Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 44. (Read 636455 times)

They are NEVER WRONG.  Because, climate change.

Great Lakes Go from ‘Climate Change-Induced’ Low Water Levels to Record Highs in 3 Years






Between 2010 and 2013 residents of the states surrounding the Great Lakes were told that climate change was permanently altering their environment and the record low water levels being recorded in the lakes may be the new normal. But now, only three years later, news reports are worried about beach erosion because the lakes have rebounded to record high levels of water.

This week, throughout the Chicago media landscape, as well as in reports in Michigan and Wisconsin, stories about a loss of swimming areas on public beaches are filling airwaves and newspaper pages. Residents and city officials are warning citizens that water levels in Lake Michigan and the other lakes are so high that the shallow swimming areas have been reduced as the water rises. Reports are also express worry over beach erosion and fears that the rising water is a danger to other infrastructure like roads.

In Chicago, DNAInfro.com, for instance, notes that water levels have risen a whopping four feet since 2013 and the new water is “swallowing up beaches.”

According to the Army Corps of Engineers, the water has risen 15 inches higher than this time last year and may rise another six inches before the summer heat starts its cycle of evaporation.

The Chicago Tribune reports that the northern suburb of Evanston is losing beachfront property. “All our beaches are shrinking,” Evanston parks director Lawrence Hemingway said.

For its part, Chicago’s Fox affiliate worries that the city’s lakeshore bike path is being destroyed by the higher water levels.

The Detroit Free Press also noted that the high water is erasing beaches and the water is at highs not seen since the 1990s.

Lake Michigan, of course, isn’t the only lake rising. As a report from April about Lake Huron points out, all the lakes are rising.

But even as these news outlets are shocked and concerned about the record high levels of water filling the Great Lakes to overflowing today, only a few short years ago these same sort of news outlets were worried that the lakes were irreversibly shrinking and that climate change was desolating both commerce and the environment.

In 2013, for instance, Chicago’s Public Television WTTW bemoaned a “dramatic” change in the climate that was warming the lakes, lowering water levels, and threatening to destroy commerce and the environment.

The local PBS story also went national as the PBS Newshour ran stories on the environmental disaster the lakes were experiencing.

In 2012 National Geographic sonorously warned that the “climate-related trend” was on the verge of laying waste to the region.

Crain’s Detroit was also writing in 2013 that communities living on the edges of the region’s monumental bodies of water were going to have to “adapt” to the new normal of climate change.

Naturally, far left sources were absolutely sure that global warming was drying up the lakes. In 2013 far left website Think Progress worried its readers with claims that climate change was “damaging” the lakes and would present “implications for the environment and the economy.”

The Natural Resource Defense Council even contemplated lawsuits to prevent cities on the lakes from tapping into them as a source of water.

On the other hand, less alarmist stories noted that the water level was affected by things other than global warming. In 2013 USA Today properly noted that some of the water drop was a result of the massive dredging campaigns launched by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a project meant to allow shipping and transportation to more easily ply the waters of the Great Lakes.

Still, it is amazing to see the difference in coverage. Today, with water levels hitting record highs, news reporters and city officials worry over their loss of beachfront property and not a word is mentioned of climate change. Yet only three years ago the same officials and news reporters were sure that climate change was here to stay and we’d better get used to the shrunken Great Lakes.

What a difference a few years makes.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/10/great-lakes-go-from-climate-change-induced-low-water-levels-to-record-highs-in-3-years/


--------------------------------------------------
Aren't they tired of being wrong?

Except it isn't an argument.  It is a random attack with nonsense about nonsense.

lol
[/quote]Defining oneself as Trolling...

Not a program, simply the basic equations of orbital mechanics.  Established by Kepler hundreds of years ago.

Has nothing to do with opinions or elections, etc.

" The present eccentricity is 0.017 and decreasing" =change     You refuted your own theory
We can accurately predict orbits forward or backwards for hundreds of thousands of years.  The programs that do this literally use hundreds of variables in their computations.  However, "the bible" on orbits was Mier IIFC written in the 1920s, and it would give you a hundred thousand year prediction with in a few hours. " --
Might want to re-check the program as they are only as good as the commands given.  So since the '20's scientist have known and can prove this yet nobody actually believed until some idiot wins an election babbling about it, then everyone changed mind, suspicious to say least.  Why does NASA use specific points for re-entry ? Weakness in Ozone layer, below the dust up there are all these gasses that make up our atmosphere, carbon laced is heavier, so stays at near bottom -playing a part what your referring to as climate change, now in our climate all these leaky nuclear reactors,  fuel dumps by every plane in air, smoke stacks ,etc.......play a part but not at level your saying. Had the "greediest generation the world will ever know" (bboomers) chosen to plant trees, control pollution, etc , sure things would be different but still bad. Put something on an axis and spin it ( experiment and  add light weight anywhere, add a fan, use gas not air even, change occurs as the "tightness" of spin erodes.

I do believe we need to change things, there is no doubt, problem is current regimes use "fear-mongering" as a tactic, and this is one of their babies, trusting the people that created the problem isn't usually a good thing, their scientists say what they are paid to say, just like their dr.'s. makes arguing with them about it a waste of time.

Why I Changed My Mind on Climate Change

Okay, I understand now.  None of these effects are true on orbital changes over time.

We can accurately predict orbits forward or backwards for hundreds of thousands of years.  The programs that do this literally use hundreds of variables in their computations.  However, "the bible" on orbits was Mier IIFC written in the 1920s, and it would give you a hundred thousand year prediction with in a few hours.

laymans terms "slipping out of orbit " , as the cycles suggest, where we are in relation to sun, moon changes over time, as ice melts weight is re-distributed over earth, tides moving water, that affects our orbit, the weight shifts while we spin on axis, creates shifts in plates as earth "re-forms" to a certain degree, causing more changes increasing scale of change faster.  I would also go so far as to suggest our atmosphere is weaker at these points, preventing  it from deflecting direct hits from big asteroids, which creates ice age.  I forget where, but read that it is already showing in our spines as gravitational pull declines, our spin on axis becomes less circular, taking on more of an elongated elliptical, causing even greater change.

It's generally accepted as true that we are close to another ice age, or "overdue" for one.  But what's this about "slipping out of orbit?"  There is no thing such as slipping out of an orbit unless a greater gravitational force causes such a thing.

That makes no sense.  Are you trying to describe the Mishelovich orbital cycles?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

The Earth's orbit is an ellipse. The eccentricity is a measure of the departure of this ellipse from circularity. The shape of the Earth's orbit varies in time between nearly circular (low eccentricity of 0.000055) and mildly elliptical (high eccentricity of 0.0679)[3] with the mean eccentricity of 0.0019 as geometric or logarithmic mean. The major component of these variations occurs on a period of 413,000 years (eccentricity variation of ±0.012). A number of other terms vary between components 95,000 and 125,000 years (with a beat period 400,000 years), and loosely combine into a 100,000-year cycle (variation of −0.03 to +0.02). The present eccentricity is 0.017 and decreasing.

It should be expected that humans play a part in global warming,(smoke stacks, space exploration, etc.)  however it goes way beyond things we are capable of or understand enough to alter. Earth is slipping out of orbit, that's fact, it happens, plays a large part in ice ages of which another cannot be far off, plates are shifting, ice is melting, weight increases all while slipping out of orbit causing many of things in question,  the mayans had it right............or were very close on when next ice age comes and its not that far off. 

Except it isn't an argument.  It is a random attack with nonsense about nonsense.

lol

I really have no opinion on 2nd hand smoke except that it was a catalyst for migraines when I was younger. That is enough for me.

You seem like a reasonable fellow, so I'm being polite. If you think tobacco "contributes" to cancer, then it also causes cancer. It obviously isn't binary which you understand.  Your take on this is a bit confusing though.  If tobacco causes cancer, it does _not_ mean that nothing else would.

My whole point here was not the tobacco issue itself. It is that there are ALWAYS a group of skeptics shown to be wrong on so many issues throughout history.  I could come up with countless examples of this.  What I couldn't come up with, is an example of a global conspiracy promulgated by the large majority of scientists.

We call this an Ad Hominem argument.

I think this wins the award of the most incoherent babbling wrong post in all 186+ pages.  Congrats Spendalus. Here's a cookie?

You can't follow a logical train of thought, so you make up views of your opponents and attack those.

At least I think thats what you are trying to do here?

lol

You ignore the fact that directly measuring things is always preferred.  Dealing with biases in these measurements is something that has to be addressed, but it doesn't completely discount direct measurements.  I can make just as sound arguments about why a single source of data is not preferred....  What happens if that satellite's data is monkeyed with before being made public?  Thats a lot of power in one person's hands. However, that would be too logical for your thought processes.

Lol @ saying that global warming scientists are analogous to tobacco companies.

See, back in the day all the "clever" skeptics said tobacco didn't cause cancer.  To this day it probably hasn't been proven, but you know what?  You don't hear from those guys anymore.  Just like (sadly) we won't hear from you people 20 years from now.  And I say sadly, because I'd rather you be right than wrong.

But that's not the way the question was posed or what it implies.  Among fervent leftists, "second hand smoke" is one item on a litmus test of whether you are a retrograde knuckle dragging Repugnantan.  Others include your attidue on Bush Jr.  (Hate is required), attitude on vaccines (watch out!  you'll be stereotyped an Anti-Vaxer).

DWMA can probably recite the entire current Creed, if we are nice.  Basically it's top down promulgated, so probably today it includes the transgender, same sex bathrooms, whatever the latest crap is being pushed.  Personally I don't care much except insofar as it becomes anti-scientific.

An actual discussion on vaccines, second hand smoke, or climate change is not sought, but agreement with whatever form of a three word or one line meme on the subject was cited.   Anyway this is off the subject, lol...