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

moon said:
A modern climate classification- the most recent Koppen upgrade is still back in the eighties, would take account of anthropogenic-rooted anomalies such those recently experienced in many regions of the world, including Buffalo . I expect that somebody will produce one soon enough- when they get the dumbass Deniers and their outdated data off their necks.
Click to expand...

Buzzword fallacies. No apparent coherency.
 
Diesel said:
If you haven't noticed global climate change (not warming), then it's because you're in denial. Science is not political. You need to put more value in education than owning the libs.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a global climate or global weather. Climate has no value associated with it. It cannot 'change'. You are discarding several theories of science. You are discarding several areas of mathematics as well.
 
Diesel said:
Petroleum based energy needs to be eliminated because 1.) it pollutes the environment and 2.) it's non-renewable. How long are stupid humans going to continue racing us all toward a brick wall at 700 miles an hour?
Click to expand...

Define this 'pollution'. Oil is a renewable resource.
 
Into the Night said:
Oil is a renewable resource.
Click to expand...

OH I dearly want to hear how you came to that conclusion. Seriously. Hopefully you aren't putting your money on the "Deep Hot Biosphere" hypothesis. Because I guarantee you the biomarkers in oil don't look right for it to be that.

But do tell us what you "think". (This should be HILARIOUS!)
 
Libhater said:
So you're admitting or just suggesting that the leftist narrative that the world will end in some 10 years or so isn't or won't necessarily be from global warming per say, rather, it will be reallocated to firmly believing that it will end due to climate change instead. Its as if the lefties never used the term global warming when spouting their belief that that was the single cause of our planet's ultimate demise. So now you or they are saying or suggesting that perhaps global cooling could also be a major factor in our total demise? I hear from the Left the term global warming, much more than I hear the term climate change when listening to leftists fear monger over the demise of our planet.
Click to expand...

First it was Global Warming, then Global Cooling and the Coming Ice Age, then it went back to Global Warming, when it went to Climate Change and now recently Climate Crisis. It's the global warming/cooling/warming/climatechange/climatecrisis or whatever the fuck they call themselves now. I call it the Church of Global Warming.

Religions like this must use fear to get people to join their ranks. It's the only tool they have.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
Weak Excuse.

While a small but vocal minority of people might use the faulty logic of, "it's cold where I am, therefore global warming isn't real," even schoolchildren know that weather isn't climate. But these extreme cold snaps have gotten more severe in recent years, due to a combination of global warming and a phenomenon you've likely heard of: the polar vortex. Here's the science of how it works, and why global warming is paradoxically playing a major role in today's record-low temperatures.

GRAPHIC-Polar-Vortex-infographic-NOAA-800x575.jpg


Read the whole report here...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...-temperatures-across-the-usa/?sh=7640d5aed8cf

No reason you should go through life being ignorant!
Click to expand...

Not science. The term 'Polar Vortex' was created by the New York Times.

Someday when you're bored, look up Hadley cells and see they are. Then look up the position of the northern jet stream and you see it hasn't significantly changed. Indeed, Seattle is constantly wet because of it!
Also, the Polar High, when it DOES form (rather common), spins clockwise, not counterclockwise, as you have it in this diagram.
 
anonymoose said:
You posted the hypothesis from a nonscientific publication. I already stated I understand the hypothesis.
The problem with the hypothesis is that increase in energy cannot be created from a lesser energy source in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzman.

Forbes is not a scientific publication.
You did not post a scientific study with the conclusion that AGW has caused any variance of weather patterns, much less climate change (there is none in the last 500 years at least).
Click to expand...

He can't. There is no such thing as a 'scientific' publication or a 'scientific' study. Science is neither a publication nor a study. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You correct. The Lizard ignores the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
 
Into the Night said:
First it was Global Warming, then Global Cooling and the Coming Ice Age, then it went back to Global Warming, when it went to Climate Change and now recently Climate Crisis. It's the global warming/cooling/warming/climatechange/climatecrisis or whatever the fuck they call themselves now. I call it the Church of Global Warming.

Religions like this must use fear to get people to join their ranks. It's the only tool they have.
Click to expand...

Nah. The bolded isn't correct at all.

No one has said "Ice Age" since the '70s. And even that story is inaccurately cited by conservatives.

Conservatives should care more about the planet, and less about finding "gotchas" in past statements by liberals. Finding past statements by liberals won't save the planet, dude.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
OH I dearly want to hear how you came to that conclusion. Seriously. Hopefully you aren't putting your money on the "Deep Hot Biosphere" hypothesis. Because I guarantee you the biomarkers in oil don't look right for it to be that.

But do tell us what you "think". (This should be HILARIOUS!)
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as 'biomarkers' in oil.

Oil can be synthesized from a carbon oxide and hydrogen in the presence of an iron catalyst under high heat and high pressure.
Conditions that exist naturally underground.
 
anonymoose said:
You posted the hypothesis from a nonscientific publication. I already stated I understand the hypothesis.
The problem with the hypothesis is that increase in energy cannot be created from a lesser energy source in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzman.

Forbes is not a scientific publication.
You did not post a scientific study with the conclusion that AGW has caused any variance of weather patterns, much less climate change (there is none in the last 500 years at least).
Click to expand...

It contains citations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top