Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok . So Trump never actually said that. you just make up bs and post like its a fact.?. Typical liberal.
Btw how many of the predicted cities 30 years ago are underwater today? Remember that?
Ok . So Trump never actually said that. you just make up bs and post like its a fact.?. Typical liberal.
Btw how many of the predicted cities 30 years ago are underwater today? Remember that?
Did you even read the New York Times article referenced in the Daily Caller story? Written in 1985, it said that New York City within a century (2085) could have the climate of Daytona Beach. Why would anyone expect NYC weather to resemble the 1985 weather of Daytona Beach in 2015 when the NYT article posited a time frame ending in 2085???
There was no reference to "predicted cities" being underwater in 2015 (when the Daily Caller article was written). What are you talking about?
However, if thawing of the Arctic tundra and deep ocean methane clathrates create a vicious methane cycle, temperature changes and sea level rise may be much greater than the estimates discussed in that 1985 NYT article. Read again post 26. As noted in that post, Harold Wanless, chairman of the geological sciences department of the Univ. of Miami, when considering accelerating global ice melt and sea level rise, says Floridians should expect 15 feet of sea level rise by 2100 at a minimum if nothing is done to reduce drastically fossil fuel consumption.
Again, please read the following article linked in post 26. I would rather listen to the warnings of an accomplished scientist who well explains his worries, than the inaccurate straw man argument in a man-made climate change denier website.
Finally, man-made environment change science has evolved and progressed greatly. As explained in the Smithsonian ocean acidification web page, the term ocean acidification was coined only in 2003 when biological studies first focused on this aspect of man-made climate change. Now we are witnessing the mass kill-off of coral species globally, including in Florida, also partly due to increased ocean temperatures.
Not surprisingly, the New York Times article didn't even consider ocean acidification, nor that over 90 (see post 26) percent of excess heat associate with fossil fuel burning would be absorbed by the oceans, nor that mass ocean kill-offs of coral would take place within 35 years. The recent U.N. panel report noted that scientists were surprised that the coral kill-offs had begun within the last two years.
The world's coral is dying. It's possible that the world's supply of oxygen is at risk. Shockingly and disgustingly, none of this concerns man-made climate change science deniers, and certainly likely not the Daily Caller.
I'm curious. Does the Daily Caller ever discuss ocean acidification and the devastation being inflicted on the world's important, if not vital, coral species? What does the Daily Caller think happens to the 5.5 billion tons of annual carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning?
The climate change scientists have been conservative in their warnings about the impact of man-made climate change, having inadequately considered ocean acidification, methane and other vicious feedback loops in earlier research, or that the world's coral specifies already would be experiencing mass kill-offs.
Why do you waste your time reading the Daily Caller rather than more reputable websites that directly reflect the work of man-made climate change scientists?
I haven't had time to do so, but here's a much better place to spend time if concerned about man-made climate change science than the Daily Caller.
I remember in 1977 the "experts" were predicting another ice age - global cooling.
Even in the 1970s, before massive advancements in data collection and analysis (e.g., consider the exponentially greater computing capacity available in 2018 and the deployment of earth-monitoring satellite systems), the large majority of climate scientists were more concerned by global warming than global cooling.
Concern over ocean acidification, now perhaps considered a more deadly consequence of fossil fuel burning than global warming, was almost non-existent in the 1970s, and even today not popularly discussed in the U.S. or well understood, if at all, by most Americans. The term "ocean acidification" wasn't even coined until 2003 when biological studies of the effect were first undertaken, according to the Smithsonian Institute ocean acidification web page. And even today, the denier-controlled Congress and Trump administration never address ocean acidification even as it helps destroy (along with ocean warming) the nation's coral and poses an existential threat to marine planktons, essential for the marine food chain and planetary conversion of carbon dioxide to oxygen.
Ok . So Trump never actually said that. you just make up bs and post like its a fact.?. Typical liberal.
Btw how many of the predicted cities 30 years ago are underwater today? Remember that?
I never said Trump said that. I’m talking about his gutting of the EPA and overturning a multitude of protections and standards. Typical Trumper... creating straw men because they are unable to argue reality and facts.
There was no scientific consensus that cities would be underwater by now. Everything I’ve seen has put the timeframe as 2050 and beyond. Your own article says they were predicting large changes within a century. 1985 + 100 is when, again?
The climate change scientists have been conservative in their warnings about the impact of man-made climate change, having inadequately considered ocean acidification, methane and other vicious feedback loops in earlier research, or that the world's coral specifies already would be experiencing mass kill-offs.
[quote=WRnative;53394512] Relying on the Daily Caller, which is known for posting misleading stories championing man-made climate change science denial???
Did you even read the New York Times article referenced in the Daily Caller story? Written in 1985, it said that New York City within a century (2085) could have the climate of Daytona Beach. Why would anyone expect NYC weather to resemble the 1985 weather of Daytona Beach in 2015 when the NYT article posited a time frame ending in 2085???
There was no reference to "predicted cities" being underwater in 2015 (when the Daily Caller article was written). What are you talking about?
However, if thawing of the Arctic tundra and deep ocean methane clathrates create a vicious methane cycle, temperature changes and sea level rise may be much greater than the estimates discussed in that 1985 NYT article. Read again post 26. As noted in that post, Harold Wanless, chairman of the geological sciences department of the Univ. of Miami, when considering accelerating global ice melt and sea level rise, says Floridians should expect 15 feet of sea level rise by 2100 at a minimum if nothing is done to reduce drastically fossil fuel consumption.
Again, please read the following article linked in post 26. I would rather listen to the warnings of an accomplished scientist who well explains his worries, than the inaccurate straw man argument in a man-made climate change denier website.
Finally, man-made environment change science has evolved and progressed greatly. As explained in the Smithsonian ocean acidification web page, the term ocean acidification was coined only in 2003 when biological studies first focused on this aspect of man-made climate change. Now we are witnessing the mass kill-off of coral species globally, including in Florida, also partly due to increased ocean temperatures.
Not surprisingly, the New York Times article didn't even consider ocean acidification, nor that over 90 (see post 26) percent of excess heat associate with fossil fuel burning would be absorbed by the oceans, nor that mass ocean kill-offs of coral would take place within 35 years. The recent U.N. panel report noted that scientists were surprised that the coral kill-offs had begun within the last two years.
The world's coral is dying. It's possible that the world's supply of oxygen is at risk. Shockingly and disgustingly, none of this concerns man-made climate change science deniers, and certainly likely not the Daily Caller.
I'm curious. Does the Daily Caller ever discuss ocean acidification and the devastation being inflicted on the world's important, if not vital, coral species? What does the Daily Caller think happens to the 5.5 billion tons of annual carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning?
The climate change scientists have been conservative in their warnings about the impact of man-made climate change, having inadequately considered ocean acidification, methane and other vicious feedback loops in earlier research, or that the world's coral specifies already would be experiencing mass kill-offs.
Why do you waste your time reading the Daily Caller rather than more reputable websites that directly reflect the work of man-made climate change scientists?
I haven't had time to do so, but here's a much better place to spend time if concerned about man-made climate change science than the Daily Caller.
^ all kidding aside. I still don't buy it. Here is a recent article about tornadoes and the scientist quote is beneath it. From what I could read they have no clue along with climate change.
Yes I threw out the first article I googled because millions will come up. Just to see how long of a tirade you would write.
Right. You posted a ridiculous article and proceeded to misrepresent what it said just to provoke a response from me? Do you really think anybody believes your ridiculous excuse, especially when an apology would be in order by your own admission. Yet your de facto admission that you deliberately posted obviously erroneous information is good to have on the record.
BTW, I suspect even this excuse is a lie. Please give us your search key words so we can see the "millions" of articles that are produced and that the Daily Caller article was at the top of the search results.
I document the ridiculousness of man-made climate change science denier propaganda, and of websites such as the Daily Caller, because we are facing an existential crisis which is patently obvious to anyone who is paying attention. The derision and belittlement by deniers of climate and environmental scientists -- among the most honest and brightest members of our society -- is both reprehensible and dangerous given the permanency and massively negative consequences of the environmental degradation now underway.
Sites such as the Daily Caller, and the deniers who read and push its propaganda, are contributing to an ongoing catastrophe which can be mitigated only by concerted and focused action that isn't even seriously being discussed because of the "Big Lie" propaganda campaign of deniers. Led by Denier-in-Chief Donald Trump and financed by massive amounts of fossil fuel industry money inserted into the political system, the untrue denier propaganda has corrupted the public debate and convinced a sizable portion of Americans that man-made climate change is either a "hoax" or not an urgent matter that even Democrats are cowered into inaction in most American states. (On the political front, the November elections in Florida, currently bearing several ravages associated with man-made climate change, will be informative as man-made climate change deniers are running for both governor and for the U.S. Senate; are even Florida voters still willing to be represented by man-made climate change deniers?)
Interestingly, a fairly large majority of Americans recognize the reality of man-made climate change, but the acceptance percentage appears more heavily weighted toward Americans living nearer coastal areas.
^ all kidding aside. I still don't buy it. Here is a recent article about tornadoes and the scientist quote is beneath it. From what I could read they have no clue along with climate change.
"This is what you would expect in a climate change scenario, we just have no way of confirming it at the moment," Gensini said.
This was an article reporting on a research study based on EMPIRICAL DATA. Actually, Cleveland.com emphasized an AP article obviously because it showed that the incidence of tornados is increasing in Ohio as the Great Plains dry out and the "dry line" moves eastward. I hadn't seen the article, so thanks for posting it.
Here's the abstract of the original article. Clearly, the article is based on empirical observations about less moisture in the Great Plains and the national distribution of tornados, all obviously recorded information available to anyone.
The lead author of the study says the drying out of the Great Plains and the shift eastward in tornado activity is "super consistent" with climate change, but, like a good denier you fault the scientist for saying that the connection can't be confirmed "at the moment."
Did you ever ask yourself the obvious question as to what other explanation there was for this shift in historical tornado patterns, based on empirical data, than the impact of man-made climate change?
Informed by the Air Force's recent loss of 10 percent of its combat-ready F-22s to Hurricane Michael, I wonder how comfortable the Air Force will be about the use of Wright Patterson Air Force Base in coming decades in an increasingly tornado-prone southwest Ohio. Wright Patterson is the other significant base for F-22 operations, according to the following article.
What scares me even more is that much of the nation's aviation heritage is housed at the U.S. Air Force National Museum and those hangars likely are NOT tornado-hardened. Brazil recently lost much of its national heritage to a fire that destroyed its national museum, which likely had poor fire detection and suppression systems.
I'll bet that most Brazilians now wish that they had spent tens of billions on protecting national treasures rather than on the 2016 Olympics.
When our current national political leadership can't even handle the truth of man-made climate change, it's unlikely it will learn from these two recent disasters and make the investment to tornado- proof the USAF National Museum in Dayton.
Similarly, I wonder how construction codes should be modified in Ohio to cope with the increased risk of tornados. This would seem an especially urgent priority for school buildings.
Yet, as man-made climate change increasingly takes hold, these will be the least of our concerns, as only partially documented by my other posts in this thread (significant declines in agricultural production also are anticipated, such as implied by the "drying out" of the Great Plains as discussed in the article about the shift in tornado activity that you originally posted).
Last edited by WRnative; 10-19-2018 at 02:37 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Correction to post 42
