Was Global Warming responsible for the many deaths in freezing-snow packed Buffalo?

[BartenderElite]

I'm not sure what people mean when they say environmentalists have gone from calling it "global warming" to "climate change."

For starters, it has been that way for 2 decades now - it's not some "sudden" thing. And everyone who understands climate even the smallest bit knows that it IS global warming, but that leads to more extreme weather events, including extreme cold & snow.

I think environmentalists started switching to "climate change" (years ago) because they realized poorly informed conservatives would always see cold weather events as "proof" that global warming doesn't exist. Because that's all the right cares about - they don't want to have an honest conversation about the health of our planet. Ever.

 

[Into the Night]

The freezing disappeared and we have a wintertime heatwave. The foot+ of snow is pretty much gone. I'm in northern Michigan, by the way. Tell me how you always only focus on one aspect. It's supposed to be the snowy bitter cold. Do you even understand that most of the snow is due to warmer lakes? That's what hammers Buffalo all the time. It's called lake-effect snow. Anyone looking at this teeter-totter weather and not going WTF is wrong with our world is severely lacking the cognitive abilities to debate much of anything.

Do you understand the Lakes are cooled by providing that moisture?

 

[Into the Night]

most of the deaths from this winter storm comes from two things..........the amount of homelessness caused by elitist political policies and the severe lack of general education about how to deal with weather anomalies and catastrophes.

But then again, this is the expected result for those who want us to depend on government for everything.

Well put! It is the very welfare cases the Democrats create that suffer the most. And the Democrats say they care about them. They said the same thing to the slaves they beat mercilessly.

 

[Into the Night]

Are you that dumbfounded to not be able to understand that Freak Abnormal extreme cold weather conditions ARE a direct result of Global Warming?

Next!

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of CO2.
It is not possible for any gas or vapor (including CO2) to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
It is not possible to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

You are still denying science and mathematics.

 

[Into the Night]

Called weather and climate, two different entities

Correct. Climate has no value associated with it. It cannot 'change'. There is nothing that 'changes'.
Weather has temperature, wind speed, cloud cover, precip rate, visibility, humidity, etc. ALL measurable values.

There is no such thing as global weather or a global climate.

So...weather changes. Meh.

 

[Into the Night]

There are lots of Googling available on the matter. The thing is, you have to have faith in Science and stop playing politics!

Some people's politics or religions are more important to them, than Science- or EVEN COMMON SENSE!

I am not calling any names here! So don't try and kill the messenger!

Thanks!

Google is not God. Don't worship it.

You discard science. I have already pointed out some of the theories of science routinely discarded by the Church of Global Warming (and you).

 

[Hawkeye10]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1609568091846967306

 

[Into the Night]

I genuinely thought conservatives had retired the "it's cold outside today so how can there be global warming" thing.

Weather & climate are pretty different concepts.

Attempting to rebrand the Church of Global Warming doesn't work, dude. You are still ignoring the same theories of science and the same areas of mathematics.

 

[Into the Night]

I don’t have a vast knowledge or a formal education on the subject, but I do read peer reviewed articles and understand the difference between weather and climate.

Science has no voting bloc. There is no voting in science. Science is not a magazine, book, article, paper, website, government program, university, research program, study, government grant, government agency, degree, license, certificate, association, academy, class, scientist, or even people at all.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. The theories of science you routinely discard are the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[Into the Night]

The geese in the park just left yesterday. They generally leave around Thanksgiving. They believe in global warming.

So you have the mind of a goose and talk with them. Riiiiiiight.

 

[BartenderElite]

Attempting to rebrand the Church of Global Warming doesn't work, dude. You are still ignoring the same theories of science and the same areas of mathematics.

It's not a church, dude - and I addressed the alleged "rebranding."

What you're doing is distracting from the actual conversation by trying to find some sort of "gotcha." The planet is in real trouble. This is a non-partisan issue, and it's only a matter of time before we're all on board with trying to save the only home we have.

 

[Into the Night]

See what good your semantics will do you should you become a climatic change event victim yourself.

Koppen strummed his golden harp in 1940. His climate classification is 19th century.

Fallacy fallacy. No semantics fallacy occurred. There is no such thing as a 'climate victim'. Buzzword fallacy. You are still ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law and several areas of mathematics.

Anyone that points this out to you simply triggers you into your usual childish insults.

 

[Into the Night]

Here's why your point isn't very useful to the conversation:

It is nearly impossible to take any one single climate event and attribute it to climate change. Climate change is happening but along with it is random noise within temperature and climate conditions. When you collect data you OFTEN wind up with "noise" in the data. Sometimes that noise is meaningful but often times it is just noise. The key is the overall trend taking place over many, many years and showing a consistent change.

There is no data. There is no 'noise'. Climate has no temperature. Climate has no numbers at all associated with it. Argument from randU fallacy.

That's what we see in climate change science.

There is no such thing. Buzzword fallacy. The theories of science you are ignoring AGAIN are the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

A trend overall over the course of nearly 150 years of steadily increasing CO2 levels (as well as other greenhouse gases) and an attendant warming we see across the globe.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or the global atmospheric CO2 concentration. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. Buzzword fallacy. You are AGAIN ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. NO gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

So any single event can't really be said to be "climate change", but a whole bunch of them and you start to see a signal.

Climate cannot change. Math error due to distributive law. Compositional error fallacy.

Your religion is not science.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, change. The trend is towards greater heat. There is ' hot climate ' and there is ' fucking hot climate ' . Shades, if you'll pardon the pun, of change.

Heat has no temperature. You are AGAIN ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[Nordberg]

So you have the mind of a goose and talk with them. Riiiiiiight.

over 95 percent of climate scientists believe in the essentially same global warming. The geese are an observation that shows it is staying warmer, longer just as predicted. They flew off 6 weeks later than they used to. I would have a better chance talking sense to a goose than you. You use such slanted terms. Global warming is science. Ant global warming is like a church based on belief. Of course, you have it backward.

 

[Into the Night]

I can do a ' Koppen ' and describe one. My classification would include anthropogenic effects- unlike yours.

Buzzword fallacies. Random words. No apparent coherency.

 

[AProudLefty]

Heat has no temperature. You are AGAIN ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

So the temperatures on ovens are a lie?

 

[Into the Night]

It doesn't take an 'expert, asshole, just a reasoning intelligence. I'm sorry that you didn't make the cut.

You are describing yourself again.

 

[Into the Night]

It takes facts. Not innuendo. Your intellectual level by your own posts in lower than whale shit.

No. A fact is not a proof nor a Universal Truth.
A fact is merely an assumed predicate. That's all.

For example, it is a fact that the 1st law of thermodynamics is a theory of science. This theory of science is ignored by Moon.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

There is no data. There is no 'noise'. Climate has no temperature. Climate has no numbers at all associated with it. Argument from randU fallacy.

There is no such thing. Buzzword fallacy. The theories of science you are ignoring AGAIN are the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or the global atmospheric CO2 concentration. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. Buzzword fallacy. You are AGAIN ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. NO gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

Climate cannot change. Math error due to distributive law. Compositional error fallacy.

Your religion is not science.

You are an amazingly complete idiot.