The Weather Outside Today Affects Your Stance On Climate Change

Well, when it's record heat in December one week, next week it snows in one night 4 times more than we usually get in a year, then two weeks later we have record heat again, then we get some more snow and ice, and one week later than that we have record high temperatures again; something's not right. As a lifelong weather enthusiast who has been living in the same are for over 30 years, I can tell you that my local climate is changing. You can just look at the number of records broken last year. I believe it was Wired that had a pretty good infographic of that data.

The average high for today is 57°. Currently it's 82° outside.

This is very accurate. Here, up North in Canada, we are sensitive to odd climates. Many people in my area believe in Climate Change because we notice the abundance of "green Christmases". As well, we recently experienced a week in which the temperature had reached positive double digits. In the middle of January. Directly after that, the temperature DRASTICALLY dropped to negative double digits with no transition phase whatsoever.

Everybody gets so tied up in global warming hysterics. The truth is that warm stages come in cycles every 100,000 years or so probably tied to changes in the elliptical orbit of the Earth over time. The last one was 110,000 to 130,000 years ago and the average temperature was 14 degrees Farenheit higher and sea levels were about 40 feet higher.

Mankind was around then and doing just fine and mother nature was no where near an extinction event.

Change is natural. In fact without change evolution continues at a snails pace and it's during changes that most of the evolving occurs. Are we to play god and try to prevent change and thus inhibit the introduction of new species that would have resulted from allowing the changes to take place?

That's playing god!

I'm tired of all the environmentalists screaming the sky is falling when the opposite is true--change is natural and cycles have happened hundreds of times during the last billion years of life on Earth and will happen hundreds more time before life is all cremated when the sun swallows us all up.

I'm also tired of the rich people who live on the beaches complaining about this too which the changes occur over such a large time frame that your children or grand children will have plenty of time to adjust and move as necessary.

Get a life Humans and get a grip on reality.

Since gizmowiz already covered the rational rebuttal, I'll handle the ad-hominum and absurdity points.

"Hot outside? Global warming! Cold outside? Not global warming!"

As opposed to the "enlightened" that say:
"Hot outside? Global Warming! Cold outside? Global Warming!"

Seriously, it is the most robust theory I think man-kind has ever seen, because no matter what meteorological phenomenon is going on, be it hot summers, cool summers, warm winters, cool winters...it is always presented as evidence for global warming. Remarkable! Even when you feed in random data to the hockey-stick model, you get a hockey-stick! Global warming truly is inevitable!

But I mean really... even this website tried claiming Superstorm Sandy (A tropical storm colliding with a blizzard) was a result of global warming... even though the science (not on whether it is happening, but what effects it should have) states that global warming will warm the higher latitudes... resulting in less of a gradient which should reduce the number of hurricane-blizzard collisions.

I still marvel at how people still take this claim seriously after their models have been egregiously over-predicting doomsday for 30 years.

Prediction for future direction:
"New research shows AGW cancels out natural cooling, producing the recent 16-year climate stasis. This is dangerous to our planets health. As a result, the EPA will now be regulating gasoline, requiring people to produce at least 1Kg of CO2 per day for 2 years, followed by no more than .2Kg of CO2 per day for 2 years, to ensure our climate fluctuates at a healthy rate."

Gizmo, change may be natural, but the RATE of change being experienced at this moment is unprecedented in Earth's history when removing "catastrophic events" like supervolcanoes and asteroids.

Whatever form of humans were around 100kya may have done alright, but there were maybe a couple hundred thousand and they were more or less cave dwellers. We now number 7 billion and are living in such a way (cities) that we can't get up and move when the ocean approaches. What happens to New York, LA, or New Orleans with water 14ft above today? They'll all come crying to the government to build them a new city when theirs is lost. I'm sure not gonna pay for that.

Regardless of whether this change is normal or man made, I would prefer we didn't have it at all. Modern humanity has only come about in the last 10ky (agriculture allowed social evolution, not just physical) which has been incredably stable climatically. Any wrench in that system will just screw us over.

As for the story, it reminds me of this .gif I found a while back - http:// oi49.tinypic. com/t8qn1f. jpg (remember to remove the spaces).

my roomate's mother makes $79 every hour on the internet. She has been out of a job for 5 months but last month her check was $21010 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this site Great70.com

Ideology runs the democratic party. They can't control people without some scare. Of course they won't be changing their story as the temp changes.

Bagpipes, ideology runs all politics (most notibly in America). One party uses scientific scare tactics, and one uses the age old "he's a black scoialist that wants to take all your guns" scare tactics. That's why American politics are the laughing stock of the developed world.

Looks like there are three types of people in the world.
Democrats, Republicans and Homer Simpsons.

Does anybody else not see that the image of the glacier is photoshopped? There's a drop shadow on the top left part of the glacier. Drop shadows don't exist in nature, only in photoshop. Secondly, at the bottom of the image, almost in the center, there is a protrusion visible in the reflection that does not actually exist on the iceberg. I guess my real question is to whomever did the photoshopping: what would prompt you to put a drop shadow on that iceberg?? And another question to PopSci: why use a photoshopped image of an iceberg??

Whoever coined the term "global warming" may have been accurate, but certainly did a disservice to public understanding of the climate issue.

I don't think that the "anthropogenic" bit matters; I don't think the global warming bit matters much more. We have 7 billion people living on the planet. A couple of years ago, we had 6; how many humans can this planet sustain? How long will it take to reach that number? If we don't try to figure out the answer to those two questions, while simultaneously work on displacing population to other planets, we will eventually be boxed into no other choice than war and genocide. Maybe it'll be 5 generations, maybe more, maybe less, but when there is an expanding population using limited resources, there will be a confrontation.