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

Try reading what I wrote over again, perhaps more slowly, to see if you can do a better job of understanding it. If you manage to succeed, you'll know that this isn't an intelligent response to what I wrote. Also, the 97% number that keeps getting thrown around is based on a faulty assumption, that the majority that take no position agree with the majority of the minority that do voice a position.

Pretty much every other field. Climate science didn't get funding till they started selling the notion of man made catastrophic global warming. It's literally the only reason that upwards of 90% of climate science studies get funding today that wouldn't have in the past before they started selling man made catastrophic global warming. Neither would get funding if they didn't start selling chicken little stories.

It's funny that you feel free to go the "conspiracy" route by acknowledging the fallibility of man and pointing out the trouble with conflicts of interest when it comes to scientists funded by oil companies, yet you seem to for whatever ridiculous reason to think that those aren't a problem when they are funded by the government. Think on that for a hard 2 seconds.

 

In less than 30 years, federal climate science funding has gone from less than 200 million per year, to over 10 billion per year.....all because of the idea of man made catastrophic climate change, who in their right mind would think that scientists in that field would risk going back to the days where getting funding for their studies was damn near impossible? A really naive person, that's who.

 

Ahhh, right wingers and their conspiracy theories about scientists. "all because of the idea of man made catastrophic climate change."

I don't suppose funding has increased over the last 30 years because, well, more is known about climate, climate change, and the causes of climate change? And more importantly, the importance of climate change?

Also, would it be safe to say federal funding for all sorts of different scientific topics has also increase over the last 30 years? Say, has funding of medical research also increased? And. are the money-grubbing scientists that are getting those increases in funding a concern?

Also sorta curious how oil company funding of climate related research has been going... staying flat the past 30 years, or has it grown too? I am sure all of their scientists have been diligently working away to disprove those pesty government-funded studies with only altruistic intent.

But thanks for warning us naive people about those evil scientists who only work on climate change research to support the idea of man-made catastrophic climate change...

 

Maybe I didn't understand what you said.. but this is what I'm hearing...

Even if we have 100% consensus on AWG, you are going to maintain it's irrational reaction and let's not do anything due to the need for more certainty (but of course we can come to a middle ground). First of all, you don't know what the reaction is, because it NEVER got that phase due to folks like you. Let's just give up, or really, it's not real and Scientists can't be trusted is your position. Don't kid yourself and be honest about your position.

You mentioned 97% twice in this thread as "flawed". Both time it has been explained to you why you are wrong. You ignored it.

So scientists are "selling"?

The only reason they got and continue to get funding is because they are "selling"? It's not because their Science has been peer reviewed with 97% agreement and the result of their finding show that the future of human as we know it is in danger? It's nothing to do with that? Anytime there is a major issue and mass scientific agreement, it got to be Science is "selling"?

You don't understand. Oil and their friend IS NOT funding Scientists today because they are smarter than sink money into fighting something that's pretty much settle in Science. They tried initially, but they have come to conclude it's a dead end. It has something to do with them knowing that Scientists aren't going to sell their dignity, self-worth, moral, ethnic to "sell" a fake story.

You think Scientists are "selling" a fake story to get more funding to continue to sell their fake story.

 

Not sure why you said it's faith base. They are saying it's much more difficult to predict impact of climate change to local areas (small region) vs global due to local area being much more sensitive to natural local variables.

 

Can you expand a bit on this evidence, or point me towards what you are referring to? Do you mean historical evidence preceding the 20th century? If so, I'm not sure how that is relevant, because the argument is that it is elevated CO2 levels through unnatural processes which creates an environmental imbalance and leads to major impact on the climate. Does any past evidence contradict this theory?

 

It doesn't.

I did reply to you and explain CO2 was responsible for most of warming of past climate during the glacier to interglacier period, although it does initially lags and sometime lags by hundred of years. You never replied to that.

 

Very interesting.

 

This is not what I'm saying. Because of all the extra CO2 being release outside the normal carbon cycle, its creating a buildup in atmospheric CO2 levels. Its not that the CO2 is of a different quality or source, its that there is more of it:

[rquoter]But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.[/rquoter]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

I just wanted a clarification on the point you were making. You're saying that past climate change has not been driven by changes in CO2, right? Your point (if I understand it) only seems relevant if changes in CO2 occurring in recent years is not any different than what happened in the past. However, it is believed that the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels has occurred at a rate that is well beyond increases in the past. Surely this can't be overlooked, unless you are contending there is no mechanism by which changes in CO2 can induce climate change.

 

If these cycles takes hundreds of thousands of years to manifest themselves, than how is a dramatic temperature change over the past 50 years explained by those cycles? There's a hole in the logic here.

Also, you "suspect". Let's not do that. You're speculating. The report does state that at current CO2 levels you can not have glaciation. That's alarming in it's own right.

 

It's always funny when someone tries to respond like this, you have no trouble discrediting scientists funded by oil companies because of obvious conflict of interest but if they are funded elsewhere, somehow in your mind that makes them impervious to conflict of interest.

Obviously almost all funding has gone up over the years, but what I was explaining was how climate science funding has gone from being an afterthought, to being one of the most well funded....you can see that right?

Also, it's not about scientists trying to "get rich" or anything like that, and I specifically said that. It's about getting funding for their research. If the funding pool dries up, they don't get to do their research....you know, their life's work. 30 years ago, they'd have struggled to find funding, today they get some of the best funding solely because of the hype around global warming.....if that went away, so would the funding.....but then again since they don't work for oil companies, I'm sure they don't even think about that.

 

Here is where that information is obtained from:
http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf

Below figure 2 -

You seem to focus on CO2 was not the initial driver of past climate chnage and that's the end of it?

1- We know the physic of CO2 well. Are you contenting this?
2- We have very strong correlation that CO2 increase lead to most of the past warming.
3- We know the amount of climate forcing today directly. CO2 is the highest forcing component and it's related to how much CO2 we have in the atmosphere.

CO2 might not be the initial cause of past climate change, but it's the increase of CO2 that lead to most of the warming. What cause the increase (and decrease) in CO2 in past is not very well understood yet.

Today, the increase of CO2 is very well known - we are doing it. That's the most important message. We are releasing component that is known to cause warming by direct observation and past data.

 

Did you know human knowledge is collaborative and exponential? Observations lead to awareness, that leads to experimentation, that leads to theorizing, that leads to peer review, that leads to commonly accepted truths. Teachers with interesting ideas inspire students to learn more on their own and that grows knowledge. One teacher, 10 students, 100 research assistants, 1000 new students etc. etc.

 

Read a bit further along. It explain it later. The role is unclear because it was local data. The paper look at global data and one of the conclusion is most of the warming follow CO2 increase.

Orbital forcing starts it. CO2 sustain and increase it.

Here is another article related to this:

 

I should also said, Orbital forcing along doesn't explain the warming. I think you are still focus on the start, but not on what happen later.

It is also not clear that Orbital forcing is the only starter. It likely isn't. There are many factors at play. Many components, so to said there is one single cause is probably wrong. There are multiple players and they play different roles at different scales along the timeframe.

The reason CO2 is the main culprit today is because we know very well what it can do through with both past data and direct observation and the underlining physics. Until something come along that explain CO2, even with all it's properties (that's likely not going to change), is not important to global warming, CO2 is it. We haven't found that...