|
|
Post by marcus on Nov 12, 2012 5:51:10 GMT -5
We used to have ice covering ky but not now I guess its our fault
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Nov 19, 2012 21:28:26 GMT -5
Fosil fuels win we have strange weather lol what a joke If climate change is not coming from the carbon being released by fossil fuels, what is causing it? Do you have an answer that is able to stand peer review in the scientific community? |
|
|
|
Post by justaworker on Nov 20, 2012 1:40:03 GMT -5
Fosil fuels win we have strange weather lol what a joke If climate change is not coming from the carbon being released by fossil fuels, what is causing it? Do you have an answer that is able to stand peer review in the scientific community? the climate is always changing, always has always will. no political agenda will convince most thinking people its the fault of the cars we drive. i live in hills formed by glaciers, how did we melt them? |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Nov 20, 2012 16:28:31 GMT -5
Political agenda? Scientists have found a link between co2 level and the current temperature increase the planet is experiencing - that is not political. You believe climate scientists have thrown out scientific standards for a political agenda. Where is your proof? Can you prove co2 does NOT affect the climate? Other than you living hills, what evidence do you have that we are not affecting climate?
Who told you we ended that last ice age?
Who told you human emissions of co2 are the only thing that affects climate?
When it comes to scientific issues, educate yourself before accepting whatever bs someone with a political agenda feeds you. Read and learn from the people that research and understand the subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Nov 20, 2012 17:33:58 GMT -5
4.5 Billions years of existence and 100 years of data......
I think its the scientists that have a lot of catching up to do and is the ones guessing.
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Nov 21, 2012 8:44:59 GMT -5
4.5 billion years. Who came up with that number? Scientists you say. If they can get a ball park figure that far back, do you think they could get usable information from shorter time periods concerning the climate?
Sure 100 years of temperature measurements is not long, but considering temps have increased by over 1°F since 1900, it seems more relevant to consider how the change will effect us in a meaningful period of time to us instead of waiting until scientists have 100% certainty of what the temperature was 1 million years ago.
Waiting for more data to see if new york may have another occurrence of sandy before making any improvements to protect infrastructure and save lives is really risky. I suppose we could wait for Greenland to completely melt and see if scientists are right that it would raise sea levels too.
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Nov 21, 2012 20:47:19 GMT -5
4.5 billion years. Who came up with that number? Scientists you say. If they can get a ball park figure that far back, do you think they could get usable information from shorter time periods concerning the climate? Sure 100 years of temperature measurements is not long, but considering temps have increased by over 1°F since 1900, it seems more relevant to consider how the change will effect us in a meaningful period of time to us instead of waiting until scientists have 100% certainty of what the temperature was 1 million years ago. Waiting for more data to see if new york may have another occurrence of sandy before making any improvements to protect infrastructure and save lives is really risky. I suppose we could wait for Greenland to completely melt and see if scientists are right that it would raise sea levels too. You again compare apples to oranges..... Carbon dating or other means is measuring the rate of decay and translating that into linear time. Its static and fixed. Past weather data is just that, raw data in a timeline. Trying to predict future results with WAY too many variables is simply a guess. An example is no one can say with high certainty what the weather will be like in 24 hours let alone projected out days , weeks or years. This is on a local basis let alone nationally, internationally or world wide. You give man too much credit for knowledge & control over mother nature and that always gets people in trouble. You can measure time (past) but you can not PREDICT weather. If you live in a coastal area near water or stupid enough to live below sea level ( New Orleans) you get the punishment of mother nature and the entire world population , not just the USA can do squat about it. If you are worried about tidal waves or storm surge try moving inland. The same beloved scientists have made wild claims when Saddam lit the oil fields on fire in the Gulf War that "it will take decade for the damage to be undone". Wrong. Mt. Saint Helen's eruption is another example of them getting it wrong on devastation recovery time. The gulf oil spill yet another. Exxon Valdez, WAY off on impact to the environment. They did more damage cleaning it up. Get the picture? ( I doubt it) |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Nov 22, 2012 0:59:49 GMT -5
Past weather data is just that, raw data in a timeline. Correct, past raw data simply shows us whether a trend is under way or not; it is not evidence that we are causing it. This information does not explain how or why. Trying to predict future results with WAY too many variables is simply a guess. As long as you know what the different variables are, you can give them a value. This is just like many other problems scientists take on by breaking the problem down into components and understanding how each one works in the larger picture. Just like your algebra problems back in school you break the equation down and solve the problem in a systematic process. The models will never be able to predict the exact temperatures for the future but will tell us the most likely scenarios under the current energy imbalance. For the record, all climate models are showing an average global temperature increase of 4.5 - 10F by the end of this century from a doubling of co2. Climate is viewed as an energy equation. Even though it is not simple, it can be (and has been) broken down and understood. An example is no one can say with high certainty what the weather will be like in 24 hours let alone projected out days , weeks or years. Scientists were able to use models and give a five day notice on sandy's path, size and potential for record flooding with high accuracy. They are able to do this fairly accurately with most large storm systems. The day to day weather of maybe 30% scattered showers will not show up on these types of models and are not a concern for determining threats from storms. I'm not claiming they have 100% accuracy, but they are far more accurate than you give them credit for. If you are worried about tidal waves or storm surge try moving inland. We would need to get a threat/risk analyses to find information on what the future risks are in order to avoid people wasting money relocating, or worse believe they are safe when they are not. If you know of way to do this without using data in a scientific methods, please let us know. |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Nov 22, 2012 1:11:31 GMT -5
By the way the suggestion that because environmentalists claimed much worse damage from oil spills than occurred is not only an apple to oranges, but is completely inaccurate.
The climate models have correctly predicted the direction of global temperatures, but they have all underestimated the speed that it would happen. The summer melting of the arctic is an example. A few decades ago they said the arctic would be mostly ice free in the summer by the end of this century. Years later with better understanding of the climate that was revised down to about 2050. With recent observation and corrections to models that could happen as early as 2016.
The claim that scientists and models are alarmist is false. They have been conservative.
|
|
