Global Warming

[piratey 6]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681829/Global-warming-latest-Amount-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html

 

This kinda proves my point no?

 

 

The levels of Antarctic sea-ice last week hit an all-time high – confounding climate change computer models which say it should be in decline.

America’s National Snow And Ice Data Center, which is funded by Nasa, revealed that ice around the southern continent covers about 16million sq km, more than 2.1 million more than is usual for the time of year.

It is by far the highest level since satellite observations on which the figures depend began in 1979.

In statistical terms, the extent of the ice cover is hugely significant.

 

But why are environmentalists and scientists so much less keen to discuss the long-term increase in the southern hemisphere?

In fact, across the globe, there are about one million square kilometres more sea ice than 35 years ago, which is when satellite measurements began.

It’s fair to say that this has been something of an embarrassment for climate modellers. But it doesn’t stop there.

In recent days a new scandal over the integrity of temperature data has emerged, this time in America, where it has been revealed as much as 40 per cent of temperature data there are not real thermometer readings.

Many temperature stations have closed, but rather than stop recording data from these posts, the authorities have taken the remarkable step of ‘estimating’ temperatures based on the records of surrounding stations.

So vast swathes of the data are actually from ‘zombie’ stations that have long since disappeared.

This is bad enough, but it has also been discovered that the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is using estimates even when perfectly good raw data is available to it – and that it has adjusted historical records.

 

We have only a few decades of data, and in climate terms this is probably too short to demonstrate that either the Antarctic increase or the Arctic decrease is anything other than natural variability.

But the relentless focus by activist scientists on the Arctic decline does suggest a political imperative rather than a scientific one – and when put together with the story of the US temperature records, it’s hard to avoid the impression that what the public is being told is less than the unvarnished truth.

As their credulity is stretched more and more, the public will – quite rightly – treat demands for action with increasing caution…

[1qa 0]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681829/Global-warming-latest-Amount-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html

 

This kinda proves my point no?

 

The bottomline measure is sea-level rise.

 

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

 

Why? Because the only source of water to raise sea-levels comes from ice sheets / glaciers on land. You need energy to melt that ice. Where's that energy come from? The sun... but why more so in recent history? because the sun's energy is being trapped more effectively and contained by greenhouse gases.

 

Are you going to dispute sea-level rise now?

[IrishGuy 178]

Just wanted to restir the pot

 

http://local.msn.com/WeatherArticle.aspx?cp-documentid=264334084&ocid=ansloc11

 

:smow:

[piratey 6]

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/25/Australian-Bureau-of-Meteorology-accused-of-Criminally-Adjusted-Global-Warming

 

At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius cooling per century was "homogenized" (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees warming per century.

At Rutherglen, Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35 degrees C per century was magically transformed at the stroke of an Australian meteorologist's pen into a warming trend of 1.73 degrees C per century.

[IrishGuy 178]

http://news.yahoo.com/earths-protective-ozone-layer-shows-signs-recovery-130222858.html

[Rocketsan 773]

Calgary yesterday:

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/10/overnight-storm-dumps-10-cm-of-snow-on-calgary-leaving-30000-without-power/

[IrishGuy 178]

Calgary yesterday:

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/10/overnight-storm-dumps-10-cm-of-snow-on-calgary-leaving-30000-without-power/

 

UGGGGG!!!! Is that incredibly early for snow up there? I think late October is the earliest I remember seeing snow....and that was WAAAAAY too soon for me.

[Rocketsan 773]

UGGGGG!!!! Is that incredibly early for snow up there? I think late October is the earliest I remember seeing snow....and that was WAAAAAY too soon for me.

 

Ridiculously early...it was a freak occurrence.

 

That happened twice in three days.

 

Trees are still chock full of leaves so they all came down on the hydro wires because they were so snow laden and heavy...

[Morgandonor 30]

And yet it is snowing in parts of the US in early September. ..i am calling BS....

[GunSlinger 28]

And then you have this.

 

http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/09/11/46646/california-temperatures-hottest-driest-in-120-year/

[Soko 128]

Do we still have climate change deniers in our midst?

 

This quote make me chuckle and cringe.

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/01/458087304/republican-candidates-slam-obamas-focus-on-climate-change

 

“He really believes that folks are worried about climate change when what they really care about now is the Islamic State and Syria and terrorism.”

 

 

It's like people can't multi task anymore. Is the president really only allowed to focus on 2 things at once, jobs and the god damn terrorists.? And do they know that ISIS is in the Middle East, not Maine? I don't see any boats landing on the east coast just yet.

 

Are people really more concerned about something they can't control i.e. jihadi nut jobs (there are a lot of people in the Pentagon and CIA supposed to be looking after this) than something that is going to affect the planets ability to sustain the ever growing population of the world for generations to come? And is not possible to care about both of them at the same time?

Edited December 2, 2015 by Soko

[NDhoosier 1,232]

Im curious about something because I have not really kept up with the Global Warming issue all that much. I just do my part in not being wasteful and trying to recycle... all that jazz. My question is: Is Global Warming a political issue between Republicans and Democrats? If so, why?

[Jim2Dokes 3]

Im curious about something because I have not really kept up with the Global Warming issue all that much. I just do my part in not being wasteful and trying to recycle... all that jazz. My question is: Is Global Warming a political issue between Republicans and Democrats? If so, why?

 

Yes. Not sure why. It seems McCain said it best when he said basically what does it matter, why not create a cleaner environment?

 

But the big money for gop comes from the polluters so they have to spin it and make it an issue. There is really no reason it is an issue.

 

Create more sustainable energy that doesn't rely on foreign oil, thus not funding terrorism. Check

Less pollution equals less cancer and other diseases. Check

Create more transportation options such as high speed rail to boost the economy and create more access. Check

 

Really not seeing the downside here to focus on creating a cleaner world.

[jessemoore97 1,295]

Do we still have climate change deniers in our midst?

 

This quote make me chuckle and cringe.

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/01/458087304/republican-candidates-slam-obamas-focus-on-climate-change

 

 

 

 

It's like people can't multi task anymore. Is the president really only allowed to focus on 2 things at once, jobs and the god damn terrorists.? And do they know that ISIS is in the Middle East, not Maine? I don't see any boats landing on the east coast just yet.

 

Are people really more concerned about something they can't control i.e. jihadi nut jobs (there are a lot of people in the Pentagon and CIA supposed to be looking after this) than something that is going to affect the planets ability to sustain the ever growing population of the world for generations to come? And is not possible to care about both of them at the same time?

 

Ok outside of my daily recycling etc, what difference do I actually make on the planet's health? This another topic that people really cannot control no matter how much the green crowd makes it sound like. The ONLY way to make sustainable changes to the environment for the better is to get rid of mankind altogether. This is obviously the most extreme and least likely to happen because none of us wants to be extinct. But seriously for all the BS recycling yada yada feel good about doing our part stuff that's out there, it's still a very tiny effort. Of all the things that exist to make modern life sustainable as it stands today, the only way to stop the production of, use, and eventual scrapping of our technology on top of our other waste is to get rid of the user. There is really no other viable option if climate alarmists are truly honest with themselves, and as a result I will fully expect them to start committing Harry Carey enmasse in the streets pronto in order to sacrifice for the greater good of the planets ecosystem.

[nickman54 0]

Yes. Not sure why. It seems McCain said it best when he said basically what does it matter, why not create a cleaner environment?

 

But the big money for gop comes from the polluters so they have to spin it and make it an issue. There is really no reason it is an issue.

 

Create more sustainable energy that doesn't rely on foreign oil, thus not funding terrorism. Check

Less pollution equals less cancer and other diseases. Check

Create more transportation options such as high speed rail to boost the economy and create more access. Check

 

Really not seeing the downside here to focus on creating a cleaner world.

 

What big polluters are funneling the gop cash? You do realize that most big companies give money to both sides. It's what they all do to gain access and it's quite pathetic.

 

Btw I picked up two bombers of goose island bourbon county tonight.

Edited December 2, 2015 by nickman54

[NDhoosier 1,232]

So basically, the massively wealthy oil companies are trying to keep it dirty.

 

I just dont see why this should be a political thing, everyone should want a cleaner world, especially when it does not affect quality of life for the common citizen. I do not really care if the billionaires in the oil business lose some money.

[Soko 128]

Ok outside of my daily recycling etc, what difference do I actually make on the planet's health? This another topic that people really cannot control no matter how much the green crowd makes it sound like. The ONLY way to make sustainable changes to the environment for the better is to get rid of mankind altogether. This is obviously the most extreme and least likely to happen because none of us wants to be extinct. But seriously for all the BS recycling yada yada feel good about doing our part stuff that's out there, it's still a very tiny effort. Of all the things that exist to make modern life sustainable as it stands today, the only way to stop the production of, use, and eventual scrapping of our technology on top of our other waste is to get rid of the user. There is really no other viable option if climate alarmists are truly honest with themselves, and as a result I will fully expect them to start committing Harry Carey enmasse in the streets pronto in order to sacrifice for the greater good of the planets ecosystem.

 

Personal recycling is not what this is about. It is mass industrial pollution they are looking to curb.

 

Look at China for example. The worst polluter in the world but aiming to cut greenhouse gasses by 60% for 2030 (a lofty but most likely unachievable target). To do this they are replacing all of their coal power stations and placing a huge emphasis on renewable energy. They are the worlds leader in high speed rail, a mode of transport derided in the US for some reason. If you have ever travelled on their train network you will be amazed at how quick and efficient it is compared to Amtrak.

 

However there needs to be political to get these things done and that doesn't seem to exist and now the issue has been hijacked by politicians divided along party grounds. It sad because the point will come within our lifetime where we look back at this moment and say wtf were our politicians thinking.

[jessemoore97 1,295]

Personal recycling is not what this is about. It is mass industrial pollution they are looking to curb.

 

Look at China for example. The worst polluter in the world but aiming to cut greenhouse gasses by 60% for 2030 (a lofty but most likely unachievable target). To do this they are replacing all of their coal power stations and placing a huge emphasis on renewable energy. They are the worlds leader in high speed rail, a mode of transport derided in the US for some reason. If you have ever travelled on their train network you will be amazed at how quick and efficient it is compared to Amtrak.

 

However there needs to be political to get these things done and that doesn't seem to exist and now the issue has been hijacked by politicians divided along party grounds. It sad because the point will come within our lifetime where we look back at this moment and say wtf were our politicians thinking.

 

That's what I mean though. For all of China's industrial pollution, how much of it is directly correlated to the end user US average citizen who buys all the sh*t China rolls off the assembly line. We can feel good at home closing down all the industrial plants yada yada to save our environment, but in reality we just moved it to someone else's backyard who'll produce it for us without all the toxins etc on our soil and in our air.

 

I wouldn't be so quick to tout China's anything regarding alternative fuels etc. How much damage was done to the environment to build that gigantic damn of theirs? High speed rail, great. I've been an advocate for years of rebuilding our existing rail infrastructure, not necessarily for travel purposes, but more for freight and the like which could take scores of semi's off the roads which would help a lot of problems.

[Soko 128]

That's what I mean though. For all of China's industrial pollution, how much of it is directly correlated to the end user US average citizen who buys all the sh*t China rolls off the assembly line. We can feel good at home closing down all the industrial plants yada yada to save our environment, but in reality we just moved it to someone else's backyard who'll produce it for us without all the toxins etc on our soil and in our air.

 

I wouldn't be so quick to tout China's anything regarding alternative fuels etc. How much damage was done to the environment to build that gigantic damn of theirs? High speed rail, great. I've been an advocate for years of rebuilding our existing rail infrastructure, not necessarily for travel purposes, but more for freight and the like which could take scores of semi's off the roads which would help a lot of problems.

 

That is the whole point of trying to get universal agreement on emissions so that it is not just moved to another countries backyard. It is delicate balancing act as developing nations need to grow but you can't just stick your head in the sand and say hey, I'm more worried about ISIS so this climate change malarkey can go pound sand.

 

That dam destroyed local eco systems in the area with rising water levels, displaced millions of people but also produces 20 times the electricity the Hoover Dam does for example. When you have 1 billion people electricity is a huge issue. Their coal plants are an abomination and a huge polluter so anything to get them offline is welcome for me. Another reason why India is crucial to these talks too as they have a huge population and massive reliance on coal.

 

An interesting point regarding the US road system and freight. The current roads would need a huge upgrade to handle increased US manufacturing if jobs ever did come back to America (which they won't) so why not invest in railways? The answer is big oil lobbies petitioning state and federal government against it. It is embarrassing that first high speed rail from Vegas to LA will be built by the Chinese. That is when it is time to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask what the hell is going on.

[jessemoore97 1,295]

That is the whole point of trying to get universal agreement on emissions so that it is not just moved to another countries backyard. It is delicate balancing act as developing nations need to grow but you can't just stick your head in the sand and say hey, I'm more worried about ISIS so this climate change malarkey can go pound sand.

 

That dam destroyed local eco systems in the area with rising water levels, displaced millions of people but also produces 20 times the electricity the Hoover Dam does for example. When you have 1 billion people electricity is a huge issue. Their coal plants are an abomination and a huge polluter so anything to get them offline is welcome for me. Another reason why India is crucial to these talks too as they have a huge population and massive reliance on coal.

 

An interesting point regarding the US road system and freight. The current roads would need a huge upgrade to handle increased US manufacturing if jobs ever did come back to America (which they won't) so why not invest in railways? The answer is big oil lobbies petitioning state and federal government against it. It is embarrassing that first high speed rail from Vegas to LA will be built by the Chinese. That is when it is time to take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask what the hell is going on.

 

Your second paragraph perplexes me a lot. So destroying the environment is good as long as it's a lesser of two evils approach? To me it just keeps setting up the argument you mentioned in your first paragraph, it's just an end around that countries and businesses will continue to use.