North Pole will be warmer than Western Texas today

[Rob L 3,811]

the good news is, santa now lives in western texas.

With all my Exes

[Sal Monella 5]

At first I believed this, but then I clicked on the link "fleet of weather monitoring equipment near the North Pole" and saw that all temps were well below freezing. A bogus article?

Anyway, you got me.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Wettest year on record in all of Texas. Even the ducks were wearing their overshoes.

Global warming was responsible for the droughts last year.. in Texas and California . Must be over that situation. .

[Póg mo 1,749]

Why are we debating climate change still?

Something is definitely happening no matter what we call it.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

Upton Sinclair

[TBoneTX 46,379]

No! Global warming is responsible for this year's floods, and for the uncomfortably cold temperatures of today. It is all mankind's fault, and we should revert to Paleolithic Era manners of living if we are to SAVE THE PLANET!!!!!!!

[Póg mo 1,749]

Did he get a green card? The North Pole is technically either Canadian, Greenland(Ian?) or Danish

I thought he moved to China. All the ####### my nieces and nephews received from him was marked made in China.

[Póg mo 1,749]

No! Global warming is responsible for this year's floods, and for the uncomfortably cold temperatures of today. It is all mankind's fault, and we should revert to Paleolithic Era manners of living if we are to SAVE THE PLANET!!!!!!!

Brilliant! I love how insightful you can be. Personal opinion beats out science any day of the week.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

I don't think there is a big debate regarding climate change. The earth's climate has been changing since it was formed. The debate is really around what may be causing it, human factors, or natural factors. From the classes I have taken and the research I have conducted, I don't feel we have good models to predict anything out beyond 5 days with respect to the weather.

You are right. any model predicting weather at any particular spot on the planet becomes more and more imprecise as we move forward in time to a point of being basically useless very quickly.

This has nothing do with climate change.

We know CO2 traps energy in the atmosphere, we also know that humans are currently creating about 38 billion tons every year. Natural CO2 emissions vary year to year and our planet has natural balancing mechanisms - such as CO2 causing plants to grow faster which reduces CO2 and increases O2.

Currently the ecosystem of the planet is not able to naturally balance the CO2 that is created naturally and by man. This is not in dispute - we know exactly how exactly how much CO2 is in the atmosphere and that it is increasing and that the rate is increasing. We also know that if we take the amount in the atmosphere and subtract what humans are adding the increase would be zero. The debate is the effect his will have on the planet.

Nobody really knows the endpoint if this continues - will the earth find a new balance point by releasing the excess energy in the form of continually increasing weather extremes? Or possibly a shutdown of the jet stream and ocean currents which has been predicted which would result in regional extremes and may lead to another ice age? We really don't know - temporarily the earth can balance the excess energy by melting ice but that does not last forever.

Edited December 30, 2015 by OnMyWayID

[Dashinka 24,960]

You are right. any model predicting weather at any particular spot on the planet becomes more and more imprecise as we move forward in time to a point of being basically useless very quickly.

This has nothing do with climate change.

We know CO2 traps energy in the atmosphere, we also know that humans are currently creating about 38 billion tons every year. Natural CO2 emissions vary year to year and our planet has natural balancing mechanisms - such as CO2 causing plants to grow faster which reduces CO2 and increases O2.

Currently the ecosystem of the planet is not able to naturally balance the CO2 that is created naturally and by man. This is not in dispute - we know exactly how exactly how much CO2 is in the atmosphere and that it is increasing and that the rate is increasing. We also know that if we take the amount in the atmosphere and subtract what humans are adding the increase would be zero. The debate is the effect his will have on the planet.

Nobody really knows the endpoint if this continues - will the earth find a new balance point by releasing the excess energy in the form of continually increasing weather extremes? Or possibly a shutdown of the jet stream and ocean currents which has been predicted which would result in regional extremes and may lead to another ice age? We really don't know - temporarily the earth can balance the excess energy by melting ice but that does not last forever.

The problem is that the models are guessing too much on the total CO2 forcing factors. Many put way too much weight on the CO2 and ignore solar activity completely. There were ice ages that showed much higher levels of CO2 than today (see article). So to put the entire cause of periodic climate change on the back of CO2 seems like a really big stretch. My biggest concern is that leaders tend to over-react to minor effects and make statement ps regarding the need to end carbon emissions. Do they really think before they speak? Ending all carbon emissions would require the elimination of all life on this earth.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-higher-in-late-Ordovician.htm

[Dakine10 5,452]

The problem is that the models are guessing too much on the total CO2 forcing factors. Many put way too much weight on the CO2 and ignore solar activity completely. There were ice ages that showed much higher levels of CO2 than today (see article). So to put the entire cause of periodic climate change on the back of CO2 seems like a really big stretch. My biggest concern is that leaders tend to over-react to minor effects and make statement ps regarding the need to end carbon emissions. Do they really think before they speak? Ending all carbon emissions would require the elimination of all life on this earth.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-higher-in-late-Ordovician.htm

CO2 has never been indicated as the primary cause of ice ages. There is strong evidence linking variations in earths orbit to the regular occurrence of ice ages (known as Milankovich cycles). The positive/negative feedback of CO2 levels is more closely linked to the global extent and duration of ice ages.

No one disputes the other factors involved in geological climate change, however when looking at an isolated period of time, increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are going have the immediate effect of positive feedback on temperature.

[Expat1 971]

Wettest year on record in all of Texas. Even the ducks were wearing their overshoes.

The heat and drought were because of global warming and climate change. Now the rain and cold are because of global warming and climate change.

[Expat1 971]

You're on a roll this week

[smilesammich 10,727]

You're on a roll this week

THIS WEEK?

[Expat1 971]

THIS WEEK?

Yeah, you're either running around on him or you two have an on-again/off-again relationship

[smilesammich 10,727]

Yeah, you're either running around on him or you two have an on-again/off-again relationship

now you've lost me.