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

You make a claim that is I don't know what is based on (I assume it's based on your beliefs). So I'm asking for that info. You haven't shown anything, so I'm going to continue to assume it's your personal beliefs.

I cannot refute a belief. When you show studies, I will read up on it.

And as I said before, this is settle. If you want to claim otherwise, you need to bring the proof. Actual hard data based on Science.

 

You don't even know how to read. The "38% chance" was that 2014 was the hottest year ever, not a 38% chance that there was an increase.

I realize the academic papers must be challenging for you, but if you don't understand them, the best course of action is to STFU rather than spout off your ignorant rantings.

 

2014 was not the hottest year ever. And your absurd assertion that it is notwithstanding, there is NO scientist that you can find who believes that it is.

LOL. You people are truly unbelievable.

 

I am not sure what you guys are still arguing about. Didn't an IT guy settle this whole thing a few weeks ago?

 

The skeptics can have plenty to still be arguing about. There are still plenty unknowns, some very big. There are still slim possibility that this whole thing change with more understanding. Instead of arguing if the model so far was right or wrong (when we already have studies saying they were right), or if 2014 was the warmest year (it's just one single year, why so stuck on that; who care if it's the warmest or 2nd warmest), look at the unknown that Scientists are still looking at. If they want to replay an old point that's been settle, they need to bring data to unsettle it - which they haven't.

Here is one particular post, for example, from a NOAA on what still need to be learnt related to the Ocean:

link

Don't get confuse that having open questions mean we have no clue. We know what the data said today. We know the Earth is warming and that human CO2 release is the primary driver. We don't fully understand all the mechanism in details. But we know enough to be very confident. Yet, we need to continue to understand more to improve our models and of course, there can always be a chance that we were always wrong. But to ignore or worse, reject, what we know today and wait for the final answer (which may never come anyway until the climate has changed to a point of who care what the models said) is irresponsible, to put it mildly.

 

What some scientists think they know today is not a reason to negatively impact the worldwide economy on the off chance that

1. What they think they know today is accurate

2. The solutions they think might have a chance at working today will actually have positive effects that will outweigh the losses required to be in a position to make them.

To put it plainly, we'd need more certainty than any good scientist would give in order to make the irrational reaction that the global warming nuts are asking for.

That said, there's always room in the middle to work with.

Another factor that I think is important is that the funding of climate science depends on detrimental man made global warming being true. Their funding took off once the theory was popularized and they've received more and more funding ever since.....if they came out and said that it was mostly hype and that there isn't really anything to worry about, that money would dry up and they'd go back to begging for funds that will have been diverted to other fields of study. I know there are some who see "science" as almost a religion and they'll never believe that conflicts of interest like that could skew research (unless it was someone funded by an oil company or a cigarette company) but I find it hard to ignore.

 

Really? You should learn to read...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-to-be-hottest-year-ever-measured/

"This would make 2014 the 38th consecutive year with an anomalously high annual global temperature."

 

OR it could be as the dire consequences came to light, serious people felt it warranted further investigation.

Nobody devotes their lives to the arcane world of climate science for the money. And, peer review sort of rules out your exploitation theory anyway. Scientist would take great glee in refuting hyperbolic findings, but you don't see a discernable percentage of them doing that, even with oil industry money begging them to.

 

This graph helps illustrate how temperatures actually did fluctuate prior to the last 100 years and that sometimes temperatures were quite a lot warmer than they are now, too.



And of course there is also the estimated 4.5 billion years on Earth before that, when temperatures were also quite a lot warmer than they are now, often for millions of years at a time, which was accomplished entirely without any contribution of humans at all.

 

I don't think you understand what I'm talking about, I'm not talking about them getting rich from climate science I'm talking about having their research funded in the first place. If you want to get funding for your climate studies, all you have to do is mention global warming or climate change as part of the study and you get funding that otherwise wouldn't be available. If you are going to make climate science your life's work, you have to have that funding no matter what because no funding, no research, no life's work.

As to peer review, those peers have the same conflict of interest as they are in the same field that only has funding due to the idea of man made catastrophic global warming. I just think it's important to follow the money in any situation and have a strong belief in the fallibility of man.

Who knows, maybe Al Gore is right and elevated levels of a relatively minor greenhouse gas will cause the end of the human race or destroy the planet or whatever ridiculous hyperbole the global warming nuts are pushing today. That said, until there is more certainty over what is actually going to happen specifically and more certainty over what if anything we can do to stop it, and certainty meaning that it WILL work not certainty over what MIGHT work, I don't think you'll find many people willing to make drastic changes to their lives and hurt the global economy. Simple as that.

That's not to mean that we shouldn't keep seeking new sources of energy because that's just an inherently good idea, it just means that change won't be rapid unless that new energy is ready to meet the demands of the people and affordable. Until then, we'll have to deal with what we have despite the Chicken Little's of the world.

 

I have 0 expectation that humans worldwide will do anything collectively for their own greater good. I have every expectation that a very slow change will occur that will effect a large percentage of the planet's people negatively, some will suffer and some will adapt.

I think the cockroaches and ants will be fine though so life on the planet will continue and evolve, to whatever. (it's not the Chinese that should scare you with collectivism, it's the ants you should worry about)

be smart or be extinct

 

Seafloor volcano pulses may alter climate: Strikingly regular patterns, from weeks to eons
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...cedaily+(Latest+Science+News+--+ScienceDaily)


A new study shows that undersea volcanoes flare up on strikingly regular cycles, ranging from two weeks to 100,000 years -- and, that they erupt almost exclusively during the first six months of each year. The pulses -- apparently tied to short- and long-term changes in earth's orbit, and to sea levels -- may help trigger natural climate swings.

 

Sorry, I'll be more precise.

2014 was the hottest year ever recorded.

 

97% consensus of AWG is not enough certainty and we need more certainty. Like what, 98%? 99%? 100%.

Humm... Who would get more funding? Climate scientists that said Global Warming is due to human releasing CO2 or climate scientists that said Global Warming is due to other factors not related to any fossil fuel. Think on that for a hard 2 seconds.

You sure didn't find it hard to go the conspiracy route. People go that route when they got nothing left to argue about.

 

You have sourced research reports that say that it's almost certain warming is occuring, and I just showed you that ocean heat has increased even when surface temps have not. Yet you repeat the same talking point and just call me an alarmist.

But I am not an alarmist. I am just someone who bases thinking on rationality and logic and data.

People on this board know that I am not a conservative, but I'm not a liberal either - as Sam Fischer or others. I think global warming is real not because I have a political agenda, but because I don't and looking at the data objectively, it's happening

Does that mean we need to cut co2 emissions by limiting fossil fuels? no. I think that's no longer useful to do. I don't think you can stop China and India from expanding and doing their thing. I do think it makes sense for people to realize the reality of what is happening and not bury your head in the sand though.

Stop being ignorant and letting your reality be shaped by your bias. Really. Do it for the sake of being wise, if nothing else.

 

You just claimed it was random. Now you say it's not????????

Make up your mind.

 

MODELS DO NOT PREDICT THE FUTURE, THEY EXPLAIN THE DATA.

Can you understand this?

 

Yes it is a conflict of interest to care about humanities future. But not a conflict of interest to be an oil company worried about the future of selling your commodity.