Nay-sayers typically don’t disagree that things are heating up, we disagree about the cause. Y’all must hate how most of your readers don’t believe in manmade climate change.
From the article: "what these charts don't try to show is how hot it was..." GOOD! Because they don't. It's a sign of the times that charts hiding the numbers (the ADJUSTED numbers) behind arbitrary coloring is "news". As to the title question -- you will never reach "nay-sayers" until you listen long enough to learn what the objection is. For many, the trouble is not that it's getting warmer (it is) or that humans are likely to be partly responsible. It's the leap to "catastrophe!" The basis for panic (and very costly "remedies") is the IPCC climate models -- you remember them, the ones that haven't agreed with the data for the past twenty years.
PiperTom: what you dont realize is were headed toward a catastrophe plain and simple as runaway heating cycle begins due to melting permafrost, melting methane hydrates, CO2, etc. All combining to push temps not just 5 degrees higher but more than 30 degrees eventually which would snuff out most life on land. The danger is real and venus is the proof.
No but the megaton methane explosions in the arctic slowly depleting the atmosphere of oxygen like happened 150 million years ago... the hydrogen sulphide clouds from the anoxic oceans ... eventually will. But it will not matter that much then. Another planet will bite the dust. Oh right .. it does sound like the apocalypse? .. because that is the STORY of a small climate change event fron the end of the last glaciation.. this one will be on another scale
Almost nobody disagrees that it is getting SLIGHTLY warmer but CO2 is not the only reason and by the laws of physics a warming spell should trigger a cooling one. If politicians were proposing a new electric nationwide rail system to replace a lot of the trucking and if they were going full steam to perfect fusion power and if they were proposing electric trolley systems to help with mass transit and if they were proposing regulations that would put a buffer zone between buildings and the sea, I would listen. BUT they only want to add a carbon tax and increase control over our daily lives thus enriching themselves and gaining power while doing little to combat CO2. The real problems of overpopulation, famine, pollution, war and disease aren't even being mentioned. I am not a denier but I am wise to the deception being used to take our wealth and freedoms. I am really getting tired of all the hair brain, impractical, unrealistic solutions being presented by political candidates who are showing their ignorance and real motives. This is one huge puppet show to shove a world government down our throats.
Ran Xerox
The Earth is in a inter-glacial period frequented by drastic up and down swings in global temp and glacial extents. Compared to geological temps from the entire inter-glacial period, there is nothing extra-ordinary about modern temp changes. Fact is, the Earth overall and on average is much warmer outside of these periods. Aka, even if humans are bumping up the temp with CO2, the Earth has been that warm and far warmer, there is no apocalypse. The problem with the AWG scare is that it sucks $ trillons from the world that would be better spent on cleaning our oceans or curing cancer.
Heading toward a total catastrophe, are we? All because of CO2? Back (~1950) when atmospheric CO2 levels were ~200 ppm, ***ALL*** of the "heat" (photons of relevant wavelength) that could be captured by CO2 ***WAS*** captured within the first ~150 feet AGL (above ground level). Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at ~410 ppm cannot result in the capture of additional "heat" because there is no additional "heat" to capture. The only difference of significance is that now the relevant photons are all captured within the first ~75 feet AGL.
Joshua Tulberg
Awe man. These comment sections are always such a disappointment.