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

cml750 · Jan 18, 2015

Sweet Lou 4 2 said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

I assume you only ride a bicycle and avoid all fossil fuels? Are you doing everything you yourself can do to save our planet? If so good job and keep up the good work.

Sweet Lou 4 2 · Jan 19, 2015

cml750 said: ↑

I assume you only ride a bicycle and avoid all fossil fuels? Are you doing everything you yourself can do to save our planet? If so good job and keep up the good work.
Click to expand...

Why would you assume that?

I never said we shouldn't drive cars - don't be an idiot.

Cohete Rojo · Jan 19, 2015

txtony said: ↑

And perhaps you missed their 1st listed recommendation:
Click to expand...

That statement has nothing to do with acknowledging CO2 as the cause of climate change. In fact, it says nothing about reducing or eliminating carbon emissions. It does make a statement about sustainable and efficient energy - I can't argue with that.

txtony said: ↑

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/
Click to expand...

CO2 is not toxic - it is plant food. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not dangerous.

Sweet Lou 4 2 said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

I have reasonable doubts about the IPCC's climate models. Here is a list of some uncertainties in their data and one of the most glaring:

IPCC said:

Solar irradiance B 3 Low Measurements over last 25 years; proxy indicators of solar activity Relationship between proxy data and total solar irradiance; indirect ozone effects Range from available reconstructions of solar irradiance and their qualitative assessment
Click to expand...

This was from 2007, so the IPCC has a whopping 33 years of solar irradiance data. And here was NASA's take from 2003:

NASA said:

Without the Sun, the Earth would be no more than a frozen rock stranded in space. The Sun warms the Earth and makes life possible. Its energy generates clouds, cleanses our water, produces plants, keeps animals and humans warm, and drives ocean currents and thunderstorms. Despite the Sun’s importance, scientists have only begun to study it with high precision in recent decades. Prior to 1979, in fact, astronomers and Earth scientists did not even have accurate data on the total amount of energy from the Sun that reaches the Earth’s outermost atmosphere. Variable absorption of sunlight by clouds and aerosols prevented researchers from accurately measuring solar radiation before it strikes the Earth’s atmosphere.

The launch of the Nimbus-7 satellite in 1978 changed all that. It enabled us for the first time to detect sunlight without interference from the atmosphere. The Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) instrument on the satellite measured levels of solar radiation just before it strikes the Earth’s atmsophere. Through subsequent satellite missions, scientists have gathered a wealth of information on the Sun and the solar energy that drives our world’s climate system.

Today researchers know that roughly 1,368 watts per square meter (W/m2) of solar energy on average illuminates the outermost atmosphere of the Earth. They know that the Earth absorbs about only 70 percent of this total solar irradiance (TSI), and the rest is reflected into space. Perhaps most intriguing, researchers have affirmed that the TSI doesn’t stay constant, but varies slightly with sunspots and solar weather activity. In particular, by analyzing satellite data, scientists have observed a correlation between the Sun’s output of energy and the 11-year sunspot cycle, which physicists have known of since Galileo’s time. These data show that TSI varies just as regularly as the sunspot activity over this 11-year period, rising and falling 1.4 W/m2 through the course of the cycle (0.1 percent of the TSI). There are also longer-term trends in solar weather activity that last anywhere from years to centuries to millennia and may have an impact on global warming.

Due to technological barriers and a limited amount of data, however, scientist’s understanding of the Sun-Earth system continues to be incomplete. They are unable to predict fluctuations in TSI due to 11-year and long-term solar cycles, and scientists do not yet have accurate enough measurements to determine the trend from one cycle to the next with sufficient precision. In fact, the TSI is currently known to within an accuracy of a few Watts per square meter, which is greater than the entire fluctuation of the TSI over one 11-year solar cycle. Additionally, scientists haven’t pinned down what proportion of solar energy is absorbed by the land or atmosphere. They also do not have complete measurements of the energy variation for the distinct wavelengths of incoming solar radiation. These different wavelengths affect the various components of the Earth’s atmosphere, land, and ocean in different ways.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/
Click to expand...

There are other uncertainties such as aerosol effects on albedo (clouds):

MIT said:

Just how much warmer Earth will become as a result of greenhouse-gas emissions — and how much it has warmed since preindustrial times — is much debated. In a 2007 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an agency formed by the United Nations to assess climate change, said that the planet’s average surface temperature will rise by between 2 and 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, with a best estimate at between 3.2 to 7.2 degrees F. However, the IPCC’s computer models have a record of overestimating warming: If the IPCC models were right, the planet should now be hotter than it is.

The IPCC attributes the discrepancy to aerosols — microscopic particles in the atmosphere that are created by both nature (dust blown by desert winds) and human activity (liquid droplets created from fuel combustion). Because aerosols help cloud droplets form into icy particles and reflect sunlight back into space, they help to cool Earth and possibly mitigate warming caused by emissions. But Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, is among those who question the accuracy of the IPCC models, and he has been critical of the aerosols argument.

In a paper published last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Lindzen and his former postdoctoral researcher, Yong-Sang Choi, suggest that aerosols not only cool the Earth-atmosphere system — the system by which the atmosphere and oceans interact and affect the global climate — but also heat it. By describing the potential dual effects of aerosols, the research questions the IPCC’s models.

“Current climate models generally overpredict current warming and assume that the excessive warming is cancelled by aerosols,” the researchers say in their paper. “[Our research] offers a potentially important example of where the secondary effect is to warm, thus reducing the ability of aerosols to compensate for excessive warming in current models.” That is, the degree to which aerosols can compensate for model over-prediction of warming remains open, the research suggests.
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2010/aerosols-0709
Click to expand...

Considering that many climate models showing CO2 as the main driver of global warming take into account the uncertainties with solar radiation and albedo, I'd say there is a very strong and very reasonable doubt against such claims.

Sweet Lou 4 2 said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

I've quoted NASA, IPCC and MIT. Who have you quoted?

Sweet Lou 4 2 · Jan 19, 2015

Cohete Rojo said: ↑

That statement has nothing to do with acknowledging CO2 as the cause of climate change. In fact, it says nothing about reducing or eliminating carbon emissions. It does make a statement about sustainable and efficient energy - I can't argue with that.

CO2 is not toxic - it is plant food. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not dangerous.
Click to expand...

A - the issue with CO2 is not toxicity to our bodies, it's the effect is has on atmospheric conditions. Just as too much oxygen would be a problem, so is too much anything in our atmosphere. Our way of life depends on an equilibrium. Do you get that?

I have reasonable doubts about the IPCC's climate models. Here is a list of some uncertainties in their data and one of the most glaring:

This was from 2007, so the IPCC has a whopping 33 years of solar irradiance data. And here was NASA's take from 2003:

There are other uncertainties such as aerosol effects on albedo (clouds):

Considering that many climate models showing CO2 as the main driver of global warming take into account the uncertainties with solar radiation and albedo, I'd say there is a very strong and very reasonable doubt against such claims.

I've quoted NASA, IPCC and MIT. Who have you quoted?
Click to expand...

None of these things actual dispute global warming and that it is man made. It only disputes the IPCC forecast models. The fact still remains the warming trend we are experiencing is due to man-made related co2 emissions.

This shows how other variables are not driving climate change. And here is a summary (click on the link for sources) for the science on why solar radiation and other variables can not be the cause of global warming:

Just to pile on, here are some rather key specific observations beyond the rise in seasonally averaged global temperature that fit in well with an enhanced greenhouse effect (the relevant effect of increasing CO2 concentrations). These observations do not fit with other potential forcings.

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.

So to summarize: we know anthropogenic climate change is real because there is no other likely candidate cause, the CO2 rise is unquestionably the result of our activities, the particulars of the warming signature are consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect and the whole phenomenon is entirely consistent with very long standing theories and expectations.
Click to expand...

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/10/what-is-the-evidence-that-co2/

http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2005/story04-28-05.html

Amiga · Jan 19, 2015

Cohete Rojo said: ↑

That statement has nothing to do with acknowledging CO2 as the cause of climate change. In fact, it says nothing about reducing or eliminating carbon emissions. It does make a statement about sustainable and efficient energy - I can't argue with that.
Click to expand...

You are arguing that the MAB recommendation for the US to be the leader and driver toward "sustainable and more efficient energy to SLOW climate change", is not about carbon emission reduction? You actually would need them to literally spell that out for you? That is strange to me. My initial thinking is you are intentionally being dishonest. But I have to wonder if you simply are so deep in denial that you are lying to yourself and don't even know it. There is another possibility, but I think you are too intelligent to be that.

Another few quotes from the report for you to ponder on. I hope you are not going to say CO2 is not a greenhouse or "heat-trapping" gas, but at this point, I wouldn't be surprise if you do.

Technologies such as wind and solar not only increase energy independence, Admiral Gunn said, but emit far fewer of the greenhouse gases blamed for causing global warming. He said the MAB’s other reports on energy and national security offer a clear road map to how the military can lead on the issue.
Click to expand...

Another thing the public should understand, he said, is that the scientific foundation for understanding climate change isn’t new—it was laid more than a century ago.

It came from the work of French mathematician Joseph Fourier, who in the 1820s studied the factors influencing temperature; Irish physicist John Tyndall, who demonstrated four decades later that gases such as carbon dioxide could trap heat in the atmosphere; and Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius, who subsequently determined that an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide would result in a certain amount of warming.

“I tell people, this is cutting-edge 19th century science that we’re now refining,” Titley said.
Click to expand...

As described in Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment: “Heat-trapping gases already in the atmosphere have committed us to a hotter future with more climate-related impacts over the next few decades. The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping gases emitted globally, now and in the future.”
Click to expand...

cml750 · Jan 19, 2015

Sweet Lou 4 2 said: ↑

Why would you assume that?

I never said we shouldn't drive cars - don't be an idiot.
Click to expand...

Shame on you for not doing everything in your power to reduce your carbon footprint.

Gutter Snipe · Jan 24, 2015

Sweet Lou 4 2 said: ↑

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?
Click to expand...

So you are telling me you haven't reviewed it enough to give me a number for climate sensitivity or still don't get the concept. To me that sounds like "it got a lot hotter and is going to get a lot hotter, but I can't tell you how much."

No, I don't think the sky is falling and no I don't think it's a serious risk because this is not the hottest it's ever been and this isn't the most CO2 there has ever been in the atmosphere. If anything, CO2 might help stave off the ice age that's due back someday.

The only tendency that our planet has shown is to go into glacial periods. It has never gone into runaway global warming in the past. What makes you think that all climate feedbacks are positive and increase warming? You don't have any geological evidence to speak to that.

I'll come clean...I'm an IT guy and we fix problems. We do that by analyzing the scope of the problem, looking at root causes, and implementing solutions that are the most efficient use of resources to fix the problem.

In this case, that suggests to me that we should do what what benefits the largest number of people and hurts the fewest.

Our current policies do not reflect this mindset: Exporting pollution to China via pseudo-green policies, killing raptors and other birds, burning wood chips shipped from here in England instead of coal, increasing energy costs on pensioners to pay wealthy landowners for their wind farms, and denying third world countries cheap energy that could lift millions out of poverty.

Looking at what we've done in the name of saving the planet so far does not make me have much hope for better green policies in the future.

To sum up, show me some policies that make sense and aren't just a tax increase and I'll consider them...but don't tell me that some pensioner's energy bill has to double to "save the planet".

Cohete Rojo · Jan 25, 2015

Potentially cripling blizzard to hit the US northeast. Let me guess, another sign of run-away anthropogenic global warming?

Winter Storm Juno: Blizzard Warnings for New York City, Boston, Parts of 7 States; Potentially Historic Northeast Snowstorm Ahead

Blizzard warnings have been issued for parts of seven states in anticipation of Winter Storm Juno, which will be a major snowstorm for the Northeast Monday through
Tuesday night, lingering into Wednesday morning. Parts of the region will see blizzard conditions and more than 2 feet of snow.

The high confidence in forecast wind and snowfall has led the National Weather Service to issue blizzard warnings well in advance of the storm. Those warnings stretch from parts of New Jersey all the way to Downeast Maine, including the cities of Boston, Providence, Hartford and Portland. The warnings go into effect as early as 1 p.m. Monday in the New York City area; the warnings for Downeast Maine begin in the wee hours of Tuesday morning. Most of the warnings are valid through late Tuesday night.

http://www.weather.com/storms/winte...dwest-mid-atlantic-northeast-storm-early-week
Click to expand...

MojoMan · Jan 25, 2015

Just a brief primer to help people understand the warmists better:

Summer = Man-made climate change
Winter = Just weather

peleincubus · Jan 25, 2015

if the last two comments are any indication. you people are completely wasting your time doing research and providing them with information. you have several comments in a row showing data, historical information about the subject.

and you get there is a snowstorm in a certain part of the world, and whatever point mojoman was trying to make.

i think it would be interesting to write a thesis on people and them falling in line with their political parties and social issues.

dachuda86 · Jan 26, 2015

Climate change means shifting extremes in weather. If you look no further than Venus you will see the eventual result of putting too much Caron dioxide in the atmosphere. This thread is the dumbest I have seen in awhile. Go live on Venus and see how it works out.

/thread

larsv8 · Jan 26, 2015

Cohete Rojo said: ↑

Potentially cripling blizzard to hit the US northeast. Let me guess, another sign of run-away anthropogenic global warming?
Click to expand...

You realize this supports the complete opposite of what you think it does right?

ApolloRLB · Jan 26, 2015

larsv8 said: ↑

You realize this supports the complete opposite of what you think it does right?
Click to expand...

Germans?

Forget it, he's rolling.

Amiga · Jan 26, 2015

Cohete Rojo said: ↑

Potentially cripling blizzard to hit the US northeast. Let me guess, another sign of run-away anthropogenic global warming?
Click to expand...

Extreme weather is predicted with global warming. Runaway climate is a virtual impossible on earth unless you live to 1 Billion or so.

Cohete Rojo · Jan 26, 2015

dachuda86 said: ↑

Climate change means shifting extremes in weather. If you look no further than Venus you will see the eventual result of putting too much Caron dioxide in the atmosphere. This thread is the dumbest I have seen in awhile. Go live on Venus and see how it works out.

/thread
Click to expand...

txtony said: ↑

Extreme weather is predicted with global warming. Runaway climate is a virtual impossible on earth unless you live to 1 Billion or so.
Click to expand...

larsv8 said: ↑

You realize this supports the complete opposite of what you think it does right?
Click to expand...

What's your source? I'll quote the IPCC's 4th AR:

although some kinds of extreme events could decrease, such as blizzards and ice storms

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch7s7-4-2-4.html
Click to expand...

It's been a whole two years since this happened:

<iframe width="854" height="510" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/849268fo-3I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

ApolloRLB said: ↑

Germans?

Forget it, he's rolling.
Click to expand...

Germans?
Rolling?

Dubious · Jan 26, 2015

really?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/q7vtWB4owdE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I assume your just trolling now but you could read up on a couple of articles here:
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...pv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=climate change colder winters

Sweet Lou 4 2 · Jan 26, 2015

Gutter Snipe said: ↑

So you are telling me you haven't reviewed it enough to give me a number for climate sensitivity or still don't get the concept. To me that sounds like "it got a lot hotter and is going to get a lot hotter, but I can't tell you how much."
Click to expand...

If I put your balls in a vice, you might not be able to tell me how much each turn of the screw will hurt, but you better believe it will hurt a lot.

No, I don't think the sky is falling and no I don't think it's a serious risk because this is not the hottest it's ever been and this isn't the most CO2 there has ever been in the atmosphere. If anything, CO2 might help stave off the ice age that's due back someday.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the impact on our lives a few degrees increase in temperature will have.

The only tendency that our planet has shown is to go into glacial periods. It has never gone into runaway global warming in the past. What makes you think that all climate feedbacks are positive and increase warming? You don't have any geological evidence to speak to that.
Click to expand...

I've show the the evidence of forcing factors which clearly show that manmade Co2 is the current instigator for the warming trend we are experiencing. I don't know what else you want.

I'll come clean...I'm an IT guy and we fix problems. We do that by analyzing the scope of the problem, looking at root causes, and implementing solutions that are the most efficient use of resources to fix the problem.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that IT guys are more versed in the scientific method than scientists. Maybe that's going out on a limb but wow, you know how genius those IT guys are.

In this case, that suggests to me that we should do what what benefits the largest number of people and hurts the fewest.
Click to expand...

That's why people are raising the alarm.

Our current policies do not reflect this mindset: Exporting pollution to China via pseudo-green policies, killing raptors and other birds, burning wood chips shipped from here in England instead of coal, increasing energy costs on pensioners to pay wealthy landowners for their wind farms, and denying third world countries cheap energy that could lift millions out of poverty.
Click to expand...

Except none of these things are actually happening. These aren't our current policies. And I don't advocate these kinds of policies. Personally I don't believe solar nor wind is the answer.

Looking at what we've done in the name of saving the planet so far does not make me have much hope for better green policies in the future.
Click to expand...

Agreed

To sum up, show me some policies that make sense and aren't just a tax increase and I'll consider them...but don't tell me that some pensioner's energy bill has to double to "save the planet".
Click to expand...

This isn't a policy debate. I am not arguing about what should be done here, I am simply saying that global warming is real and the earth is warming, let's stop denying the basic science. It's crazy that the right wing which is so afraid of the potential policies the left wants that they attack the science instead of the policies. So crazy.

Sweet Lou 4 2 · Jan 26, 2015

cml750 said: ↑

Shame on you for not doing everything in your power to reduce your carbon footprint.
Click to expand...

Why would you say that? I never claimed to be an environmentalist.

I think you are confusing policy with science. That's the problem with the right - so afraid of policy they will instead go off the range and deny the science they see associated with those policies.

I don't think Kyoto is useful. I don't think caps make sense either. I don't think higher fuel efficiency standards matter either. I don't think carbon footprint and all that stuff will matter.

It's too late. Policies can not stop Global Warming at this point.

Policies need to be put into effect to help deal with rising oceans and the impact of global warming on the food supply.

GladiatoRowdy · Jan 26, 2015

Cohete Rojo said: ↑

Potentially cripling blizzard to hit the US northeast. Let me guess, another sign of run-away anthropogenic global warming?
Click to expand...

Weather =/= Climate

GladiatoRowdy · Jan 26, 2015

MojoMan said: ↑

Just a brief primer to help people understand the warmists better:

Summer = Man-made climate change
Winter = Just weather
Click to expand...

Please, find so much as a single comment which claims that the weather on a particular day means that climate change is happening. The people claiming that climate change is happening point to trend lines over decades, not the weather at a specific location on a particular day.

Forums

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

cml750 Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Cohete Rojo Contributing Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Amiga 10 years ago...
Supporting Member

cml750 Member

Gutter Snipe Contributing Member

Cohete Rojo Contributing Member

MojoMan Member

peleincubus Member

dachuda86 Member

larsv8 Contributing Member

ApolloRLB Member

Amiga 10 years ago...
Supporting Member

Cohete Rojo Contributing Member

Dubious Contributing Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

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

cml750 Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member Supporting Member

Cohete Rojo Contributing Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member Supporting Member

Amiga 10 years ago... Supporting Member

cml750 Member

Gutter Snipe Contributing Member

Cohete Rojo Contributing Member

MojoMan Member

peleincubus Member

dachuda86 Member

larsv8 Contributing Member

ApolloRLB Member

Amiga 10 years ago... Supporting Member

Cohete Rojo Contributing Member

Dubious Contributing Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member Supporting Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member Supporting Member

GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

Share This Page

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Amiga 10 years ago...
Supporting Member

Amiga 10 years ago...
Supporting Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
Supporting Member