April and This is What The Great Lakes Look Like

Hey Phoebe...I posted this Detroit Free Press article last Monday in response to your erroneous claim that those satellite photos were from February. I noticed that you NEVER RESPONDED. What's up with that?

 

Just one week after your May 1st article, Detroit tied a record high of 86 °F, or 20 °F above average. And as for Phoebe's "erroneous claim" about that satellite photo, here's an article from February with the same photo.

http://www.livescience.com/43569-ice-covered-great-lakes-photo.html

 

OK, so since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the Earth has warmed ONE degree? ZOMFG!!!! Whatever will we do! The humanity! Here's another graph that will further explain why we shouldn't (*)(*)(*)(*) our pants just yet.



https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/energy-independence/the-end-of-fossil-fuels
So, we should run out of fossil fuels before the Earth even warms up one more degree. You'll pardon me if I don't lose my mind with panic.

 

Well, that's one way to look at it. The cynical view would say that "the science" is unfalsifiable at this point since it seems like both warm and cold can cause both increasing and decreasing ice and scientists are just coming up with post ad hoc explanations for whatever actually occurs.

 

Funny how some people seem to believe that climate change requires them to believe it for it to be the truth.

 

While I don't doubt that we'll eventually wean ourselves off fossil fuels, if for no other reason than we'll simply run out of it, assuming that means CO2 emissions are not a problem ignores two things. First, because of Earth's thermal inertia we haven't seen all of the warming from the CO2 we've already added to the atmosphere. Even if we stopped all CO2 emissions today, temperatures would still rise another 1.0 to 3.5 °C. If we continue current emission trends over the next century, CO2 will double again causing an additional 2 to 4 °C warming after that. One degree so far may be unnoticeable, and another degree may be manageable, but what if it warms another three to eight degrees? Second, the extra CO2 and associated warming will remain in the atmosphere long into the future because it has no place to go. Earth's oceans can only absorb half of the CO2 humans produce and even when we stop will release what has been absorbed so far, so the effects will be with us for a very long time. The sooner we accept our role in Earth's climate, the sooner we can begin acting like the responsible caretakers we should be.

 

I've gotta be honest with you here. I'm still having a hard time giving a (*)(*)(*)(*). First, this maximum of ten degrees or so difference (which, I'll grant, sounds uncomfortable) isn't going to affect me one bit. I won't live to see more than one degree difference from what I'm used to- no problem. Second, since we are projecting outwards of 70 years away at this point, I doubt that there is much accuracy to these predictions. There are so many unknown variables between now and then that prediction is a futile effort. Third, in that amount of time, technology should have progressed to unimaginable levels. Carbon sequestration just doesn't seem like an insurmountable technical hurdle. So all this strikes me as nothing more than alarmism, combined with an assumption that we can predict what will happen a hundred years in the future.

 

I have no doubt that we can address the problem, and without destroying our economy or way of life as some say. Like the problems of acid rain and Ozone depletion before, we can not only address the problem, but do it in such a way that it creates industries and economic growth. But this won't happen as long as we keep our heads in the sand and either deny that there is a problem or tell ourselves it will take care of itself.

 

Hey, I'm down for making the Earth a better place to live. And it may seem simplistic, but my answer is just to promote plant growth. Turn that carbon back into plants, which will eventually turn back into oil.

 

I like the response from contrails. Hey we need to this and that, but even if we do this and that we won't see any changes. Ain't that nice? So, he'll/ she'll never know if it made a difference, so he/ she has his/her penny thrown in the wishing well eh? That's the way to do science.

 

Promoting plant growth is fine, but since most of the carbon plants absorb is returned to the atmosphere during decomposition, its not a very effective solution.

Please stop confusing science with how we act on what the science tells us.

 

And you have no idea what the science tells us. None. Are you a scientist?