What will the global temperature be in 2020 for Noaa and Giss

Stanford climate scientists forecast permanently hotter summers beginning in 20 years

The tropics and much of the Northern Hemisphere are likely to experience an irreversible rise in summer temperatures within the next 20 to 60 years if atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, according to a new climate study by Stanford University scientists. The results will be published later this month in the journal Climatic Change Letters.

In the study, the Stanford team concluded that many tropical regions in Africa, Asia and South America could see "the permanent emergence of unprecedented summer heat" in the next two decades. Middle latitudes of Europe, China and North America – including the United States – are likely to undergo extreme summer temperature shifts within 60 years, the researchers found.

"According to our projections, large areas of the globe are likely to warm up so quickly that, by the middle of this century, even the coolest summers will be hotter than the hottest summers of the past 50 years," said the study's lead author, Noah Diffenbaugh, an assistant professor of environmental Earth system science and fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford. The study is co-authored by Stanford research assistant Martin Scherer.


Oh.........ok........so now its 20 years from now!!! I see..........:up:

But it was suppossed to start about 12 years ago......:wtf::wtf::wtf:

Oh but I get it.......the science has evolved!!:coffee:


gslack bro......we gotta connect and talk bridge building!!!
 
Last edited:
My, my, ol' G thinks that socialism is capable of melting glaciers and ice caps. Buddy boy, it is not politics that is increasing the world temperature, but the GHGs from the burning of fossil fuels. And it is irrelevant what political system that burning is occuring in.
Then why do you idiots insist that changing the political system will solve it?



Well, I surely don't went to change the economic system as just like between republicanism(democracy through rep)and any other there is no system better...But wouldn't mind throwing a few of the morons that have gotten us into a mess with our debt and wish to rule us the hell out. We need no king!

Really, I'm not against clean energy, but think we should have it all planned out and can quickly put it together in away that won't hurt people. You can't go slowly putting together a system that cost 3-4 times as much per watt of energy without hurting people as the energy corporations will charge the person trying to stay warm the difference. You can't go over to electric cars out right without shorting the whole electric grid that we have in place. It will take more energy then we have currently to switch over---I'd go as far as twice if not more times as much.

We must think it through in a economic and moral way not to hurt the population that lives day to day.
 
Last edited:
My, my, ol' G thinks that socialism is capable of melting glaciers and ice caps. Buddy boy, it is not politics that is increasing the world temperature, but the GHGs from the burning of fossil fuels. And it is irrelevant what political system that burning is occuring in.
Then why do you idiots insist that changing the political system will solve it?



Well, I surely don't went to change the economic system as just like between republicanism(democracy through rep)and any other there is no system better...But wouldn't mind throwing a few of the morons that have gotten us into a mess with our debt and wish to rule us the hell out. We need no king!

Really, I'm not against clean energy, but think we should have it all planned out and can quickly put it together in away that won't hurt people. You can't go slowly putting together a system that cost 3-4 times as much per watt of energy without hurting people as the energy corporations will charge the person trying to stay warm the difference. You can't go over to electric cars out right without shorting the whole electric grid that we have in place. It will take more energy then we have currently to switch over---I'd go as far as twice if not more times as much.

We must think it through in a economic and moral way not to hurt the population that lives day to day.

The economic system runs on debt. Thats the problem. Want to stop balloons and busts? Want to eliminate the debt problems? Well then we need financial responsibility. THis has to start from the monetary system and go on from there. As long as the value of a dollar is based on what a bank feels a country is able to pay for, we will be in these situations over and again.

We got problems that are far more threatening than a perceived climate change theoretical threat in a few hundred years. We got a debt crisis that could shut down critical government institutions, a need for energy that increases by the second, overpopulation that no one has the balls to address, and most opinions come from the TV these days. So forgive me if I have a bit of a temper when it comes to people making wild and often baseless claims regarding climate change.

The only possible viable alternative right now resides in Hydrogen and Hydrogen Fuel cell technology. But that has its drawbacks right now as well. Currently the ways to make pure Hydrogen are too costly, or worse for the environment than the alternatives.

You guys like to pretend its the oil companies keeping hydrogen down but the truth is its much more than that. All the people who make money off of oil, even in a roundabout way are the real issue here. people who rely on fossil fuels to do there business, to get medical care to people, logistics, you name it. Not to mention the medical and pharmaceutical companies who make a great deal of their products from oil and its by-products. Investors, military, the list is endless.

You guys seem to live in an idealistic fantasy where all it takes is a few laws passed or some incentive and all will be fine using alternatives. Well sorry to tell you but the reality is even severe cut back on fossil fuel use will result in millions of deaths and millions suffering. And not just for a little bit either. This is the harsh reality that faces the world, so a theoretical climate issue hundreds of years down the road is not on my priorities list right now.
 
My, my, ol' G thinks that socialism is capable of melting glaciers and ice caps. Buddy boy, it is not politics that is increasing the world temperature, but the GHGs from the burning of fossil fuels. And it is irrelevant what political system that burning is occuring in.
Then why do you idiots insist that changing the political system will solve it?



Well, I surely don't went to change the economic system as just like between republicanism(democracy through rep)and any other there is no system better...But wouldn't mind throwing a few of the morons that have gotten us into a mess with our debt and wish to rule us the hell out. We need no king!

Really, I'm not against clean energy, but think we should have it all planned out and can quickly put it together in away that won't hurt people. You can't go slowly putting together a system that cost 3-4 times as much per watt of energy without hurting people as the energy corporations will charge the person trying to stay warm the difference. You can't go over to electric cars out right without shorting the whole electric grid that we have in place. It will take more energy then we have currently to switch over---I'd go as far as twice if not more times as much.

We must think it through in a economic and moral way not to hurt the population that lives day to day.
And you're right. But not many of the fossil-fuel haters share your views. They want fossil fuels legislated out of use before alternatives are practical, economical, and scalable.

They really are short-sighted.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top