Summer temperatures miss 100-degree mark in Alabama for only 4th time in 130 years
For only the fourth time since 1883, summer temperatures did not reach 100 degrees anywhere in Alabama, according to Dr. John Christy director of the Earth Systems Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
"Back in the 1800s, there were just a handful of stations but every year from then through 1964, somewhere in Alabama had 100 degrees," he said. "It wasn't until 1965 that there was no 100, then in 1994 and 2001, and now this summer."
You must've missed the memo. It's not Global Warming anymore. It's Climate Change now. And this proves exactly the point - see how often it's happening now? Almost at an alarming rate, right? This just goes to prove that we need a carbon tax and every person will need to start tracking their own carbon footprint to keep thiswarming,cooling, change from happening.
Then we can create a new segment of the IRS to track everyone's carbon footprint and tax them accordingly.
Think about the children!
You must've missed the memo. It's not Global Warming anymore. It's Climate Change now. And this proves exactly the point - see how often it's happening now? Almost at an alarming rate, right? This just goes to prove that we need a carbon tax and every person will need to start tracking their own carbon footprint to keep thiswarming,cooling, change from happening.
Then we can create a new segment of the IRS to track everyone's carbon footprint and tax them accordingly.
Think about the children!
Global warming, climate change, oceanic cooling - what the hell does it matter? The planet will never kill us because Jesus will rapture us before that ever happens.
Global warming, climate change, oceanic cooling - what the hell does it matter? The planet will never kill us because Jesus will rapture us before that ever happens.(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MziyVt0-szw/T9-VDV2GvuI/AAAAAAAAQEY/GRVb6vz76ew/s400/not-sure-if-serious.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MziyVt0-szw/T9-VDV2GvuI/AAAAAAAAQEY/GRVb6vz76ew/s400/not-sure-if-serious.jpg)
I don't know about you guys, but I sure am enjoying the 90+ degree weather during football season.
The "nip" (or taint, or whatever you want to call it) is a thing of the past.
86 today in Auburn. 87 tomorrow. Get your jackets ready for football season.
And if the Rapture really is some of your justification for being as flippant as you are about climate change, then...frankly, that's terrifying.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MziyVt0-szw/T9-VDV2GvuI/AAAAAAAAQEY/GRVb6vz76ew/s400/not-sure-if-serious.jpg)
Why do I even post here? It's like you don't know me at all!I know that you, and pretty much everyone on this forum that has posted on the subject, thinks that climate change is 100% grade-A bullshit.
I know that you, and pretty much everyone on this forum that has posted on the subject, thinks that climate change is 100% grade-A bullshit.
It's the rapture part I hope was a joke.
I thought we were friends. I'm the guy that has ALWAYS supported the notion that climate change is real.
Real. Just not man made. Natural and cyclical. Period.
Yeah but that's not what he said. He said 100% grade A bullshit, which hurt my feelings. It's like no one respects me.
Yeah but that's not what he said. He said 100% grade A bullshit, which hurt my feelings. It's like no one respects me.
It's cooler because all the north pole ice melted into the Gulf of Mexico. Pretty sure I saw an iceberg out there the other day.My cousin shot a polar bear in Panymaw last weekend.
My cousin shot a polar bear in Panymaw last weekend.
I nailed a beaver in Destin last week.
You tell your wife yet?
Climate Change: It’s Real, and It’s Us
Climate change is real. The Earth is warming up.
Moreover, by implication and by fact: Climate change deniers are wrong.
I say this because the first part of the fifth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/) is now out, and it’s incredibly clear.
In the very first highlighted conclusion on the very first page of the report, the authors come out swinging:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.
Emphasis mine. Still, that’s the major fact to walk away with. The biggest change over previous reports is how confident scientists are that humans are behind global warming. We’ve known about the effects, and now we can be quite sure that our own emissions are behind it.
Politically, this may be the most important part. People like James Inhofe (R-Okla.) can spew ridiculous assertions (http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Inhofe_dismisses_report_on_climate_change/20130927_16_0_WASHIN10375) and continue to live in a fantasy world, but this part of the IPCC report is specifically written for policymakers. The increased certainty over previous reports is what they need to understand.
Still, the ramifications of climate change need to be driven home.
The report has many. In fact, right after that opening salvo they go on to say that each of the last three decades has been warmer than the last, and all three have been warmer than any other decade since 1850.
This is critical to understand, so here’s the plot showing land and ocean surface temperatures, averaged over a decade:
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/29/ipcc_ar5_decadal_tempavg.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg)
Land and sea surface temperatures averaged over ten year periods. Land and sea surface temperatures averaged over ten year periods.
As you can see, the last three decades have been warmer than any before, and the 2000-2009 decade warmer by far.
Averaging over a decade is a good way to show this because temperatures change quite a bit year-to-year, and climate change only starts to show itself after a sufficiently long period of time. If you look on shorter time scales, you might think things are warming faster or slower than they really are.
This is the major fallacy recently promoted by the climate change deniers: That the warming has “stalled†over the past decade or so. That’s simply not true. Temperatures have flattened, but to say the global warming itself has stopped is dead wrong. I’m not splitting hairs, either, because the distinction is critical. Here’s the difference:
1) We’re talking surface temperatures here, which is not the best way to represent the extra energy the Earth has absorbed from the Sun. Climate change happens because the amount of heat absorbed by the Earth from the Sun is not balanced by the amount the Earth radiates away into space. Give off too much and the Earth cools; keep too much and it heats up. Greenhouse gases in essence trap heat, so the more carbon dioxide we put into the air, the less heat the Earth can shed, and we warm up.
Right now, that extra energy is getting transported into the deeper ocean. We know this is happening. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/) And the ocean is a much, much bigger reservoir of heat than the air is —it can store and transfer far larger amounts of heat than air (that’s why a sauna set to 80° C will be relaxing, but a hot tub set that high will quickly kill you). As the IPCC report notes, ocean temperatures are rising.
2) The flattening of the surface temperatures lately is nothing new. Despite deniers beating the drums about it, we’ve had such “pauses†before. Here’s the other part of the temperature showing annual land and ocean surface temperatures (this is the same graph as above, but not averaged over whole decades):
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/29/ipcc_ar5_temps.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg)
Land and sea surface temperatures on an annual basis. Land and sea surface temperatures on an annual basis.
Let me ask you, and answer honestly: What’s the very first thing you notice about that plot? It’s obviously the steep rise in temperatures since about 1900. But note that there have been several times the slope of that rise has changed. From 1940 – 1960 it was fairly flat as well (you can see that in the decadal average, too). But then it took off again, shooting back up. It also rose steeply from 1900 to 1940 or so after a period of mild cooling.
The point is, the trend over time is up. Natural variations can cause cooling — ocean absorption of heat, volcanic explosions, aerosols sent into the air by humans — but those are at best small variations on the much larger trend. And that trend is hot.
So no matter how much the denial machine froths and fumes at this latest so-called “pauseâ€, the graph makes it very clear that all of this has happened before, and will happen again. But to think this means climate change has “stopped†is simply foolish, and anyone trying to make that argument is clearly wrong.
There is far more to the IPCC report than just temperature, of course. Other big conclusions:
· Precipitation rates are changing; dry places are getting drier, and wet places wetter;
· Arctic sea ice is declining (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/20/arctic_sea_ice_what_s_really_going_on.html) (despite, again, the ridiculous claims of the deniers);
· Upper ocean heat content is rising;
· Sea levels are rising (over a 150 centimeters —five feet — in the past century);
· The oceans are getting more acidic (caused by CO2 absorption);
· Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/11/atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_levels_at_all_time_high_for_past_several_million.html), as are methane and nitrous oxide levels, and are higher now than they have been in 800,000 years.
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/29/co2_monthlyavg_maunaloa.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg)
Annual amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide (in parts per million), measured at Mauna Loa.
That last one is the key to this whole thing. We have been dumping all three of these greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a rate of billions of tons per year (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2011/06/22/as_arctic_ice_shrinks_so_does_a_denier_claim.html) for the past century (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Industrial-Revolution-global-warming.htm), and that’s upset the natural balance of the planet.
We’re heating up, and it’s our damn fault.
And there’s more: Obviously, if we do nothing, just go about business as usual, things will continue to get worse. But even if we improve, cut back on CO2 emission, things will still continue to get worse for quite some time. [Note: The IPCC report on mitigation techniques (http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/) — that is, what we can do about all this — is due out in April 2014.]
This is the new normal. Hotter temperatures, more extreme weather, loss of ice at the poles. Ocean acidification is scary, too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification); that’s already affecting corals, causing die-offs, and can have negative impacts on the entire food chain in the oceans.
There’s more, a lot more. That’s the important stuff, though. Still, I strongly urge you to read the report itself (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf). Also, reliable sources have been writing about this since the report came out Friday. Here are a few good links:
· Climate scientist Michael Mann writing for The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/28/ipcc-climate-change-deniers)
· Skeptical Science (http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-ar5-human-caused-global-warming-confidence.html), as always, has an excellent summary, noting that another big conclusion to draw from the IPCC report is how much more confident they are that this is due to human influence
· Seth Borenstein at Common Sense Canadian (http://commonsensecanadian.ca/scientists-certain-climate-change-cigarettes-kill/)
· NASA’s Earth Observatory site (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2013/09/27/key-science-points-from-the-2013-ipcc-report/)
· An article written by two climate change professionals at The Conversation (http://theconversation.com/ipcc-fifth-assessment-report-more-certainty-not-much-news-18509)
· Real Climate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/the-new-ipcc-climate-report/), also as usual, has a great writeup
There are plenty more, but that’s enough to give you the gist.
Of course (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/17/climate_change_denial_speak_up_speak_out.html), the deniers have been spinning (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/23/global_warming_deluge_of_denial_on_its_way.html) at nearly relativistic speeds trying to downplay this report (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/26/climate_change_denial_james_delingpole_tells_it_like_it_isn_t.html). They talk about the pause, they talk about how sensitive the climate is to CO2, they talk about the IPCC being unreliable. But the bottom line is they’re wrong. Ironically, due to its very nature, the IPCC is actually quite conservative; the panel has actually been getting flak from real scientists because the observations — heat absorption, ice loss, sea level rise, and so on — have in almost all cases actually outpaced predictions from earlier reports. In reality, things are worse.
So there you go. I know a lot of people will be saying I’m being alarmist, but you know what? I’m being a realist. Climate change is alarming.
And if someone denies that, denies the facts, denies the conclusions of thousands of actual climate scientists, denies the evidence, denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and denies that there’s even a problem, well, what does that make them?
I’d much rather know the alarming truth than be in constant denial while things get worse all around me.
This was the coolest summer on record for us. I hear this winter is going to be colder than usual.
The good news is that as the planet is destroyed, it should be pleasant in the South as long as you are away for the coast and not hit by an F7 tornado.
Why isn't climate change happening in the Southern Hemisphere?
Chizad's "report" is from slate.comAs clearly communicated and linked, the "report" is from The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Pffftttttt.. HAHAHAHAHA. PFffffffffffffffffffffffffffttttttttttttttt. HAHAHAHAHA.
Pfftt.
Ironically, due to its very nature, the IPCC is actually quite conservative; the panel has actually been getting flak from real scientists because the observations — heat absorption, ice loss, sea level rise, and so on — have in almost all cases actually outpaced predictions from earlier reports. In reality, things are worse.
As clearly communicated and linked, the "report" is from The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UknhXn-fiM0 (http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UknhXn-fiM0)
The tl;dr summary by Slate was apparently was too much for your to process either, though.
Dude.. quit buying into this FRAUD. You're smarter than that.Smarter than 99.9% of all climate scientists.
Smarter than 99.9% of all climate scientists.
Only you are foolhardy & blowhardy enough to be believe that you are more of an expert than the experts. At everything.
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
During Wednesday’s GOP presidential debate, Jon Huntsman attacked Rick Perry with the claim that 97% to 98% of climate scientists believe in the manmade global warming hypothesis.
The claim arises from this June 2010 PNAS study. Read it if you have the time and stomach, but the bottom line is that about 97% to 98% of climate researchers (if not more) are paid by the government and climate interest groups to support and to advance the global warming hypothesis and, guess what, they do.
This doesn’t make these researchers correct or credible, just employed.
An enormous U.N. report on the scientific data behind global warming was made available Monday, yet it offers little concrete explanation for an earthly oddity: the planet’s climate has hit the pause button.
Since 1998, there has been no significant increase in global average surface temperature, and some areas -- notably the Northern Hemisphere -- have actually cooled. The 2,200-page new Technical Report attributes that to a combination of several factors, including natural variability, reduced heating from the sun and the ocean acting like a “heat sink†to suck up extra warmth in the atmosphere.
No!! Wait!!! It IS happening. But it's just on PAUSE!!!
PRRRRRRFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFAAAAAAAAATOOTOOTOOTEY!
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/30/un-climate-change-models-warming/ (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/30/un-climate-change-models-warming/)
HAHAHAHA. Cooled.
We gonna freeze iff'n we don't burn.
The only "greenhouse gases" we need to be concerned with are the respirations of assbags like Gore and the other alarmists.
13 of 14 warmest years on record occurred in 21st century – UN
Global warming trend continues with floods, droughts and extreme weather events around the world
california drought
(http://i.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/1/20/1390232382619/6f6e90d3-e008-45c4-a307-cb34eeb72fb5-620x372.jpeg?width=620&height=-&quality=95)
Monday 24 March 2014 06.05 EDT
13 of the 14 warmest years on record occurred this century, according to the UN.
Publishing its annual climate report, the UN's World Meteorological Organisation said that last year continued a long-term warming trend, with the hottest year ever in Australia and floods, droughts and extreme weather elsewhere around the world.
Michel Jarraud, the WMO's secretary-general, also said there had been no 'pause' in global warming, as has been alleged by climate change sceptics. “There is no standstill in global warming,†Jarraud said.
2001-2010 was the warmest decade on record, the WMO noted, and added that the last three decades had been warmer than the previous one.
Advertisement
The WMO reiterated its earlier finding that 2013 was the sixth warmest on record, with temperatures 0.5C above the long-term average (1961-1990). The southern hemisphere was particularly warm, its report said, with Argentina experiencing its second warmest year on record and New Zealand its third warmest.
Arctic sea ice in 2013 did not reach the record lows seen in 2012 for minimum extent in the summer, but was at the sixth lowest on record. The WMO noted all seven of the lowest Arctic sea-ice extents took place in the past seven years, starting with 2007, which scientists were "stunned" by at the time.
"Many of the extreme events of 2013 were consistent with what we would expect as a result of human-induced climate change. We saw heavier precipitation, more intense heat, and more damage from storm surges and coastal flooding as a result of sea level rise – as typhoon Haiyan so tragically demonstrated in the Philippines," said Jarraud.
Prof Sir Brian Hoskins, director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London, said: “2013 with its mixture of record warmth and extreme weather shows a now familiar mixture of natural variability and greenhouse gas induced climate change. These annual statements document a striking long term trend, and one thing is clear: that our continuing greenhouse gas emissions are a crucial driving force in the changing climate."
Next week the UN's climate science panel, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, will publish the second part in its landmark fifth report on climate change. The report is expected to warn that food yields will suffer from future heatwaves, and the natural world will suffer severe impacts if temperatures continue to rise.
(http://i.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/3/24/1395653765654/253add16-79af-4287-b687-5dd300874dcb-460x276.png?width=620&height=-&quality=95)
About that pause...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/24/warmest-years-record-un-global-warming (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/24/warmest-years-record-un-global-warming)
I'm buying up land in Birmingham that I hope to sell as beach lots. I wish this global warming thingy
would hurry up.
This just in. Global warming is still real...even this pause is man-made, a man-o-pause, with intermittent hot flashes of global warming - Mother Nature is going through the change, and it is your fault
It is just taking a break:
http://news.yahoo.com/pause-global-warming-comes-served-unwelcome-side-dishes-225444077.html (http://news.yahoo.com/pause-global-warming-comes-served-unwelcome-side-dishes-225444077.html)
Based on what I read about the city Govt of B-ham they would find some way to fuck that up.
We will have Belugas in dis bitch
So...
(http://www.ostrichheadinsand.com/images/ostrich-head-in-sand.jpg)
So...
(http://www.ostrichheadinsand.com/images/ostrich-head-in-sand.jpg)
All I'm asking is for at least one person to watch the very compelling case using scientific data that squashes every argument you guys have tried to make in these forums pretty thoroughly and try to find its flaws. You all refuse, cause Sahns don't know shit.
100% proof of global warmingIs this lady related to Key and Peele? She's sacrilegious.
http://youtu.be/a6tKJvWWDP4 (http://youtu.be/a6tKJvWWDP4)
I do, however, have a house in Hoover I'd like to sell you. You can get a steal on it now before it becomes oceanfront property!
All I'm asking is for at least one person to watch the very compelling case using scientific data that squashes every argument you guys have tried to make in these forums pretty thoroughly and try to find its flaws. You all refuse, cause Sahns don't know shoot.
Actually, I don't care enough to devote 40 minutes of my time to hearing about it. You keep beating that "sahns" drum. I'm coming from a completely different angle. This isn't about "sahns" it's about ECONOMICS.I think you two should meet up and do an indian leg rassling match to settle this. I could officiate. I'm one of the best indian leg rasslers this side of the Chattahoochee.
Keep on believing what you want to believe and working hard to reduce your carbon footprint. We can reconvene this discussion in 20 years or so and see who's right.
I think you two should meet up and do an indian leg rassling match to settle this. I could officiate. I'm one of the best indian leg rasslers this side of the Chattahoochee.
I think they should just meet in a hot tub and fuck it out.
Actually, I don't care enough to devote 40 minutes of my time to hearing about it. You keep beating that "sahns" drum. I'm coming from a completely different angle. This isn't about "sahns" it's about ECONOMICS.The world's not going to explode in 20 years. No one's saying that. It will continue on the destructive path we've been on since the industrial revolution.
Keep on believing what you want to believe and working hard to reduce your carbon footprint. We can reconvene this discussion in 20 years or so and see who's right.
I don't know who I would pick in that one. I've never fucked Ogre.
I think they should just meet in a hot tub and fudge it out.
You seeHow? Who's intervening with Capitalism and preventing clean energy alternatives to enter the free market? Oh yeah, the government.man-made global warmingman-made climate change as the gospel truth. I see it as an anti-capitalist movement designed to stunt economic growth and grow government.
The world's not going to explode in 20 years. No one's saying that. It will continue on the destructive path we've been on since the industrial revolution.
Since you guys refuse to spend 40 minutes being educated on the matter in full context, I thought this was particularly relevant to one of the uninformed arguments that continuously pops up on here.
Only two minutes of brain hurt.
http://youtu.be/cBdxDFpDp_k (http://youtu.be/cBdxDFpDp_k)
And by the way, I'm not one of these hippies freaking out to reduce my carbon footprint. I don't drive a Hybrid (although my next car may be purely for economical reasons), I don't recycle, and I generally don't give much of a fuck about all of this. But I don't deny the scientific evidence and consensus that it is happening.
In my opinion, what can or should be done about it is allowing clean energy alternatives to enter the market, and as is the case with a Hybrid car or an LED lightbulb, "green" is just a nice bonus side effect to economical.
The world's not going to explode in 20 years. No one's saying that. It will continue on the destructive path we've been on since the industrial revolution.
Since you guys refuse to spend 40 minutes being educated on the matter in full context, I thought this was particularly relevant to one of the uninformed arguments that continuously pops up on here.
Only two minutes of brain hurt.
http://youtu.be/cBdxDFpDp_k (http://youtu.be/cBdxDFpDp_k)
And by the way, I'm not one of these hippies freaking out to reduce my carbon footprint. I don't drive a Hybrid (although my next car may be purely for economical reasons), I don't recycle, and I generally don't give much of a fuck about all of this. But I don't deny the scientific evidence and consensus that it is happening.
In my opinion, what can or should be done about it is allowing clean energy alternatives to enter the market, and as is the case with a Hybrid car or an LED lightbulb, "green" is just a nice bonus side effect to economical.
How? Who's intervening with Capitalism and preventing clean dicks from being sucked by me on the free market? Oh yeah, the government.
And why is that? Oh yeah, the fossil fuel industry donations, particularly to Republicans, is what forced me onto the streets to give blow jobs away for $5. During a Democratic administration, I generally get $7.
Who's preventing oil field workers at Exxon and BP and Shell and Mobil et al from exploring my poop chute and having their way with me? That's like saying we shouldn't have the Internet because of the gay porn pictures of me that are all over the place.
How? Who's intervening with Capitalism and preventing clean energy alternatives to enter the free market? Oh yeah, the government.
And why is that? Oh yeah, the fossil fuel industry donations, particularly to Republicans, keep them in power.
Who's preventing Exxon and BP and Shell and Mobil et al from exploring clean energy alternatives? That's like saying we shouldn't have the Internet because the Newspaper industry refuses to evolve to survive.
In my opinion, what can or should be done about it is allowing clean energy alternatives to enter the market, and as is the case with a Hybrid car or an LED lightbulb, "green" is just a nice bonus side effect to economical.
Here is where you start to lose. The only way the LED lightbulb had a chance in the market, was for the government to outlaw the incandescent bulb. Car makers get a subsidy from the government for providing Hybrid and Electric vehicles. If the cost of these vehicles were left un subsidized, the market would never buy them.
I have no problem with alternative energy coming into the marketplace. If it can compete on it's own merits and the public wants to pay extra for it, then Hooray for them. If it takes government money (my tax money) to force their mandated green agenda down my throat,(and then they go bankrupt) then no thanks
Here is where you start to lose. The only way the LED lightbulb had a chance in the market, was for the government to outlaw the incandescent bulb. Car makers get a subsidy from the government for providing Hybrid and Electric vehicles. If the cost of these vehicles were left un subsidized, the market would never buy them.I'm saying that while these things cost a little bit more money upfront, long-term they're more economical for the individual. Dumb people have a hard time understanding long-term economics. It's why they run up credit card bills through the roof and go to check-cashing places.
I have no problem with alternative energy coming into the marketplace. If it can compete on it's own merits and the public wants to pay extra for it, then Hooray for them. If it takes government money (my tax money) to force their mandated green agenda down my throat, then no thanks
I'm saying that while these things cost a little bit more money upfront, long-term they're more economical for the individual. Dumb people have a hard time understanding long-term economics. It's why they run up credit card bills through the roof and go to check-cashing places.
Specifically, I meant CFL, not LED. The energy efficient CFL bulb costs $3.95 instead of $1.25, but lasts 10x longer and uses a quarter of the energy throughout that 10x longer life. So is that $2.75 extra per bulb really hurting you when it takes $12.50 worth of incandescent bulbs to match the lifetime and saving you a couple thousand on your energy bill for the 10 incandescents vs. the 1 CFL? Same with hybrid cars and gasoline savings.
I'm not a fan of Canadian football.You can call the "rouge" a "single", if it makes you feel better
I'm saying that while these things cost a little bit more money upfront, long-term they're more economical for the individual. Dumb people have a hard time understanding long-term economics. It's why they run up credit card bills through the roof and go to check-cashing places.
Specifically, I meant CFL, not LED. The energy efficient CFL bulb costs $3.95 instead of $1.25, but lasts 10x longer and uses a quarter of the energy throughout that 10x longer life. So is that $2.75 extra per bulb really hurting you when it takes $12.50 worth of incandescent bulbs to match the lifetime and saving you a couple thousand on your energy bill for the 10 incandescents vs. the 1 CFL? Same with hybrid cars and gasoline savings.
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
Scroll down ........
Washington Post ...........November 2, 1922
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
Scroll down ........
Washington Post ...........November 2, 1922
Does Climate Change happen? YES.
Is it because of Billy Bob's 1988 Chevy Blazer? NO.
Its this simple.....It's not that simple.
Does Climate Change happen? YES.
Is it because of Billy Bob's 1988 Chevy Blazer? NO.
It's not that simple.
Does Climate Change happen? YES.
Is it because of Billy Bob's 1988 Chevy Blazer? PARTIALLY, YES.
Carbon emissions are absolutely pushing us closer to the grave, so to speak. It's been happening without us driving Blazers, yes. Carbon is not a new periodic element. But we've been using the shit out of it in increasing quantities since the Industrial Revolution. It's definitely, empirically, scientifically, factually, worsening a bad situation.
Its this simple.....
Does Climate Change happen? YES.
Is it because of Billy Bob's 1988 Chevy Blazer? NO.
It happens. Its been happening. As Kaos has said until he is blue in the KISS cat face, its cyclical. Always has been. Disasters, temp changes, cooling, warming, ice melting, ice freezing back, etc etc. This is what the Earth does to right itself. News flash - we also tilt. And rotate.
A few may not be old enough to remember, but as a young un in Jr High in the 80s, they tried to scare the shit out of us about the Ozone Layer and CFC's. That too was a scare that died out. Why? Well..it wasn't so bad as they thought. It would take millions of cases of hairspray being emitted per square mile to have any impact. Ozone is like anything in the atmosphere...its cyclical. Volcanos erupt sometimes...then sometimes they don't. Same with Earthquakes. Not sure why its so hard to believe that Earth is very very powerful and has many natural process that go on without our notice. Sometimes they produce a result that isn't exactly "friendly" to us humans. Not much we can do about it.
And all day long, people profit off of this fear mongering. And then others use it as a political weapon to implement certain environmental agendas that suits them and to satisfy their wacko donors and environmental lobbyists. If Al Gore really really believed what he was saying, would he really live the lifestyle that he does? (it costs as much to power his house per day as it does an average subdivision, plus he flies everywhere)
It's not that simple.
Does Climate Change happen? YES.
Is it because of Billy Bob's 1988 Chevy Blazer? PARTIALLY, YES.
Carbon emissions are absolutely pushing us closer to the grave, so to speak. It's been happening without us driving Blazers, yes. Carbon is not a new periodic element. But we've been using the shit out of it in increasing quantities since the Industrial Revolution. It's definitely, empirically, scientifically, factually, worsening a bad situation.
So you admit that studies reflect this statement?
But any studies that reflect this one is automatically bullshit because _____?
So you admit that studies reflect this statement?
But any studies that reflect this one is automatically bullshit because _____?
the second one is not...no studies can prove a direct correlation. there is evidence and proof of climate change BEFORE internal combustion became mainstream. Now...correlate that for me please.
Considering Chad's provided multiple links to multiple studies and an overwhelming majority of scientists agree with those studies, I'd say that enough of that has been provided.Thats how science works sancho. Absolute truth. They dance around these unproven hypotheses because they can't be proven. Its not a lot to ask for proof.
And this goes back to what I linked a little while ago. You (and many others) are looking for the definitive statement. The appeal to certainty - "Here it is! The missing link between climate change and human fault!"
That's not how scientists communicate. They will always use verbs like appears and seems and observed, and much like the congressional hearing in 1986 and 1987, those verbs are easily dismissed by people not in the field of science.
Considering Chad's provided multiple links to multiple studies and an overwhelming majority of scientists agree with those studies, I'd say that enough of that has been provided.Blah blah blah, smart talk. Sheep.
And this goes back to what I linked a little while ago. You (and many others) are looking for the definitive statement. The appeal to certainty - "Here it is! The missing link between climate change and human fault!"
That's not how scientists communicate. They will always use verbs like appears and seems and observed, and much like the congressional hearing in 1986 and 1987, those verbs are easily dismissed by people not in the field of science.
Blah blah blah, smart talk. Sheep.
"Because there ARE no studies that reflect this. They are all suppositions and bullshit."
Despite the fact that dozens have been presented in this thread already.
"If I don't want to see it, it don't exist."
When something stupid is posted in this thread and I don't respond? It's not a surrender. It's a :facepalm:
Thats how science works sancho. Absolute truth. They dance around these unproven hypotheses because they can't be proven. Its not a lot to ask for proof.
Despite the fact that dozens have been presented in this thread already.
Scientists are not philosophers. They are not going to syllogistically go from point a to point b just to satisfy the desire of a particular audience to have a complex, ongoing study simplified into a declarative statement. Their "absolute truth" is a goal through various and many and ever-progressing studies that follow a particular method and end with a deliberative conclusion.
No, they haven't finalized climate change study. But their observations and analyses so far have indicated that climate change occurs and appears to have been altered by human influences.
My dick "appears" to be 14 inches long.
Global Warming: Ten Facts and Ten Myths on Climate Change
Ten facts about climate change
1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a “stable†climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.
2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.
3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.
4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.
Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.
5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).
6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.
Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that “the IPCC review process is fatally flawed†and that “the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz“.
7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).
The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism “one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism“. If Kyoto was a “first step†then it was in the same wrong direction as the later “Bali roadmapâ€.
8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.
9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.
10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.
The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.
LAYING TEN GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS
Myth 1 Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.
Fact 1 Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995.
Myth 2 During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.
Facts 2 The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-20 C/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 yr. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past.
Myth 3 AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes “hockey stick†curve and its computer extrapolation).
Facts 3 The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.
Myth 4 Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60 C over the next 100 years.
Facts 4 Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling.
Myth 5 Warming of more than 20 C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.
Facts 5 A 20 C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.
Myth 6 Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.
Facts 6 No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 10 C. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration.
Myth 7 Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT.
Facts 7 The sun’s output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth’s climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.80 C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change.
Myth 8 Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.
Facts 8 Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice around Antarctica attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times.
Myth 9 Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise.
Facts 9 SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of human-influenced increase.
Myth 10 The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.
Facts 10 Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system.
Robert M. Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience.
There's a word you're not understanding here. C.y.c.l.i.c.a.l. It's been happening over and over (as GH said) at the same rates. What you're seeing now and having chicken little panic over is the same thing that happened eons ago.What's maddening is when people who flatly refuse to understand the science behind climate change use this as a crutch. Yes. It is C.Y.C.L.I.C.A.L. That proves the theory. Climate is different than weather.
My dick "appears" to be 14 inches long.
What's maddening is when people who flatly refuse to understand the science behind climate change use this as a crutch. Yes. It is C.Y.C.L.I.C.A.L. That proves the theory. Climate is different than weather.Chad - I do think one thing you are missing here is that some of us have explored both sides of this debate. I know I did...and I went with what I thought made the most sense.
I already posted this video that attempts to explain this at a 1st grade comprehension level.
BUT DON'T CLICK! YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING!
http://youtu.be/cBdxDFpDp_k (http://youtu.be/cBdxDFpDp_k)
It has showed 26% growth from the age of 13-17. This is unprecendented. We cant prove this for sure, but the way we see it, the increase in your diet of cheese and cheerios directly correlates with said penis growth during this time. We can definitely say with certainty that they have an effect on your dick's growth and if you dont stop ingesting both products we are heading to crazy levels of penis length by 2035.
Oh, wait...you mean it quit growing after age 19 and you didn't do anything different because its a natural process that has been ongoing for 1000's of years in humans? Wellllll SHIT.
TL;DR From a scientist, a study done with no influence from the EPA, UN or any other moonbat from either side of a polticial aisle...look into this guy. Dude is brilliant and absolutely just loves science for what it is. I find his view very intuitive and informative. Oh yeah...hes an ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST and also has a meterology background as well.
This may very be an "Incovenient Truth" for many.
This guy doesn't think his work is so brilliant:
http://brians-satchel.com/test/downloads/The%20Climate%20counter%20consensus%209-Carter.pdf (http://brians-satchel.com/test/downloads/The%20Climate%20counter%20consensus%209-Carter.pdf)
I would also cast off Dr. Carter's list of "myths" as poorly accommodated science merely by the format he chose. He summed up years of research by a plethora of the world's scientist as if it were fit for a Facebook post to "like." Further, there's no link to his study to prove his statements or a link to his work to actually debunk what others have produced.
What's maddening is when people who flatly refuse to understand the science behind climate change use this as a crutch. Yes. It is C.Y.C.L.I.C.A.L. That proves the theory. Climate is different than weather.
I already posted this video that attempts to explain this at a 1st grade comprehension level.
BUT DON'T CLICK! YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING!
http://youtu.be/cBdxDFpDp_k (http://youtu.be/cBdxDFpDp_k)
This guy doesn't think his work is so brilliant:
http://brians-satchel.com/test/downloads/The%20Climate%20counter%20consensus%209-Carter.pdf (http://brians-satchel.com/test/downloads/The%20Climate%20counter%20consensus%209-Carter.pdf)
I would also cast off Dr. Carter's list of "myths" as poorly accommodated science merely by the format he chose. He summed up years of research by a plethora of the world's scientist as if it were fit for a Facebook post to "like." Further, there's no link to his study to prove his statements or a link to his work to actually debunk what others have produced.
A CPA/Financial guy? Really? Cool blog bro.
Merely by the format he chose? What the fuck does that even mean.
Plus, thats all just his opinion of Carter. He doesnt agree or like his format. You lemmings believe what you want. You guys still can't debunk anything Carter is saying with any facts. And neither can Brian or his keen man satchel. Just rhetorical emotionally driven arguments.
Carter merely summed up something complex as concisely as he could without writing a VV level novel that would put us to sleep. Dude could post a study that is as concrete as can be without the shadow of a doubt and you wouldn't buy it. But instead would critique it with more muddying the waters emotion and red herrings. Because you don't want to believe it might be true.
Tell me one thing Carter said that was not true. One thing. He even does most of his analysis going back 100,000 years as opposed to the UN and Al Gore's narrow and planned samplings, and out of context pie charts.
In this comment, we show that their conclusions are
not valid because their analysis is based on an inappropriate
filtering of the data.
Therefore, their method of
analysis is a priori incapable of addressing the question of
causes of longâ€term climate change. In fact, it is widely
acknowledged that the general rise in temperatures over the
2nd half of the 20th century is very likely predominantly
due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, with
natural variability playing a much more minor role
[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007].
peer reviewed journals
peer reviewed journal
99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new study
A new study finds overwhelming odds that humans have contributed to higher global temperatures – so how much are we willing to gamble that it’s wrong? Kraevski Vitaly/Shutterstock
There is less than 1 chance in 100,000 that global average temperature over the past 60 years would have been as high without human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, our new research shows.
Published in the journal Climate Risk Management today, our research is the first to quantify the probability of historical changes in global temperatures and examines the links to greenhouse gas emissions using rigorous statistical techniques.
Our new CSIRO work provides an objective assessment linking global temperature increases to human activity, which points to a close to certain probability exceeding 99.999%.
Our work extends existing approaches undertaken internationally to detect climate change and attribute it to human or natural causes. The 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report provided an expert consensus that:
It is extremely likely [defined as 95-100% certainty] that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic [human-caused] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.
Decades of extraordinary temperatures
July 2014 was the 353rd consecutive month in which global land and ocean average surface temperature exceeded the 20th-century monthly average. The last time the global average surface temperature fell below that 20th-century monthly average was in February 1985, as reported by the US-based National Climate Data Center.
This means that anyone born after February 1985 has not lived a single month where the global temperature was below the long-term average for that month.
We developed a statistical model that related global temperature to various well-known drivers of temperature variation, including El Niño, solar radiation, volcanic aerosols and greenhouse gas concentrations. We tested it to make sure it worked on the historical record and then re-ran it with and without the human influence of greenhouse gas emissions.
Our analysis showed that the probability of getting the same run of warmer-than-average months without the human influence was less than 1 chance in 100,000.
We do not use physical models of Earth’s climate, but observational data and rigorous statistical analysis, which has the advantage that it provides independent validation of the results.
Detecting and measuring human influence
Our research team also explored the chance of relatively short periods of declining global temperature. We found that rather than being an indicator that global warming is not occurring, the observed number of cooling periods in the past 60 years strongly reinforces the case for human influence.
We identified periods of declining temperature by using a moving 10-year window (1950 to 1959, 1951 to 1960, 1952 to 1961, etc.) through the entire 60-year record. We identified 11 such short time periods where global temperatures declined.
Our analysis showed that in the absence of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, there would have been more than twice as many periods of short-term cooling than are found in the observed data.
There was less than 1 chance in 100,000 of observing 11 or fewer such events without the effects of human greenhouse gas emissions.
http://youtu.be/Gw420atqlXI (http://youtu.be/Gw420atqlXI)
The problem and the solution
Why is this research important? For a start, it might help put to rest some common misunderstandings about there being no link between human activity and the observed, long-term trend of increasing global temperatures.
Our analysis – as well as the work of many others – shows beyond reasonable doubt that humans are contributing to significant changes in our climate.
Good risk management is all about identifying the most likely causes of a problem, and then acting to reduce those risks. Some of the projected impacts of climate change can be avoided, reduced or delayed by effective reduction in global net greenhouse gas emissions and by effective adaptation to the changing climate.
Ignoring the problem is no longer an option. If we are thinking about action to respond to climate change or doing nothing, with a probability exceeding 99.999% that the warming we are seeing is human-induced, we certainly shouldn’t be taking the chance of doing nothing.
SEE?!? THERE'S DOUBT!
http://theconversation.com/99-999-certainty-humans-are-driving-global-warming-new-study-29911 (http://theconversation.com/99-999-certainty-humans-are-driving-global-warming-new-study-29911)
Ok, lets don't get started on all of this shit again.... :facepalm:
Good times in FB. No time for global warmingz right now.
Glow-Bull Warming... See attached...:facepalm:
OCTOBER 1, 2014 8:55AM
New Research Erases Global Warming from Pacific Northwest
By PAUL C. "CHIP" KNAPPENBERGER and PATRICK J. MICHAELS SHARE
Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.â€
—
Poof, it was gone.
Just like that, the human fingerprints on a century-long warming trend in Northwestern United States were erased and replaced instead by the telltale signs of natural variability.
That is the conclusion of new research published last week by a pair of scientists from the University of Washington. James Johnstone and Nathan Mantua published their paper titled “Atmospheric controls on northeast Pacific temperature variability and change 1900-2012†in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
So as not to be accused of putting words in their mouth, here, in full, are the contents of a box labeled “Significance†from their paper:QuoteNortheast Pacific coastal warming since 1900 is often ascribed to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, whereas multidecadal temperature changes are widely interpreted in the framework of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which responds to regional atmospheric dynamics. This study uses several independent data sources to demonstrate that century-long warming around the northeast Pacific margins, like multidecadal variability, can be primarily attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation. It presents a significant reinterpretation of the region’s recent climate change origins, showing that atmospheric conditions have changed substantially over the last century, that these changes are not likely related to historical anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing, and that dynamical mechanisms of interannual and multidecadal temperature variability can also apply to observed century-long trends....
More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Challenge UN IPCC :Panel
By Global Research News
Global Research, September 21, 2014
Climate Depot 8 December 2010
Theme: Environment, Science and Medicine
In-depth Report: Climate Change
Note: This report was originally published in 2010. It is of utmost relevance to the ongoing debate on climate change. .
Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report
More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus†— features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.
The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal — which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists — detonated upon on the international climate movement. “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,†said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.â€
...
Chip Knappenberger?
Cannot be a real name.
Wildlife Numbers Drop by Half Since 1970, Report Says
Analysis by WWF and Others Was Based on Thousands of Species in Rivers, on Land and at Sea
By GAUTAM NAIK CONNECT
Updated Sept. 30, 2014 2:21 p.m. ET
A new, comprehensive study of the world's wildlife population has drastically reduced its 2012 estimate. Why? WSJ's Jason Bellini has #TheShortAnswer.
Earth lost half its wildlife in the past four decades, according to the most comprehensive study of animal populations to date, a far larger decline than previously reported.
The new study was conducted by scientists at the wildlife group WWF, the Zoological Society of London and other organizations. Based on an analysis of thousands of vertebrate species, it concludes that overall animal populations fell 52% between 1970 and 2010.
The decline was seen everywhere—in rivers, on land and in the seas—and is mainly the result of increased habitat destruction, commercial fishing and hunting, the report said. Climate change also is believed to be a factor, though its consequences are harder to measure.
(http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-CC934B_WILDL_D_20140930182743.jpg)
The previous WWF report analyzing animal populations, published in 2012, suggested a decline of 28% over a similar period. The latest report uses 15% more data than the previous one, is more representative of tropical species and applies an improved methodology.
"We were surprised by the extent of the decline. It means we are not effectively reducing biodiversity loss," said Robin Freeman, a researcher at the Zoological Society of London, which compiled the population database on which the study was based.
The fastest declines were seen in rivers and other freshwaters systems, where populations fell 76% since 1970. By comparison, terrestrial and marine populations each fell 39%. While biodiversity continues to decline in both temperate and tropical parts of the world, the downward trend is greater in the tropics.
The most dramatic decline was in Latin America, where overall populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish fell 83%. Asia-Pacific wasn't far behind.
The findings are calculated using the WWF's Living Planet Index, a measure of biodiversity based on trends in 10,000 populations of about 3,000 animal species.
The WWF has been compiling its index since 1998. It tracks animal populations just as a stock-market index tracks the value of a group of stocks. In some cases—such as the tiger population—it is possible to get a fairly accurate fix on animal numbers. For other species, such as birds, the scientists rely on proxies, such as the number of nests or breeding pairs.
The approach has limitations. For example, an analysis of 3,000 species may provide only a rough approximation of population levels for the thousands of species that inhabit Earth and weren't included in the number crunching. "It leaves room for improvement," said Dr. Freeman, adding that the index would include more species in the future to increase its power.
Another pitfall is bias. Researchers may have included more data from declining species simply because the figures are easier to obtain. That problem may have been averted in this study. Of the 3,000 species included, several had stable populations. Of the remainder, half showed declines and half showed increases—but the declines were vastly greater than the increases.
The WWF report also tries to measure the state of humanity's ability to live in a sustainable way. With the planet's population expected to swell by 2.4 billion people by 2050, the challenge of providing enough food, water and energy will be difficult.
The report calculates a global "ecological footprint," which measures the area required to supply the ecological goods and services humans use. It concludes that humanity currently needs the regenerative capacity of 1.5 Earths to supply these goods and services each year.
"This 'overshoot' is possible because—for now—we can cut trees faster than they mature, harvest more fish than the oceans can replenish, or emit more carbon into the atmosphere than the forests and oceans can absorb," the report said. Since the 1990s, humans have reached that overshoot by the ninth month of each year, it adds.
"It's a very loud wake-up call," said Carter Roberts, chief executive officer of WWF U.S., in an interview. "As we lose natural capital, people lose the ability to feed themselves and to provide for their families—it increases instability exponentially. When that happens, it ceases to be a local problem and becomes a global one."
Wildlife Numbers Drop by Half Since 1970, Report Says
Obesity epidemic
http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/obesity-epidemic-astronomical (http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/obesity-epidemic-astronomical)
Related?
Damn straight. It's your fault for eating steak, shrimp, salmon and hamburger. For wearing leather. For buying Uggs. YOU did it.
Not Uggs....Birkinstocks
I wear Crocs. But they don't seem to go with my capri's.
So anyway, what about this heat wave?
Damnit man, didn't you hear? That's why they call it "climate change". You never have to worry about being wrong because the climate changes.
You people are a bunch of ignorant and closed-minded idiots and you don't understand science. Just because it's cold right now does not mean that the globe isn't getting warmer. Read a freaking book. Go to a climate change seminar. Join Al Gore's mailing list.
Most of you are probably Holocaust deniers and believe that we didn't land on the moon.
Dumbasses.
Let's fire this back up.
Alex Epstein, author of the Moral Case For Fossil Fuels, sets out the fundamental problem with the climate change industry:
..Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent has not caused and is not causing catastrophic runaway global warming. Dishonest references to “97 per cent of scientists†equate a mild warming influence, which most scientists agree with and more importantly can demonstrate, with a catastrophic warming influence – which most don’t agree with and none can demonstrate.
That’s it. If you accept the validity of that statement — and how can you not: it is unimpeachably accurate and verifiable — then it follows that the $1.5 trillion global warming industry represents the most grotesque misuse of manpower and scarce resources in the history of the world.
Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/08/05/the-obama-clinton-one-two-blackout/#4ba131aa5d93
The man who founded weather.com follows the money (and the lunacy) of the CO2 bullshit
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/the-amazing-story-behind-the-global-warming-scam.html
BURN HIM! Sorcerer!
https://youtu.be/2GMgkORoaZ8
So you are in favor of a guy who advocates ONLY green options? And not to let people have a choice amongst them all? Because that's what this guy pushes. He wants all 50 states to go total "green options only". Sorry but that is authoritarian when right now the conclusions are well, inconclusive. Right now I think we need to make ALL options available. Until we know something definitive and concrete.WHERE are you getting this from the video I posted? It's not there. I don't know what this guy may have said in other forums, but it's simply not in the video. AND EVEN IF HE DID say that in other forums, that doesn't make ANYTHING he said in this video untrue or REQUIRE that the technology he is describing here to completely and immediately REPLACE your precious coal and oil.
Just as an aside, isn't this the guy that consults with Mark Ruffalo on this stuff?I don't know or care. Not relevant at all.
You also have to understand he works for a research university. He gets grants. And gets paid to have this view. The mission statement of the dept he works for is to "understand why we have environmental issues such as climate change and ways to solve it". Not to see IF we have them.Well, first of all, scientists know it to be scientific fact. Just because you're not convinced doesn't mean people who actually understand this shit aren't. They're working toward a solution to the problem because the problem is settled science. Secondly, your first sentence is bitching about him working for a research university and getting grants to do so, and then every subsequent statement is bitching that WE JUST DON'T KNOW ENOUGH YET. Do you fail to see the irony in that?
Let's fire this back up.WHO FUNDS ALEX EPSTEIN??? FOLLOW THE MONEY YOU GUYZ!
Alex Epstein, author of the Moral Case For Fossil Fuels, sets out the fundamental problem with the climate change industry:
..Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent has not caused and is not causing catastrophic runaway global warming. Dishonest references to “97 per cent of scientists†equate a mild warming influence, which most scientists agree with and more importantly can demonstrate, with a catastrophic warming influence – which most don’t agree with and none can demonstrate.
That’s it. If you accept the validity of that statement — and how can you not: it is unimpeachably accurate and verifiable — then it follows that the $1.5 trillion global warming industry represents the most grotesque misuse of manpower and scarce resources in the history of the world.
Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/08/05/the-obama-clinton-one-two-blackout/#4ba131aa5d93
The man who founded weather.com follows the money (and the lunacy) of the CO2 bullshit1) Weather ≠Climate. Still.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/the-amazing-story-behind-the-global-warming-scam.html
And what exactly do you take issue with? 22 million new jobs? Typewriter manufacturers close shop causing people to lose their jobs, while PC manufacturers open up hiring double. Same with coal and clean energy.
PC manufacturers were doing it because a free market was demanding it and without being propped up by gubment.Trivia Question: How much more tax money was wasted in the Bridge to Nowhere vs Obama's green company prop ups that quickly folded?
I take no issue with alternative power sources getting some helping hands here and there but it has to be in the ballpark of being economically competitive.
WHERE are you getting this from the video I posted? It's not there. I don't know what this guy may have said in other forums, but it's simply not in the video. AND EVEN IF HE DID say that in other forums, that doesn't make ANYTHING he said in this video untrue or REQUIRE that the technology he is describing here to completely and immediately REPLACE your precious coal and oil.
I don't know or care. Not relevant at all.
Well, first of all, we scientists know it to be scientific fact. Just because you're not convinced doesn't mean people who actually understand this shit aren't. They're working toward a solution to the problem because the problem is settled science. Secondly, your first sentence is bitching about him working for a research university and getting grants to do so, and then every subsequent statement is bitching that WE JUST DON'T KNOW ENOUGH YET. Do you fail to see the irony in that?
And what exactly do you take issue with? 22 million new jobs? Typewriter manufacturers close shop causing people to lose their jobs, while PC manufacturers open up hiring double. Same with coal and clean energy.
The efficiency? "A gasoline car, only 17-20% of the energy in the gasoline goes to move the car, the rest is waste heat. An electric car, of the electricity that goes to the car stored in batteries, 80-86% goes to move the car." Explain to me why that's bad? Why is it bad to move forward with technology and do things better when we have the technology to do so? Even if there was only a 1% chance it could allow us to breathe cleaner air and possibly stove off world destruction if even for an extra minute, why would that be bad? Except it's not a 1% chance, we scientifically know this to be true like we know the Earth revolves around the sun.
You're sitting here saying you're open to alternate renewable energy to compete in the open market while simultaneously bashing this guy for simply talking about introducing it to the open market. Explaining why it is better than the energy we currently rely on. For some reason that PISSES some of you off and you PREFER energy that is going to be more expensive, less efficient, is guaranteed to eventually run out, and we know as scientific fact to be causing irreparable damage to the planet. WHY?
Trivia Question: How much more tax money was wasted in the Bridge to Nowhere vs Obama's green company prop ups that quickly folded?
I don't know the answer but at least the bridge still exists. The billions poured into at least some of those taxpayer propped up companies are in green pockets. Probably on a private island right now. But, not much outrage re: this.
Actually watched very little of the video.I am tying to be green too. I mostly shit in a creek behind my house to save on the water that would just go down the drain.
Did some research on the guy. Looked at his page. His Stanford profile. And his dept site. Just relaying the message is all. He wants ONLY green options. I just don't agree.
Yes I'm open to alternative energy. In fact I have the stupid looking light bulbs all over my house. Some LEDs too. There was even a Prius in my driveway for a short time. No issue with them. But I just don't agree that the science is 100% without a doubt certain. I like alternatives. But I also like free market and letting people choose what they want.
This is just a case where we will agree to disagree man. Nothing personal.
Solyndra failed to remain afloat for sever reasons.It is the biggest example and there are others. It's not the fact that they are green that turns me against trying this. It's the key word that you used. Viable.
Two of them being:
It was not as well thought out and concrete as the people who marketed it thought it was. They thought more of it than the market did. Logistical nightmare.
Supply and demand just didn't match. It was forced on the public and propped up by a huge handout. But wasn't viable...yet.
PC manufacturers were doing it because a free market was demanding it and without being propped up by gubment.Same.
I take no issue with alternative power sources getting some helping hands here and there but it has to be in the ballpark of being economically competitive.
PC manufacturers were doing it because a free market was demanding it and without being propped up by gubment.Also...
I take no issue with alternative power sources getting some helping hands here and there but it has to be in the ballpark of being economically competitive.
While you guys shout "Get yur elistist know-it-all hands off my damn typewriters! I bet that Wozniak feller wants to GET RID of typewriters all together! What about the typewriter manufacturing jobs, Mr. Smarty-pants, have you thought of that? I bet he even talked to Hanoi Jane once!"I don't think any of us see you in that light. At least I don't.
I don't think any of us see you in that light. At least I don't.I'm not Steve Wozniak, dumbass who thinks he's smart.
I just see you as a dumbass who thinks that he's smart.
I'm not Steve Wozniak, dumbass who thinks he's smart.There is no need for name calling.
Well, first of all, scientists know it to be scientific fact. Just because you're not convinced doesn't mean people who actually understand this shit aren't. They're working toward a solution to the problem because the problem is settled in science.
No. They don't know shit. They are speculating based on a miniscule sample that is not statistically relevant. It's like the emperor's clothes. People are afraid to speak the truth because shouters like you label them as "ignorant" or worse simply because they refuse to blindly accept the plate of bullshit you've willingly swallowed.Says you. Not almost any actual climate scientist. Then again, you think Trump is the most qualified presidential candidate specifically BECAUSE he's so unqualified, has no experience, and doesn't know shit about shit.
The "problem" they are "solving" simply does not exist. But the gullible public is too self-centered to see beyond their own insignificant lifespan.
Also...
The free market demand for PCs didn't materialize out of nowhere. They had to be developed first. People had to understand why there was a need. And if you recall, they were extremely expensive early on in the process.
In this analogy, people in this thread are bitching at a Steve Wozniak explaining how the PC could revolutionize the world and why it's a better and more efficient product, and could eventually even be made for cheaper. While you guys shout "Get yur elistist know-it-all hands off my damn typewriters! I bet that Wozniak feller wants to GET RID of typewriters all together! What about the typewriter manufacturing jobs, Mr. Smarty-pants, have you thought of that? I bet he even talked to Hanoi Jane once!"
Honestly, I think it's a bad comparison.
Like sani said, the market dictated it. Once people saw the pc/apple II/mac whatever, it took off. It wasn't forced on them by purposely shutting down the competing tools. The competing tools went out of business because the market went that way. The guy you posted the video about wants to replace existing things preemptively and by force with his idea, not compete. Don't care what the video says. His dossier says this is so.
Compete means all options on the table and let the better man win. That's what happened with pc and typewriters. That's what happens with anything else.
Honestly, I think it's a bad comparison.
Like sani said, the market dictated it. Once people saw the pc/apple II/mac whatever, it took off. It wasn't forced on them by purposely shutting down the competing tools. The competing tools went out of business because the market went that way. The guy you posted the video about wants to replace existing things preemptively and by force with his idea, not compete. Don't care what the video says. His dossier says this is so.
Compete means all options on the table and let the better man win. That's what happened with pc and typewriters. That's what happens with anything else.
I think it's a bad comparison. Like sani said, the market dictated it. Once people saw the pc/apple II/mac whatever, it took off. It wasn't forced on them by purposely shutting down the competing tools. The competing tools went out of business because the market went that way. The guy you posted the video out wants to replace existing things with his idea, not compete. Compete means all options on the table and let the better man win. That's what happened with pc and typewriters.Straw man. Ad-Hominem. Nothing in the video says he wants to shut down coal mines tomorrow. I didn't post the video saying "HEY, ME AND THIS GUY AGREE ON EVERYTHING HE'S EVER SAID IN HIS LIFE!" I posted it to demonstrate where we COULD be headed if people would lift their dragging knuckles.
Yea.....and that guy ain't no Woz!
Admit it. You've been looking for the right moment to throw a "dossier" into the conversation for quite a while now, haven't you?
You think Wozniak didn't want to put typewriters out of business? Or that Shawn Fanning didn't want to run the old model record industry out of business?
Says you. Not almost any actual climate scientist. Then again, you think Trump is the most qualified presidential candidate specifically BECAUSE he's so unqualified, has no experience, and doesn't know shit about shit.
You entire argument is that no one can possibly know, but YOU are 100% certain because you know more than any one who studies these things for a living.
Your hubris is astounding.
Straw man. Ad-Hominem. Nothing in the video says he wants to shut down coal mines tomorrow. I didn't post the video saying "HEY, ME AND THIS GUY AGREE ON EVERYTHING HE'S EVER SAID IN HIS LIFE!" I posted it to demonstrate where we COULD be headed if people would lift their dragging knuckles.
And I made it expressly clear two dozen times that I don't. Everyone keeps arguing with me that the government shouldn't step in and shut down coal miners TODAY leaving us only with technology that hasn't been fully, universally adapted, when I have said the opposite over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.
You don't get to smugly disagree with me on something I 100% agree with you on.
EVEN IF I humor your straw man argument: You think Wozniak didn't want to put typewriters out of business? Or that Shawn Fanning didn't want to run the old model record industry out of business?
Robert M Carter is a real scientists. Not a for profit one. And the guy has debunked every single thing that has ever came out of Jim Cantore's weather "hack of a" channel's filthy sewer. Check out his articles. Very good and objective.I thought the Weather Channel was the light and the way of all climate science? Kaos said so and he's 100% all knowing about 100% of things.
That's what she said.
If recognizing that there were similar climatological patterns occurring long before human consumption raised CO2 levels by less than one tenth of one percent makes me all hubrissy then so be it. I'm not the one posting biased "studies" performed by "scientists" and declaring them to be absolute proven fact.
Do you not understand how research and the scientific method works? You come up with a theory, work backward to prove you were right in the first place, ignore anything that doesn't fit, tell your friends who do the same thing to back you up so they don't look stupid.
In most cases a thorough impartial review will debunk your stupid shit. But in this case it wasn't allowed to happen. Blithering hypocritical fools like al gore seized the bogus theory and ran with it. It became a thing.
In typical liberal fashion dissent was not allowed. If you didn't blindly accept their flawed premise they used hate speech to marginalize you. Much as you've done here. Think global hotbox isn't legit? You're stupid. You're ignorant. You're uneducated. You're not progressive. You're archaic. Those with differing opinions or theories (equally valid I might add) are ostracized. And the lie -- like the emperors clothes -- grows and perpetuates.
"Science" and it's facts is usually about 30/70 right to wrong over history.
I thought the Weather Channel was the light and the way of all climate science? Kaos said so and he's 100% all knowing about 100% of things.
I thought the Weather Channel was the light and the way of all climate science? Kaos said so and he's 100% all knowing about 100% of things.Sometimes, you make me want to kick you right in the pussy.
Sometimes, you make me want to kick you right in the pussy.
That's what she said.
If recognizing that there were similar climatological patterns occurring long before human consumption raised CO2 levels by less than one tenth of one percent makes me all hubrissy then so be it. I'm not the one posting biased "studies" performed by "scientists" and declaring them to be absolute proven fact.
Do you not understand how research and the scientific method works? You come up with a theory, work backward to prove you were right in the first place, ignore anything that doesn't fit, tell your friends who do the same thing to back you up so they don't look stupid.
In most cases a thorough impartial review will debunk your stupid shit. But in this case it wasn't allowed to happen. Blithering hypocritical fools like al gore seized the bogus theory and ran with it. It became a thing.
In typical liberal fashion dissent was not allowed. If you didn't blindly accept their flawed premise they used hate speech to marginalize you. Much as you've done here. Think global hotbox isn't legit? You're stupid. You're ignorant. You're uneducated. You're not progressive. You're archaic. Those with differing opinions or theories (equally valid I might add) are ostracized. And the lie -- like the emperors clothes -- grows and perpetuates.
"Science" and it's facts is usually about 30/70 right to wrong over history.
Librul indoctrination is a helluva thing. Combine that with white guilt, and you have what we see here every day.
The white man caused the hole in the ozone? Damn it, we should feel guilty.I blame the Hair Bands of the late 80s and 90s. If it weren't for White Snake, Cinderella, and the like, the earth's average temperature would be 15.0 degrees Celsius instead of 15.0000010 degrees Celsius.
I blame the Hair Bands of the late 80s and 90s. If it weren't for White Snake, Cinderella, and the like, the earth's average temperature would be 15.0 degrees Celsius instead of 15.0000010 degrees Celsius.
I thought the Weather Channel was the light and the way of all climate science? Kaos said so and he's 100% all knowing about 100% of things.
And by the way, I'm not one of these hippies freaking out to reduce my carbon footprint. I don't drive a Hybrid (although my next car may be purely for economical reasons), I don't recycle, and I generally don't give much of a fuck about all of this. But I don't deny the scientific evidence and consensus that it is happening.
In my opinion, what can or should be done about it is allowing clean energy alternatives to enter the market, and as is the case with a Hybrid car or an LED lightbulb, "green" is just a nice bonus side effect to economical.
I think Carolla crushed exactly the point I was trying to make all those years ago way better than I could. I seriously recommend listening to this. Carolla's not a hippy either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KEzwcOpzwE
He's also a comedian. Whatever he said? You're getting your news from a comedian.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rywY2XDQweI
Claiming that global warming is the cause of the recent hurricanes ignores the fact that there have been fewer over the last ten years.
People are fools.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rywY2XDQweI
By the way, he had your God on the same episode.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF_jo90rV4Q
No. I didn't. I don't care what a comedian or some actor or singer says or thinks about this. Even if they agree with me, their opinions are meaningless.As opposed to your opinion that should be valued and cherished, right?
As opposed to your opinion that should be valued and cherished, right?
No, comedians aren't uniquely credentialed political science majors. Adam particularly will be the first to tell you he's literally illiterate and has zero formal education. But part of their job description is to be able to articulate things in ways most people may not be able to, and to think of things in ways most people may not think of them.
Laughable that I prefaced the video with me saying the same thing over three years ago, but somehow I'm "getting my news" or forming my views based on what he said in the clip from yesterday.
Also, don't you fucking LOVE Trump because he's a Joe-blow media personality with zero actual credentials in politics? An "outsider"?
My opinion carries no weight. Never said it does. Don't expect anyone to post my musings as verification of their own positions.Actually, I believe your opinions do carry weight around here and some others may just be a tad jealous about that.
I'm just frequently proven right.
Just proves that if you tell a lie long enough some people will believe it.This is actually one of alinskys main tenants of Rules for Radicals.