[Climate Change] Lake Erie up to 60% Covered in Ice

Geez do you even read through what you post? It isn't saying that it is absolutely determined that it is just natural variability in winds causing the drought but that it is a likely and doesn't rule out other causes.

[rquoter]If the observed wind changes are a result of natural variability, this suggests that both the hiatus and the drought over the southwestern U.S. are the product of natural variability of the climate system. If, however, the observed wind changes are a response to changing radiative forcings, this would have important implications for future climate in the southwestern US. [/rquoter]

You keep on hammering that other evidence that doesn't agree with your viewpoint just list possibilities while trumpeting what does as certainty. Further what this post actually strengthens the argument for global warming by pointing the hiatus (which is very much up to debate) is a self-limiting factor. So even if we accept that there hasn't been an increase in global temperatures since 1998 that was caused by things that are not limited in nature and not a counter to the idea that anthropogenic warming isn't happening.

[rquoter]Further, idealized experiments show that this mechanism for producing a hiatus is self-limiting, and only persists for a decade or two in our models.[/rquoter]

Also as earlier evidence you posted states that while the drought might be likely caused by natural variables it might be exacerbated by the effects of Global Warming.

As I said I give you credit for posting some good evidence arguing against specific weather phenomena as being caused / tied to Global Warming but nothing you've posted contradicts the overall idea that it is happening and that human factors are causing it. In fact much of your own source material argues for that.

The evidence you've provided is like those who argue against Evolution by citing the Cambrian Explosion which does challenge the idea of a steady state Evolution but actually supports the idea of Evolution overall. It is basically picking at the margins without getting to the central premise.

 

That doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

Climate models are not meant to predict short-term variability on the timeframe of 10 or so years. They are meant to track changes over the course of decades and centuries.

Thus far the models have been very accurate. http://www.theguardian.com/environm...odels-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought


So you are looking for some way to spin things otherwise in order to be against it, but the reality is that as time goes on, the confidence in the models and that global warming is happening is actually going up.

 

What's the strawman? Recent studies explained the hiatus as uneven warming as the oceans are absorbing the heat.

Climate models are accurate. What is the issue - beyond quoting a bunch of stuff you can't even interpret. Don't you think it's odd all you can do is quote a bunch of scientific language you are unable to translate or interpret?

Very weird.

 

Ok, so global warming might not cause droughts and all that stuff. I can agree there.

But to say we aren't warming the earth - I mean that's all I am trying to say is that global warming (man made) is real!

 

Natural variations again - world has another record breaking month:

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/09/18/august-breaks-heat-records-across-globe-us.html


That's 6 months of records this year for global temp, and about 100 in the past few decades. 2015 will top 2014 as the hottest year in modern history. Just coincidence. Just natural variations.

Just keep talking about how it's cold in siberia today.

 

Global temperature - not local anomalies - is breaking records. It is hotter than it's ever been in recorded human history.

When will you stop denying reality?

 

You're not going to convince skeptics. But I wanna know why the hell we aren't doing it anyway? We can all agree fossil fuel is dirty, right? There are risks from fracking. There are risks from drilling for more oil. You want to put a pipeline through the center of our country after seeing the Gulf of Mexico disaster? That oil hasn't gone anywhere by the way, they just put a chemical on it to make it sink. We kill each other over it in the Middle East. The gasoline internal combustion engine is 135 years old now. And taking subsidies from already profitable energy companies into renewables creates jobs, if only for 5-10 years, instead of profits. And how could you be 100% sure it's not man accelerated? It's not like we have another planet to go to if you're wrong.

 

Yes of course we know climate has changed many times before. Can you really be so naive as to see the latest warming trend starting in 1750 with the Industrial Revolution? Then shortly after 1945, temperature begins rising very quickly. Why does that correspond precisely to the time America couldn't build enough factories and cars? That's some coincidence.

 

Only a small rise from 1750 to 1860. What happened in 1860? The first gasoline internal combustion engine. Another coincidence.