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

Record warm temp in OK City today - checkmate climate change apologists.

 

Science doesn't work that way. It's not about years in science, it's about data points and statistics. Stop spreading your ignorance like a bad disease.

 

I cracked up reading this!

 

There is never a 100% certainty in science. That's my point - you don't get it.

You can always use politics to undermine science that is sound by creating down. Conservatives do it all the time. They do it with Evolution - "It's just a theory", they do it it with Vaccines which resulted in the deaths of hundreds if not thousands because of one false data point relating it to autism.

Conservatives are anti-scientists, and what you do is use science against itself to be an anti-scientist.

It's like saying if you are 99.999% certain that lighting a fire near a leaking gas main might cause an explosion that it totally shows that it's not proven and it's perfectly safe to continue lighting such a fire.

 

I'm guessing you are thinking of CO2 lag temp = CO2 is not a driver. A common argument point from skeptics as it appears to completely go against co2 causes temp to increase.

It's a well know fact that ice core record of the last million years show that co2 increase lag temp increase. Before this was a well known fact, it was theorize in the 80s that CO2 lags temp increase. The IPCC report also have a section talking about the lag as a data point.

So how can IPCC, climate scientists initially theorizing and later knowing about CO2 increase lag temp increase said CO2 is the primary driver of today warming?

Because the data said it is.

CO2 is both a cause and a consequence of temp changes. Remember positive feedback - the hotter it get, the more CO2 is released and the more CO2 is released, the hotter it get.

The initial cause of temp increase doesn't have to be CO2, but the temp increase releases CO2 which cause warming, and the cycle continue.

Scientist have analyze the data and the data for the last thousand of years of the glacial to interglacial warming is that 90% of that warming occurs after co2 increases. The initial cause is not CO2, but when CO2 rise due to the initial warming, it increases the warming and as the data suggested, most of the warming is due to CO2.

Today, CO2 is the primary driver of warming. Where as in the past, CO2 increase was due to some other initial condition causing warming, today CO2 increase is due to human. And once CO2 increase, a more rapid increase in warming is to follow.

 

You confuse weather with climate. Weather is hard to predict, although it has gotten much more accurate over the years thanks to increase understanding and better equipment.

Climate, which by classical definition is 30 years of weather trends, as complicated as it is, is much easier to predict than weather.

This is probably a bad example, but...

If i ask you to predict the chance of head or tail over the next 1 flip? 10 flips? 100 flips?.... which is easier to be accurate? Relative to each other, the next day weather is like 1 flip while climate is like 100 flips (as a bad example, but I hope you get the idea).

 

This has nothing to do with politics; I'm not conservative.

I'm mocking you for being certain of something that the scientists you are referencing are not certain of.

The data points to trends, but the data is also limited. How much good data do we have from 100, 1000s, 10s of thousands of years ago?

My opinion is that we do not have enough history of the earth to CONCLUDE that man made CO2 is the CAUSE of the current warming trend. I don't think man is helping (probably exasperating) the warming.

But from a practical standpoint it is a global issue that you will not get global support for the type of regulation/de-evolution of technology that would be needed to cut CO2 emissions back to the levels of hundreds of years ago. I'd say you better focus on a giant leap forward in energy technology (fusion?) to have any hope of turning the tide. "Clean Coal" just ain't going to do it.

 

So, we are only pretty sure our human actions are contributing to a climate change that could have catastrophic effects on a large percentage world's population, especially those living around the current sea level, but changing out behaviours would be inconvenient, so let's don't do anything.

bold move Cotton, let's see if it pays off for them.

 

The Earth's Climate has never been completely static.

Better a bit warmer than another ice age. It is the ice and cold that we really have to fear.

 

I thought you were playing devil advocate?

I think CAUSE is probably not the right word to use with warming. There isn't any single cause. There are many drivers of warming and cooling in the past and today. And we do have enough data to said with quite certainty that CO2 is the primary driver of today warming. We have strong consensus for that. If you looking for a single cause or a 100% conclusive statement, you are not going to get that anytime soon or probably ever.

 

Stronger and more frequent hurricanes and cyclones
Deeper and more persistent droughts
More frequent coastal flooding, effecting the world's largest cities
Massive public works investments required to protect existing coastal development
Dwindling fresh water supplies, greater world strifes as water becomes worth fighting over
More A/C energy loads across the world, adding to the spiral

 

Except the first four have not happened, much to the chagrin of the scientists who wrongly predicted that they would, while the last two are due to the rapid increases in population around the world and the increased wealth and purchasing power that has been created largely by the forces of capitalism.

 

I don't understand why typically conservatives reject this and democrats are typically more accepting.

 

I blame it on Al Gore, but I think it's goes deeper. I listen to skeptics for what they said (and what they don't said) such as:

- God make the earth to be what it is, human isn't god and can't alter Earth
- It's arrogant to think Human can affect Earth climate

When I hear the above, I think it's not that Conservative don't believe in Science or don't understand Science but that they place God above Science.

Secondly, Conservative is more about individual freedom than group improvement. So it's harder for conservative to give up individual freedom for the good of the group. Slowing down or stopping CO2 is seen as a group effort today that would impact individual in a negative way, at least short term. And certainty, more government involvement to "force" CO2 level change is seen as a very bad thing.

Conservative (the words itself right) is less likely to change and like to stay the course. Though I think this is less of an issue with climate change.

Anyway, that's my thinking.

You can thanks Al Gore for "politicizing" this. I think there are solution out there that would make both side happy. We just need to get pass the "it's not a problem" to "what can be done". The Right is stubbornly not allowing us to move to that stage of "what can be done".

If I said, let's have a plan to change every coal plant to nuclear plant to slow down CO2, I think Conservative would be more on board. But we can't even have that conversation.

Why does liberals more accepting? Because liberals is generally not against government programs, does not view God in a way that conflict with Science, is more in favor of the common good.

Whatever you are, if you just look at the climate Science in a vacuum without political or religious baggage, I think a very high majority would agree it's not controversial. But since the solution involve politic and 99.9% of people have baggage, it's controversial.

 

They are certain of it. You just are interpreting their results in a way to justify your argument. Scientific papers and studies never use the word certain, that doesn't mean the scientist isn't sure. It's just respect for the scientific method.

Doesn't point to trends, it points to forcing. That's the point. Co2 is forcing, not merely a correlation. The statistics make it absolutely clear that the current warming trend is because of manmade co2. Nothing will ever be 100%. People will cut and raise taxes based on ideas without any data backed, yet they can not accept global warming with all the evidence and certainty from the scientific community. It's hilarious. You just want to believe what you want to believe, it's not about data.

The scientific community disagrees with you. I guess you are saying you know a lot more about this then they do right?

Now you show your true colors, this is not about the science, it's about the politics of what we would do and what it would mean for us.

 

It's altruism vs. egoism, the standard political debate, whether the we should act as a group for the greater good or act as individuals for self-interest.

If you are on the egoism side you can pretty much convince yourself of anything, like blacks are subhumans so slavery for the benefit of white land owners is fine or that the 98% of climate scientists that agree that Climate Change is a vital issue are just wrong because it would create some hardship on high CO 2 industries and cost consumers directly (instead if indirectly like it will).

SOS

 

I'll trust their actual words more than your opinion. Again you're trying to make the case for certainty that they are not making. They recognize that the Earth is not a controlled environment.

It's not about politics it's about practicality. If you were emperor of the world, what would be your plan to get our CO2 levels back that of 1900?