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

That's highly inaccurate here's how it really goes.

Rain = Evidence of man-made climate change

No Rain = Evidence of man-made climate change

Snow= Evidence of man-made climate change

No Snow = Evidence of man-made climate change

Hot Temperatures = Evidence of man-made climate change

No Hot Temperatures = Evidence of man-made climate change

Cold Temperatures = Evidence of man-made climate change

No Cold Temperatures = Evidence of man-made climate change

 

I'm going to report you to bigtexxx for using foul language.

 

I generalize there - extreme weather is predicted with global warming. I should add, any single weather doesn't mean global warming. A trend would or rare events starting to occur much more frequently would, or record setting events occurring more frequently would..

Global warming mean more moisture in the air. It means a trend toward more extreme downpour (when they do occur). It does not mean snow storms get less extreme, it means snow storms likely get more extreme, but with warming, there are less of them (overall). However, the chance of those to be of extreme nature do increases.

You left out part of the quote from that link you provided. Here is more of the quote:

That doesn't said weather events will be less extreme. It said the risks of extreme weather events increase, but that some type (winter related) will occur less often. IOW, winter weather occurs less often, but when they do occur, the chance of them being extreme increases.

 

I've seen runaway climate change mentioned by both side. Maybe that is getting confuse by the media and by some folks on both sides.

Runaway climate (venus as an example) is virtually not possible on Earth. There are a few Scientists that are concern about it, but even they acknowledge it's not likely, but that we don't know what is the trigger point to get to a runaway climate and so it's prudent to figure that out. The current understanding is the most likely cause of runaway climate on Earth is when the sun is much hotter, as it is predicted to be in 1 Billion year.

 

False.

 

To play devil's advocate... The data shows that manmade CO2 and global warming are trending up together, not necessarily that manmade CO2 is causal.

 

It's considered causal when every other variable is taken into account in the analysis.

It's like this - let's say the world has 100 people in it. One of them was named Jim. Jim was murdered at 7-Elevan last night at 8pm. We know Bob was there at 8pm as well but he isn't around.

Does that mean Bob committed the murder? No. It's not casual.

But if you track the other 98 people and find out that none of them were there either, than you know in fact Bob was the murderer. It is causal.

 

I find it amusing that people say - "See all this snow means global warming is debunk" not realizing that snow actually has nothing to do with how cold it actually is...it's merely participation.

If you get 50 inches of participation at -20F and 1,000 inches at 20F....conservatives would say "Yup - look at all that snow - proves we are entering an ice age...never mind that it's actually not that cold today")

This is the problem with the right - they just can't think.

 

You'd probably make a more compelling argument if you said "precipitation" instead of "participation". Screwing something up like that twice in one post pretty much kills whatever point you were hoping to make.

 

Every other variable? Do we have enough reliable data to know what the temperature trends have been for the last 10,000 years?

Maybe Jim committed suicide

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

take the time to read the conclusion.

 

Well, I hope not. A bit more than "false" would be helpful also

There are many articles on positive feedback and runaway. Here is one I found easier to digest:

Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming

 

Since we're using random weather patterns to determine global temperatures I'll throw in that it hit 44 degrees yesterday in the Twin Cities which is nuts in late January. We barely have any snow on the ground anymore because we're getting multi day streaks of above freezing weather.

I currently have grass on my lawn which is in contrast to the several feet of snow that I had last year.

Since I've moved here, this has been the weather pattern

2011-2012 - absurdly warm winter. Barely any snow and hit 70 degrees by early march. Probably the warmest winter anyone can remember in recent history
2012-2013 - Average winter
2013-2014 - Cold as hell, worst winter anyone can remember in years.
2014-2015 - Warmer than usual. It's 35 degrees right now which is just ridiculous at this time of year.

Those type of crazy shifts in weather from year to year aren't normal. And again, I'm looking at one city during a small stretch of time which is an awful measure of global climate but since everyone else is doing it, I figured I'll play along.

 

Scientists can not predict the amount of snowfall within 15 inches for the next day in a small regional area in the Northeastern US, yet somehow we are to believe that they can forecast climate changes decades into the future? And we should dramatically raise taxes, change our behavior, and pay far more in electricity costs to combat this potentially bad forecast? This is insanity.

 

Yep. I just got back from traveling and it is about as warm here as it was in Vancouver.

Anyway just glancing at this thread just shows more of the same. Cherry picking facts, misunderstanding or misstating evidence, no understanding or twisting context, flat out ignorance of science, and the inability to understand complexity.

I was just in the PRC and there is no debate there about the science of Global Warming. One reason they have become the leaders in clean and renewable technologies. Of course at the same time they are continuing to emit at greater and greater rates so they are huge hypocrites but at least they aren't mired in denial for self-serving interests.

 

Well it was late and mac had autocorrect. What do you want?

 

You guys simply don't want to believe in the science. It's not that there is a problem with the science, it's that you can keep asking questions to an insane degree to keep living in your delusional world.

You'll be the last ones to be persuaded - only after everyone else has conceded and you'd be left alone on an island.

Even then you will blame the other side for not trying to warn people in time - you will still say it was a failure of science.

The problem is you just don't get how science works.

 

You didn't capitalize "Mac"; therefore, the earth is 6,000 years old.

 

False logic

 

Yep that's the problem, hypothesis testing is always so conclusive. Those leading scientist are 100% certain that man made carbon alone is the CAUSE of the warming trend we're experiencing and that global warming will absolutely cause irreversible ecological impacts . They don't ever say things like "driven largely by" or "extremely likely" or "increased risk of" in their reports. Because those would mean they aren't sure...

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPMcorr1.pdf