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

That is an outrageous claim. Proof please.

For my side of the case I'll offer up the fact that settlements and tree stumps that were covered up by glaciers are now being revealed by melting in Greenland and European mountain passes. That strongly suggests that it was at least this warm before.

Research global warming pause http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28870988

There is no question that CO2 can help warm the planet, the question is how much. I believe that it is something on the order of 1.0 degree per doubling of CO2. What do you believe?

If you don't have an idea of what I am talking about in the last paragraph, your research is severely lacking. Try reading up on climate sensitivity. Please read articles from both liberal and open-minded websites. You could check out wattsupwiththat.com and skeptical science.com for fairly technical websites.

 

Questions? Yeah, where did you get the pretty pic?

Are you aware that we are coming out of the Little Ice Age during that period and should see some warming naturally?

Look, it's not that we don't see warming over the last 100 years. It's more that we question how much is directly attributable to man and how bad that is. Frankly, We are in an interglacial period right now that is permitting our civilization. If that ends you will begging for any warmth you can get. http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm

As a member of Minnesotans for global warming, I say "let the sun shine. You houstonians have no idea how bad winter can be".

 

Wow, I had a look at "whttsupwiththat" website. Can't believe people are actually reffering to it as serious debatable articles.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/04/what-would-a-2c-warmer-world-look-like/
The guy is quoting wikipedia as a source for startes, first sign of a hoax. Second he's saying- why trust computer modeling and then quoting wikipedia that during the cretacious era the earth was warmer and dinosours were living in it, hense it can support life.
And then he sums up- "in my opinion, we have nothing to fear from co2". What a complere bullcrap with no scientific authority what so ever.
Offcourse we can still live when the earth will get warmer, and we will because its going that way anyway. There will be a huge difference though if it will be warmer by 1 degree or 2 degrees. Huge difference that we might be able to control.
Second- a world of 2 degrees warmer will be much more hostile, with raging huricans, acidification of the ocean and rising sea level would create population shifts throuout the world along with desertification processes that already begun.
Off course we can survive it, we're an awsome adaptive specie, but we have to be prapared for it.
By the way we are in the middle of the biggest extincion of species since the cretacious era with prediction of half of earth species will be extinct within the next 100 years.

So ye, keep ignoring it, real smart man, real smart.

Just putting here a few links to read:

http://www.mysterium.com/extinction.htmlhtml
http://m.livescience.com/17340-agu-climate-sensitivity-nasa-hansen.html

And just stop with the politic talks, this is sciense, this is their proffession so listen to them, at least take it as if you're getting a cosultant from a lot of great stockmarket analyst about your portfolio. Wouldn't you listen to them?

 

Apparently the warmists have been at it again, cherrypicking less than accurate data that supports their alarmist hypothesis, while ignoring more accurate data that does not. Here is an article that discusses those more accurate datasets. There is more at the link:

Of course we have seen this before, so nobody should be surprised at this point.

And it probably needs to be said once again, yes, of course the climate changes and the Earth has warmed, depending on when you start your measurements. For example, the Earth has warmed since the last ice age, some 15,000 years ago, and also since the mini ice age, which lasted from around 1350 - 1850. After 500 years of cold, we were due for an uptick, and we have gotten it.

What we really should be concerned about is the return of another ice age. A little warming is actually a good thing for our species here on Earth.

 

The report is from NOAA and NASA each with their independent methods to measure global temp. Both of them are respected agency. What you linked is from the IBD Editorials of Investors.com. It's unclear how they got their data, but just from a quick read, it doesn't look at all based on science or data, but from a skeptic point of view - which is fine for an article of this sort, it just can't be compare to data based on Science. If someone analyze the data and provide an argument that warming isn't occurring or it's not getting hotter, than great - show it.

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/janu...4-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#.VLqPjSvF9rK

If you are incline, the data set and methodology used are public and you can crunch your own numbers.

(note - there are brand new studies that is questioning how surface temp are determined; they are in review and might in fact alter the results)

 

Extinction? We have still been finding more new species than recording extinctions...any any extinctions are directly related to introductions of competitive species, not climate change.

Second, your image of a new world is not based on science, it's based on conjecture and models. Over the last twenty years with the alleged record high heat and CO2 we should be seeing major numbers of hurricanes, right? And yet we see fewer named storms, almost no hurricanes making landfall in the US, and much lower measured ACE (accumulated cyclonic energy).

They have no proof that added heat will destroy the world, just models, none of which have been backed up by observations. You can call these guys building the models scientists, but until their models have been backed up and confirmed by observations that match what they have predicted, they have no more credibility than any other doomsayers or their counterparts in the 70s who predicted a new ice age and still may be more correct than the contemporary ones.

The models predict extreme sea rise, and yet the most fevered and adjusted measurements only show a rise of 3.2 mm / year. That's maybe a foot in a century.

So yes, I object as well to the standard assumption that warming is not only bad but potentially catastrophic. Human history has showed that warming is accompanied by advances in civilization, and cold by marginal living conditions and increased death. If we do see more warming in the 21st century it will have both negative and positive impacts.

Taxing and spending by the government to futilely try and stop climate change is not a rational policy. The only result it has had so far is the outsourcing of pollution from the US and Australia to China, increased energy prices, and large raptor and other bird kills at US wind farms. (Not to mention green fraud and Eco-politicians like Al Gore getting rich).

 

"National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change" by the CNA Military Advisory Board, May 2014 - http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/MAB_2014.pdf

The Military Advisory Board is hardly a group of leftist or alarmist folks. They consist of a dozen of highly respected admirals and generals.

Again, our own highly respected military is sounding the alarm at the risk of global warming. On a side note - one of the initial reaction from the House Republicans after this report was to shut it off and don't allow any funding from our military to study the risks of climate change and to address the national security impacts of it. Talking about not wanting to face reality and wanting to stay in the dark.

 

They are an advisory board to the Military made up of Military personnel. Not just any personnel, but former high ranking members of the military.

LOL. Why would they specifically state CO2 as the driver of climate change in this report. This isn't a scientific report. It's a report to Military on the risk of climate changes from a military POV and on their recommendations. And perhaps you missed their 1st listed recommendation:

You know, energy that SLOW climate change. What would exactly that be? More Carbon based energy?

 

you are nuts.


The only statistical variable that aligns with the change in temperature is CO2 levels. So no other variable works. not solar, not methane, not volcanic - nothing. That is pretty firm evidence. But wait, there is MORE:

* Temperatures have risen more at night than during the day. This really defeats the notion of a solar powered climate change on its face.

* The stratosphere is cooling. Models that predict the warming we are seeing also predict this particular feature of the current climate change.

* An increasingly enhanced greenhouse effect should cause an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation. This has been detected.

When theory predicts unique features and all those feature come true and are unexplainable by any other effect or known cause, then yes, you have proof. In a court of law, CO2 related warming would be sentence to life in prison without parole.

If you can not look at the evidence and the science and with a straight face still quote some hack who knowns nothing about science, then clearly you are playing a political game and uninterested in knowing the truth.

 

he might be in interested in the truth. hes just a dumbass who wants a smoking gun, high def 3D video of the shooting with surround sound, and feel the victim's pulse to see if really they dead. if he saw another man lying in bed with his wife, he'd kill him without any questions. he dont need too much proof there. but he probably works for an oil company who dont want people to think about this stuff. the company might have to spend a lot of money to pollute less. they might fire him to save money.

the more danger there is to our species, the less proof i need. better to be safe than sorry. i used to microwave a lot of food in styrofoam boxes. then i read some stuff saying i might be getting cancer because of some weird chemistry. i lost some money and i dont make that much either when i threw the boxes away. but you know what? my life was on the line. money cant buy me another life. the planet makes 60 to 90 trillion dollars every year. even if we spend $30 trillion of that to stop climate change im ok with that because our species survival depends on it.

but you know what. if all you MFers are too cheap to spend your companies money on stopping climate change and killing us all then pull the damn trigger. if our species is too stupid to save itself then we deserve to disappear.

 

You're one dumb mother****er.

 

Simple and resolved is absolutely not climate change. From the reading I have done, it's far from simple and it's far from resolved. It's complicated, there are major component involve and their interactions are crazy complicated. Resolved is not something you see in Science - it's always changing with better data and understanding. But I think you mean resolved in a different way - I think you implying global warming as cause by human (with all your reference to CO2) is not happening or completely not clear or unsure. That's not the case.

I remember one of the author (Carl Wunsch) because he was involved in the film "global warming swindle". Here is a letter from him that explain his position after the film made it sounds like that he don't believe in global warming. Full letter below and I added a portion concerning CO2 since you seem so keenly interested in that.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/

 

You consistently try to make this a yes or no issue when it is nothing of the sort. There are only two questions worth discussing.

1. Most reasonable parties agree that to for every doubling of atmospheric CO2 we will see a some amount of warming. The question here is how much? How much do positive or negative feedbacks impact the warming? This question is referred to as climate sensitivity. This defines the severity of the problem.

2. Now, based on the severity, what does it make sense to do?

What are your answers to these questions?

 

We've already seen a significant amount of warming that is having impact on earth's environment in significant ways in just the past few decades.

Further more, the temperature may not have caught up with the current level of CO2. The best we can do is build models to predict this and those models are fairly alarming - even the most conservative ones.

Climate change is happening, and it is happening rapidly. It may already be too late to stop what will be incredibly challenging repercussions.

There is no way we will be able to answer the questions you are asking though until we've already experienced the impact of climate change. You do understand the risk you are advocating we take?

 

Global warming is happening. And it is caused by manmade Co2 emissions. That much is resolved. If you do not think so, you might as well just say the earth is flat.

 

I feel the need to point out that by being on a computer to respond to this thread anyone doing this is using electricity and thus increasing their carbon footprint. Just think of all the CO2 you have caused by being selfish and posting on this forum. Please do your part and quit posting to save the planet.

 

A. The electricity I am using comes from nuclear power.

B. You are confusing climate science with climate policy


That's the problem with republicans. They repudiate climate science for political reasons, not scientific ones. They are afraid if this is a real problem, it will mean they can't drive their big ass SUV's and all.

The reality is - it's too late for any of that anyway.