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

This. Tallanvor must be a troll, because if he's really this stupid I'm amazed he can type.

 

Thank you, its so much fun having those discussions than others on this board.
First you make valid points, its hard to argue with someone that don't want to pay now with an argument of "what if?" Its like convincing someone in his 20's to do a medical insurance, he's all healthy now, why should he think that it might all go to hell in the future?

I will try to explain why I think that investing now in research and new technologies to help maintain pollution and depleting of natural resources (of all sorts, not only fossil fuels but also water, E-waste and the many aspects of man made consumption side products).

I do agree that we need to find better ways to give a real cost/benefit analysis. We are still not there because of the field of giving an actual value to "free" natural resources and hidden costs of pollution is still very young. There is a miss communication of languish between science and economist due to the different ways we observe the world.

Science has always seen further into the future, but scientist way of thinking is skeptic, always with a doubt. Decision makers find it extremely annoying and unproductive. "how can you tell me that something 'might' happen? will it or will it not?" The environment of scientific uncertainty is almost impossible to deal with in the real world.

The business world however, is a little bit more visionary. It looks at opportunities. Looks for solutions. As early as 1800 Malthusian catastrophe theory of food shortage due to exponential growth of human population has brought real concern to the world.
Right after WW2 a lot of money was invested in research and developing new technologies in modern agriculture to attack the future Malthusian catastrophe theory. It led to the "green revolution" and consequently saved the lives of billion of people in developing countries from starvation.

Our dependent on fossil fuels and our over consumption and depleting of natural resources brought together scientist all over the world with a warning- "we can't continue in that road".
Now we must hear them and look for solutions. Continue living like we do now "might" lead to our demise. It might not. We are smart. We're adaptive. We will find solutions- but it cost money.
So why should you spend it in the sake of these "Islanders"? No, in the sake of your children.
Using less nylon bags doesn't cost you money, changing your light bulb to a more efficient one will end up saving you money, thinking of ways to use less of your car will save you money. So why are we complaining?

 

The FACT is that there is more heat in the atmosphere now than in the last millions of years. That doesn't mean some places will not have colder temperatures. A warmer atmosphere may in fact make some places colder.

Weather is far more complex as it involve things such as ocean currents and jet streams. One impact of a warmer climate is a weaker jet stream which would actually bring colder air into the u.s. in the winter and could result in greater ice extent.

Over all the temperature is rising, and the oceans are rising as well.

I suggest you stick to attacking religion vs. science.

 

ANy questions?

 

Yup, so the cold air that would be more over the poles is more over Lake Erie.... because the Earth is balancing more heat energy. But really it was just an O'reilly joke.

 

Yes, I have some questions for you:
1. Why are you concerned about less than 1% of temperature anomaly from trough to peak over 130 years?
2. Why did you choose the timeframe that you chose? Why did you choose a 130 year sample size when the earth is millions of years old?
3. The chart speaks nothing to causation, what did you look at to determine what caused this rise?
4. Why did you choose a 130 year sample size when the earth is millions of years old?
5. What, if any, are the negative consequences of a 0.7% movement in "temperature anomaly"?
6. How do you define "temperature anomaly"?


As you can tell, it is intellectually deficient to look at an upward sloping line graph and draw any type of conclusions whatsoever. It must have context, which this simply doesn't have. And this is the work of "science" that some of you hold so sacred? This wouldn't even pass for a B in an introductory statistics class.

 

my head hurts after someone linked this page for me to read. i think i may have been wrong.. it bothers me after i read what the pentagon also said and those guys aren't stupid which is why our military is #1. still it doesnt change that we all go down together because we have the freedom to destroy ourselves. global warming or climate change is a way for our species to suicide. you either need to do a better job at stopping us from jumping or just to letting us do it. in the end most of us will return to jesus.

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming

Below is a complete listing of the articles in “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic,” a series by Coby Beck containing responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming. There are four separate taxonomies; arguments are divided by:

Stages of Denial,
Scientific Topics,
Types of Argument, and
Levels of Sophistication.

 

Thank you Faust- a great piece that is doing a much better job than me of explaining what is happening and why its important to address it.

FV Santiago, I urge you to read it. It will answer most of your questions.

 

2014 the hottest year on record.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/envi...rd-warmest-year-noaa-nasa-experts-say-n287551

When are you guys going to pull your head out of the sand? Seriously, do you not have kids or anything?

The earth is clearly warming. The links to man-made emissions are by scientific standards - rock solid. This is not correlation - it is causation. If you don't understand that than you don't buy into science at all and might as well believe that dinosaur bones are 4000 years old.

 

The blue is now the anomaly.

 

ive found some answers to you from that website i linked earlier. i think all your objections are found on that website. http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

 

There wasn't 7.5 billion people with half that population living in low lying areas 8000 years ago either.

There a ton of evidence by the way that co2 is behind climate change that goes beyond correlation. It has been posted here. Why are you ignoring it?

 

Austin Water to add more rules to Stage Three restrictions

Even with the recent rain in Central Texas, it hasn't fallen in the right places to help alleviate drought conditions.

The Austin Water Utility is hoping for the best but planning for the worst, and one business says homeowners are preparing, too.

link

 

As someone who is absolutely on the side that climate change is anthropogenic and denying it would be ignorant, can somebody link me an informative article or shortly summarize how it leads to more natural wildfires, droughts, and extreme storms? This is not me being sarcastic, I am actually interested to learn more on the subject. (Although it is sad that some would see this post as sarcastic, because there are actual people who would ask those questions to mock those of us who believe in the people who's entire careers it is to study this science).

 

Can someone please enlighten me as to why we should be freaking out over whether the earth's temperature has increased by a mere 1 degree over 100 years? This is a negligible increase, yet people are acting like 1 degree will somehow tip the scales to make the earth uninhabitable. The hyperbole is very damaging to the credibility of the global warming movement.

Why is a 1 degree rise over 100 years something that a family should spend $1000's of dollars on per year?

 

You cannot reference actual temperatures, but rather you must think about the buffering mechanisms within the planet to help keep things the way they are, the way humans were evolved to eke out a life under, and how those mechanisms are changing. Those two things, of course, are the oceans and the polar ice caps.

Think back to your chemistry class and what you may have learned regarding buffers. In a given solution you may place a salt which can simultaneously form acid or base under different pH's. Under most conditions, the pH of the solution will remain near constant, and you can add acid or base in either direction and the salt will simply compensate to make neutral compounds out of what you are adding in. But eventually, there comes a time when all the salt has been consumed, and now you lose your buffering capacity. You have overwhelmed the system. The human body works like this, with the blood pH calibrated to be 7.4 and carbon dioxide/bicarbonate serving as the buffer.

Well, in terms of the planet earth, even if you want to grasp at straws regarding the subtle changes in temperature variation (means, variances, whatever), the information regarding what has happened to our buffering system is unequivocal. The ice caps are melting at a precipitous rate, and our oceans are rising in consequence. Island countries are disappearing. The Maldives for example is buying land in Australia in preparation: http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-N...tralia-As-Preparation-For-Mass-Migration.html .