and others)
I will not then, as we are in the pit, I can say with certainty that you are just a willful ignorant.
“More or less” covers a multitude of inaccuracies. I believe in that AGW has been proven, not because of this summer, but because it is at this moment the best science we have. I used to be a global skeptic, I can doubt things better than you can, but the best bet is that AGW is real.
Given that it is in all likelihood real, then I suppose it is, ontologically, happening, and this has increased the likelihood of my lily corms dying in the ground in a region where this should not normally happen.
Not because of Al Gore. Not because of climate science. Not because of human awareness. Just because it is.
And so long as those in power think doubting a likely reality is the same as having confidence in its counterfactual, then we lose the ability to make the highest-utility choice.
Also, boot to the head.
Given that global warming is y’know global, I guess the question to ask it whether other places outside the US are also experiencing unusual weather. I know that there was a heat wave that destroyed the wheat crop in Russia. Any other foreign dopers want to complain about the weather?
Think I’ll end on that note.
Hugs and Kisses,
Sicks.
Please don’t confuse the ozone layer and global warming. They’re very different problems. We’ve made tremendous progress on the ozone layer thanks to the Montreal Protocol. We haven’t make much progress on global warming.
This. A thousand times this. Weather is not the plural of climate. A hot summer is no more indicative of global warming than a cold winter is indicative that there’s no global warming. Look at multi-year global trends, not seasonal local variation.
Well, why didn’t you start the OP like that then?
Fact is, I do really get annoyed when guys like you start with the idea of concentrating on just the current summer or the last few years, that does not work unless you put the recent years in the context of several years into the past.
As for anyone who is not Sicks Ate, this site should be looked at to get to the facts and debunk the most common myths on AGW:
Well, at least the OP read the responses in this thread and corrected his mistaken thesis.
ban him!!!oneone!!one@!
Not really. He’s still blaming his lilies dying on climate change. Consider:
He’s still thinking too short term which indicates that he may believe in climate change, but he sure as Hell doesn’t understand it. He still can’t get the concept that Climate Change occurs over decades, and he shouldn’t try to tie his current local weather conditions to it. I also don’t think he understands the definition of “ontology”.
AGH! also GAH!
OK, yes, we’ve had heat waves before. But the mean has moved up. That’s climate change. So the probability of getting over a “no rainfall this year” threshold goes up. Look, I’m willing to entertain alternative explanations, as in post 25, but…oh, here:
And I should have known that clumsy use of “ontologically” would come back to bite me.