Melting Antarctica and Greenland [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

hcap

12-01-2012, 02:59 PM

Study: Greenland, Antarctica shed nearly 5 trillion tons of ice over 20 years

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/29/1165811/-Study-Greenland-Antarctica-shed-nearly-5-trillion-tons-of-ice-over-20-years

Now a study published in the Nov. 30 issue of Science shows conclusively from satellite data that East Antarctica is, in fact, gaining ice, but the loss from western Antarctica and the Antarctic peninsula is twice as great as that gain.

In Greenland, the study concludes, ice is now melting at five times the rate it was in the 1990s.

Together with ice lost in Greenland, the melting in Antarctica has, the scientists say, raised sea levels worldwide by 11 mm in those 20 years, several times as much as previous measurements have shown. Combined loss: nearly 5 trillion metric tons of ice.

"The estimates are the most reliable to date, and end 20 years of uncertainty of ice mass changes in Antarctica and Greenland," said study leader, Andrew Shepherd, of Leeds University. "There have been 30 different estimates of the sea level rise contribution of Greenland and Antarctica, ranging from an annual 2mm rise to a 0.4mm fall.

"We can state definitively that both Greenland and Antarctica are losing mass, and as [the] temperature goes up we are going to lose more ice."

The scientists point out that the study does not resolve all the issues needed to predict how great sea-level rise will be because the interactions between warming air, warming seas, glaciers and the two giant ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica as hugely complex. Ian Joughlin, a member of the study team from the University of Washington, Seattle, said: "In Greenland, we are seeing really dramatic losses in ice, but it is still uncertain if it will slow, stay the same or accelerate further."

The sea-level rise of about a half-inch may seem small, but:

Study lead author Andrew Shepherd of the University of Leeds in England, said their results provide a message for negotiators in Doha, Qatar, who are working on an international agreement to fight global warming: “It’s very clear now that Greenland is a problem.” [...]

That seemingly tiny extra bit probably worsened the flooding from an already devastating Superstorm Sandy last month, said NASA ice scientist Erik Ivins, another co-author of the study. He said the extra weight gives each wave a little more energy.

“The more energy there is in a wave, the further the water can get inland,” Ivins said.

Also

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2012/nov/29/ice-loss-antarctica-1980-interactive?intcmp=239

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2012/nov/29/ice-loss-greenland-1960-interactive?intcmp=239

rastajenk

12-01-2012, 03:07 PM

Let Greenland Be Green! :ThmbUp:

hcap

12-01-2012, 03:11 PM

/_76ljY_NbS0?More to consider than just gardening quips :lol:

JustRalph

12-01-2012, 07:38 PM

Let me pull a Mostie

"Anybody who believes anything from DailyKos is a fool"

hcap

12-01-2012, 08:44 PM

Let me pull a Mostie

"Anybody who believes anything from DailyKos is a fool"If you had read the story, which was written better than anything ever reported by Faux, you would have seen it refereed to original sources. Like Science and the Guardian. But because you are not believing any of it anyway, I really don't care what you care to believe instead.

sammy the sage

12-01-2012, 09:03 PM

Ya'll do realize that we WOULD HAVE global warming one way or another...sooner or later...

and there's not a DAMN THING we can do about it...

But sure IT makes for a good way to POLITICIZE agendas.....

horses4courses

12-01-2012, 09:06 PM

All global warming/climate change theory, according to them, is bunk.

At all costs, protect family assets from taxation, and the right to bear arms.
Those are the legacies that they intend to pass on to their descendants.

Seldom crosses their minds, though, that inheritances will depreciate considerably if this planet undergoes severe climatic change within the next few centuries. Brings to mind the band on the Titanic. After all, this ship can't sink.

In the meantime, it's full steam ahead.....

boxcar

12-01-2012, 10:38 PM

All global warming/climate change theory, according to them, is bunk.

Why do you misrepresent what so many conservatives believe? We never said it was bunk. We believe Mudder Earth goes through its heating and cooling cycles, which is perfectly normal. But what we said (and now pay attention, please) is that AGW is pure, unadulterated science fiction dreamed up my socialists and commies in order to separate people from their money.

Boxcar

Ocala Mike

12-01-2012, 11:39 PM

elysiantraveller

12-01-2012, 11:48 PM

All global warming/climate change theory, according to them, is bunk.

Not all righties...

Global Warming is a really odd subject though...

There is very little evidence to suggest we play a large role in it at least to the effect most leftist environmentalists would lead people to believe... yet to say we have no impact on the environment when we "burn" things for energy seems foolish...

That's my take on it.

Hcap's posts like the OT, however, as "proof" are non-starters for me... just bait.

PaceAdvantage

12-01-2012, 11:48 PM

boxcar

12-01-2012, 11:50 PM

Here's what scientists believe, without regard to their political leanings:

http://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/Contrary-to-Popular-Belief-Scientists-are-United-on-Climate-Change.html

Is the entire scientific community leftist?

That's like asking is the entire mainstream media left-leaning? Or is Hollywood mostly left-leaning? Or academia, etc.?

Boxcar

elysiantraveller

12-01-2012, 11:55 PM

The disagreement isn't about global warming. That can be measured objectively with a thermometer.

The disagreement is with the cause behind such warming. And there you will find disagreement in the scientific community.

Essentially my point you just said it much better than I did...

Giving the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been poured into studying it one would think the "Human link" would be relatively easy to find...

That said, like in my previous post, to think we play a role in it doesn't seem crazy since we burn things for energy...

Basically I think the entire thing is completely overblown for political purposes...

PaceAdvantage

12-02-2012, 12:08 AM

Ocala Mike

12-02-2012, 01:16 AM

The disagreement isn't about global warming. That can be measured objectively with a thermometer.

The disagreement is with the cause behind such warming. And there you will find disagreement in the scientific community.

Not true, according to the article. You either didn't read it or you deny its conclusions.

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

badcompany

12-02-2012, 01:49 AM

Not true, according to the article. You either didn't read it or you deny its conclusions.

:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

I deny the article has any conclusions:

"The scientists point out that the study does not resolve all the issues needed to predict how great sea-level rise will be because the interactions between warming air, warming seas, glaciers and the two giant ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica as hugely complex. Ian Joughlin, a member of the study team from the University of Washington, Seattle, said: "In Greenland, we are seeing really dramatic losses in ice, but it is still uncertain if it will slow, stay the same or accelerate further."

johnhannibalsmith

12-02-2012, 03:07 AM

Global warming is much like the endless rants of "bringing American jobs home" for me.

I'm fairly certain there's a problem in there, but until the people that constantly harp on it actually do those things in their own lives that they can do to make a difference, I'll continue to ignore their rantings about how government must intervene and make it all better... somehow...

It's a lot of hand-wringing and casternation directed at other people, meanwhile, other than saying "WE MUST DO SOMETHING!", most don't seem the least bit interested in inconveniencing themselves in a significant way to do what they can do and lead by example - even if individually it won't make a tangible difference. Not saying this applies to all, I know folks that have changed their consumer habits, traded in the car for bicycles, and donate time and money towards efforts at learning more. But the VAST majority just like to talk a lot to get off on their back-patting sensitivity while looking down their noses at people that don't give a rat's ass, but essentially live the exact same life that the do-gooder does.

hcap

12-02-2012, 05:13 AM

You know, at least BigMack used material (piis poor) to counter what 97% of Climatologists accept about the reality of AGW. You gentlemen have opinions only.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

Tom

12-02-2012, 10:29 AM

Let me pull a Mostie

"Anybody who believes anything from DailyKos is a fool"

What does that say about someone who links to DK? :lol:

hcap.....the icebergs are floating in a pool of their own blood! :eek:

Been warmer, been colder.
Guess what, we're going to be both again.
And again.
And again.

johnhannibalsmith

12-02-2012, 10:36 AM

You know, at least BigMack used material (piis poor) to counter what 97% of Climatologists accept about the reality of AGW. You gentlemen have opinions only.

...

Damn these right-wing maniacs in here caught in their faux noos/Breitbart/Tea Party media echo chambers...

Entrapment!!!

Someone post a link so that someone else can attack the source of the link!

hcap

12-02-2012, 11:44 AM

Even better. Ask boxcar to elaborate on the worldwide Liberal/Al Gore/Agenda 21/Sierra Club/Anti-God conspiracy to enslave mankind with evil science and rationality.

Actor

12-02-2012, 12:50 PM

I will go one step further.

To be of the mindset to think we KNOW the cause of global warming, is the equivalent, in my opinion, of thinking YOU KNOW GOD. Or you KNOW EVERYTHING there is to KNOW about our world and our universe.

Because to think that somehow, someway, human scientists actually know without a doubt that global warming is MAN MADE is thinking in the ABSURD...EXTREMELY ABSURD.

It is the height of scientific arrogance. The height of human absurdity. In comparative terms, WE KNOW NOTHING about our universe. Our world. And yet, here we have some people, who think that without a doubt, HUMANS are the cause of the PLANET EARTH warming. HUMANS. Burning oil. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Are you kidding me?

And they dare call Romney/Ryan "2 total idiots." :lol: :lol: :lol:
Your post is "the height of scientific arrogance." Do you have any idea what the evidence is or how the conclusions were reached? I think not.

Your argument is basically a religious argument. You don't accept scientific conclusions because you regard scientists as heretics and blasphemers. Your argument is therefore unassailable because those who disagree with you are not allowed to use logic.

boxcar

12-02-2012, 12:50 PM

Even better. Ask boxcar to elaborate on the worldwide Liberal/Al Gore/Agenda 21/Sierra Club/Anti-God conspiracy to enslave mankind with evil science and rationality.

There's nothing rational about evil. And since scientists are still mere mortals (to best of my scientific knowledge, anyhow), then those scientists are partakers in the same human nature (and, therefore, condition) the unwashed have. If AGW were legit, then it seems to me those scientists (who think they are gods) should be able to offer very cheap scientific solutions that wouldn't preclude their civil benefactors from poking their sticky, greedy, grubby fingers into citizens' pockets. How ironic that the love of money, which is the root of all evil, is also the solution to most of this world's evil. Money is the cure for virtually everything in this world, isn't it?

You must be a con artist's delight and joy, Hcap, to not be able to sniff out a scam when it sticks its ugly tongue in your mouth, wanting to get intimate with you. :rolleyes: Nothing parts company with a fool more quickly than his money.

Boxcar

boxcar

12-02-2012, 12:53 PM

Your post is "the height of scientific arrogance." Do you have any idea what the evidence is or how the conclusions were reached? I think not.

Your argument is basically a religious argument. You don't accept scientific conclusions because you regard scientists as heretics and blasphemers." Your argument is therefore unassailable because those who disagree with you are not allowed to use logic.

Well, in a very real sense, it is. Scientists are so arrogant and full of themselves that they think they are gods. They think they have all the answers to the riddles of the universe. If only they had an inkling of how little they really know...

Boxcar

ArlJim78

12-02-2012, 01:11 PM

to me the most ridiculous part of it is the idea people have that man can "fix" or restore the climate to some pre-determined rightful state via some kind of carbon tax scheme. this is supposed to lower the sea level and temperatures and create glaciers, etc. because man's knowledge is so good now that we can finetune and optimize the inner workings of the planet's ecosystem.:rolleyes: never mind that every promise progressives make is broken and every program they start fails miserably. but we should trust them that they've got this climate thing figured out right?:lol:

people who fall for this scam are idiots. progressives require panic and crises in order to shakedown money from government treasuries and to get people to accept their agenda. the AGW scam is more of the same. it's come down to "look, a hurricane!! we need a carbon tax now!!"
it's the perfect scam because there is now and always has been a never ending supply of weather events that can be used to promote it.

Tom

12-02-2012, 03:48 PM

...because those who disagree with you are not able to use logic.

ftfy

dartman51

12-02-2012, 03:49 PM

Gotta love scientist. I remember very well when this fight was going on.

Excerpt: “The world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts,” read a July 9, 1971 Washington Post article. NASA scientist S.I. Rasool, a colleague of James Hansen, made the predictions. The 1971 article continues: "In the next 50 years" — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas." If sustained over "several years, five to 10," or so Mr. Rasool estimated, "such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsheet-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims

http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/02/1970s-reality-check-the-coming-ice-age/

hcap

12-02-2012, 04:52 PM

Curious that not only republicans are anti-science in congress but here as well.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory. When Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev constructed his periodic table of elements, not only did he fit all known elements successfully, he predicted that elements we didn’t even know about would turn up later on – and they did!

PaceAdvantage

12-02-2012, 04:57 PM

97% of scientists never agree on anything. "Climate experts" must include something other than actual scientists.

Tom

12-02-2012, 04:58 PM

Prove the 97% number.

horses4courses

12-02-2012, 05:14 PM

Seems we're about half a step beyond "the world is flat", "no it ain't", from back in 1492.
How far has science advanced in just over half a century?

Tom

12-02-2012, 05:20 PM

It was scientists who said it was flat.
And that the sun revolved around us.
And bleeding would cure people of illness.

hcap

12-02-2012, 07:26 PM

It was scientists who said it was flat.
And that the sun revolved around us.
And bleeding would cure people of illness.No it was not the "scientists" Scientists did not come into being until modern science did

Science has evolved quite a bit since superstition and fear of witches held sway. It ain't perfect but is based on observable repeatable testing of phenomenon.

At least after after I call repugs out for being anti-science, you are honest enough to fess up. And it is a fact the the overwhelming majority of Climatologists accept AGW. Not only that, but every World governmental Scientific Organizatiobn, every University, every independent professional Scientific Association, buys it as well

delayjf

12-02-2012, 07:41 PM

hcap

12-02-2012, 07:45 PM

If the left was so concerned with the destruction of the planet, they would not allow a polluting company to continue to pollute - as long as they are willing to pay for the privilege i.e cap and trade.That was a Republican idea. And could work with modifications. But I never proposed one solution.

I think first it is kinda important to recognize there is a problem. But as long as people are in denial we will never get to significant fixes.

johnhannibalsmith

12-02-2012, 08:07 PM

... But as long as people are in denial we will never get to significant fixes.

And as long as the topic continues to be used as some sort of political rhetoric by both sides, it won't get very far either.

hcap

12-02-2012, 08:18 PM

And as long as the topic continues to be used as some sort of political rhetoric by both sides, it won't get very far either.There you go again with false equivalencies. I do not see Dems as deluded as Repugs on this issue. Besides I am coming at this from what the Science says. And there are no equivalencies between the scientific community and the deniers. At all

johnhannibalsmith

12-03-2012, 12:26 AM

There you go again with false equivalencies. I do not see Dems as deluded as Repugs on this issue. Besides I am coming at this from what the Science says. And there are no equivalencies between the scientific community and the deniers. At all

There you go again with probably reading more into my statement than was implied if we are regurgitating the equivalency speech.

It has been thrust into politics. People have decided that they need to avail themselves of doing what they can do in their own lives while working at the community level and have instead turned it into a function of federal lobbying. I'm not, again, passing judgment on the validity of the science, but the politicization out of convenience to fast track elements of industry has itself, created much of the divide.

Unfortunately, it has become part of the "liberal" or Democratic platform, which isn't in and of itself a bad thing, but in casting it as such, it now winds up with inherent opposition that has nothing to do with the science and all to do with the political affiliations and increasing lines being drawn in the sand. Republicans have been labeled as "anti-science" on the subject as an insult, which there are obvious individual justifications for. But as it has become a stereotype, it has, I guess as a result of the old "labeling theory" become an acceptable position to be opposed to the climate change "movement" simply because the "opposition" is supporting the movement and labels the other broadly as being in opposition to the science.

I think that were you able to separate the now accepted political implications/affiliations from the issue itself and start from scratch, people would perhaps be much more willing to draw their own conclusions and you wouldn't have a divide on the subject that by some magical non-coincidence seems to reflect very closely party breakdown.

Robert Fischer

12-03-2012, 01:51 AM

The way we live and do business clearly shows that humans have placed the environment behind power and money (and time, and probably other factors as well...).

I would guess that all of us including those powerful gov'ts and corporations would need to reprioritize in order to give the planet a chance to "freshen up" or to at least dirty at a slower rate.
But that is complicated. Even some of the most powerful and heavily invested resources may need to be used differently or my be deemed to harmful for the environment. And why would any human sacrifice personal power for the environment if they felt they could still do better with more power and money?

These kind fundamental problems aren't about taking a side , and they aren't reliant on something like "global warming" being scientifically proven to be the result of humans.

hcap

12-03-2012, 05:05 AM

There you go again with probably reading more into my statement than was implied if we are regurgitating the equivalency speech.

It has been thrust into politics. People have decided that they need to avail themselves of doing what they can do in their own lives while working at the community level and have instead turned it into a function of federal lobbying. I'm not, again, passing judgment on the validity of the science, but the politicization out of convenience to fast track elements of industry has itself, created much of the divide.

Unfortunately, it has become part of the "liberal" or Democratic platform, which isn't in and of itself a bad thing, but in casting it as such, it now winds up with inherent opposition that has nothing to do with the science and all to do with the political affiliations and increasing lines being drawn in the sand. Republicans have been labeled as "anti-science" on the subject as an insult, which there are obvious individual justifications for. But as it has become a stereotype, it has, I guess as a result of the old "labeling theory" become an acceptable position to be opposed to the climate change "movement" simply because the "opposition" is supporting the movement and labels the other broadly as being in opposition to the science.

I think that were you able to separate the now accepted political implications/affiliations from the issue itself and start from scratch, people would perhaps be much more willing to draw their own conclusions and you wouldn't have a divide on the subject that by some magical non-coincidence seems to reflect very closely party breakdown.I am weighing in more on the science than possible solutions, simply because one political party for the most part, refuses to accept the overwhelming consensus and evidence placed in front of them.

So the labeling process that you object to begins a priori as soon as the science is denied by republicans who seem more to focus on (as usual) a grand conspiracy stirred up by Dems to intrude on their rights. In all the discussions I have had on this topic, I have been asked about solutions and have avoided going into details other than mentioning alternative energy, and have only responded briefly to cap and trade. So my labeling comes up as "anti-science" from first causes. Outright resistance to rational considerations of the evidence. In fact often that rejection of science has extended to arguments more than just man's causal relationship with rising temperatures (AGW), but that NASA and other non partisan agencies have lied purposefully about whether or not temperatures have even increased.

As I mentioned, cap and trade was originally a republican idea. And although not perfect, it is a free market approach that at least shows that vested interests can be shaped by smart legislation.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Blue-Sky-Thinking.html

hcap

12-03-2012, 06:59 AM

sammy the sage

12-03-2012, 07:15 AM

A Reading from Genesis

And God promised men that good and obedient wives would be found

in all corners of the earth.

Then he made the earth round......

And he laughed and laughed...

There is going TO BE global warming...sooner or later...man-made or not...and nothing we can do about it...

oh...and there WILL be global COOLING as well... :lol:

Actor

12-03-2012, 12:01 PM

Here is a convoluted justification by the religious right as to why we must continue to burn fossil fuel. Believe whatever you choose, but let's separate faith based anti-science from public policy. I realize this is not why most republicans don't buy AGW, but as other cultural warriors on the right have influenced the party, I am sure this sways quite a few.

/MpDd_Kq_vRk?Let me see if I get this right.

God gave us fossil fuels.
God gave us the knowledge to refine fossil fuels.
Therefore it is a sin to not use fossil fuels.

Let's extend that logic.

God gave us corn.
God gave us a knowledge of cooking.
Therefore it is a sin not to eat and become obese.
Therefore God wants us to be obese and to suffer the consequences of that obesity.

Better yet.

God gave us corn.
God gave us stills.
Therefore God does not want us to remain sober. Teetotalers are sinners.

The general principle would be...

Any form of restraint in the use of our resources is a sin.

delayjf

12-04-2012, 11:46 PM

That was a Republican idea.

If you are referring to Arnold don't make me laugh. :lol:

It was the liberals and Al Gore who were behind the Chicago Carbon exchange and its Liberals in CA who are behind the State Cap and Trade laws that go into affect next year.

hcap

12-04-2012, 11:53 PM

If you are referring to Arnold don't make me laugh. :lol:

It was the liberals and Al Gore who were behind the Chicago Carbon exchange and its Liberals in CA who are behind the State Cap and Trade laws that go into affect next year.Ok, sarge, whatever you say. Just no kp ok?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Blue-Sky-Thinking.html

C. Boyden Gray talk about cleaning up the environment by letting people buy and sell the right to pollute. Gray, a tall, lanky heir to a tobacco fortune, was then working as a lawyer in the Reagan White House, where environmental ideas were only slightly more popular than godless Communism.........

hcap

12-05-2012, 07:13 PM

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/arctic-suffered-record-losses-in-2012-noaa-report-card-finds.php?ref=fpb

Arctic Suffered Record Ice Losses In 2012, NOAA Report Card Finds

The region, located above the Arctic Circle, or 66 degrees north latitude, suffered record low snow cover and sea ice, while at the same time seeing warmer-than-average sea temperatures, increased green space and vegetation growing seasons, and a boom in Sun-driven plankton production, according to an annual report card from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), released online Wednesday.

“The Arctic is changing in both predictable and unpredictable ways, so we must expect surprises,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator, in a statement at the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. “The Arctic is an extremely sensitive part of the world and with the warming scientists have observed, we see the results with less snow and sea ice, greater ice sheet melt and changing vegetation.”

boxcar

12-05-2012, 09:52 PM

Let me see if I get this right.

:lol: :lol: I see logic isn't your strong point.

God gave us fossil fuels.
God gave us the knowledge to refine fossil fuels.
Therefore it is a sin to not use fossil fuels.

Given that logic, we could also say:

God gave us the opium poppy.
God gave us knowledge to process the powder.
Therefore, it is a sin to not smoke or inject the junk and become an addict.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Better yet.

God gave us corn.
God gave us stills.
Therefore God does not want us to remain sober. Teetotalers are sinners.

Wrong! Everywhere in the scriptures drunkenness is prohibited, as is obesity.

But...with God's gift of natural resources, there are no prohibitions.

The general principle would be...

Any form of restraint in the use of our resources is a sin.

Not so. You're comparing apples with oranges. God also gave us trees. But nowhere in scripture does God restrict man's use of them.

Boxcar

hcap

12-05-2012, 10:00 PM

God gave us our noses to support our glasses after realizing our ears were not enough.

Actor

12-06-2012, 06:16 AM

I see logic isn't your strong point.I see "facetious" is not in your vocabulary.

hcap

12-07-2012, 08:06 AM

Either is rationality :cool:

FantasticDan

12-07-2012, 11:15 AM

http://www.upworthy.com/the-most-devastatingly-convincing-pie-chart-youve-ever-seen?c=bl3

hcap

12-07-2012, 03:06 PM

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/06/15730539-2012-warmest-year-in-us-odds-rise-to-997-percent?lite=

2012 warmest year in US? Odds rise to 99.7 percent

rastajenk

12-08-2012, 03:35 PM

hcap

12-08-2012, 04:28 PM

Weather isn't climate, unless a globalwarmist wants it to be.

I've enjoyed the warm year myself, I wish we could have them more often. But I can't say I've noticed the climate itself change. It's the same in my area this year as it was last year, and next year.You are right. Climate looks at large meteorological systems over much longer periods of time and area. Your anecdotal account is only that of weather and is meaningless in terms of climate.

rastajenk

12-09-2012, 06:16 AM

You are absolutely right. As is your link to a story about weather.

hcap

12-09-2012, 06:35 AM

No it discuses climate

hcap

12-09-2012, 12:44 PM

Mr James Inhofe (R-OK), the lead Republican on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Take it away Senator.

/EKd6UJPghUs?

...Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the lead Republican on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, held a climate-denial press conference at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on Thursday. Accompanying Inhofe were two rather questionable characters: an activist who believes the UN is starting the apocalypse and a British Lord who was banned from all UN climate conferences for impersonating the representative from Myanmar.

Inhofe’s first guest, Cathie Adams, is the President of the Texas Eagle Forum and former Texas GOP chair. She must have felt quite uncomfortable speaking at a United Nations function, as she has maintained for over a decade that the UN was the anti-Christ’s vehicle for stealthily taking over the world.

hcap

12-11-2012, 11:25 AM

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/11/climate_change_denial_why_don_t_they_publish_scien tific_papers.html

A link to this was brought up earlier. But since it blows apart the notion that there is a serious disagreement among climatologists on whether global warming is real

No question it is and there is no disagreement

National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell wrote a post that is basically a slam-dunk of debunking. His premise was simple: If global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.

He looked up how many peer-reviewed scientific papers were published in professional journals about global warming, and compared the ones supporting the idea that we’re heating up compared to those that don’t. What did he find? This:

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/10/climatedenierspapers.jpg/_jcr_content/renditions/original

Greyfox

12-11-2012, 11:48 AM

No one is denying global warming and climate change.

There are oodles of studies out there which DO NOT SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT IT IS CAUSED BY MAN!

hcap

12-11-2012, 12:16 PM

No one is denying global warming and climate change.

There are oodles of studies out there which DO NOT SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT IT IS CAUSED BY MAN!First paragraph of the article I just re-posted

"Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature."

And what I also posted earlier.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

hcap

12-11-2012, 12:32 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

.....The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.

Read the whole article listing the unaimous agreement by all governmental and non governmental scientific agencies. And note this:

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[103] no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png/729px-Climate_science_opinion2.png

Tom

12-11-2012, 12:43 PM

:sleeping:When do they DO something about it?

Talk is cheap - China and India need to be reigned in.
When do real actions start from this elite group?
Who will stand up to China?
You, hcap?
NOTHING we do will matter until the worst polluters are stopped.
When, who?

TJDave

12-11-2012, 12:45 PM

Who will stand up to China?

There's no law that says you have to buy anything labeled "made in China."

Tom

12-11-2012, 12:49 PM

No, I am asking those who are crying the sky is falling what THEY are going to do about it.

I'm tired hearing hcap whine and cry and yet sit silently there while India and China are killing us all off.

Personally, I favor Global warming.

hcap

12-11-2012, 01:40 PM

My mom used to say " if your friend Melvin jumps of the roof, would you do do that too?

First problem and seemingly stupid obstacle to clear, is acceptance of the problem. Earlier in this thread you asked for proof that 97% of any one qualified to weigh in on this issue supports AGW

And?

Greyfox

12-11-2012, 01:47 PM

Actor

12-11-2012, 03:19 PM

There's no law that says you have to buy anything labeled "made in China."Actually there is. There's a law against going out in public naked. You have to buy clothes. I can't find any clothes in any store that isn't labeled "made in China." :bang:

TJDave

12-11-2012, 03:31 PM

How about the Obama's need for 54 Christmas trees chopped down for the White House? :lol: :lol:

One for every state, almost. :rolleyes:

hcap

12-11-2012, 03:36 PM

Deforestation?

How about the Obama's need for 54 Christmas trees chopped down for the White House? :lol: :lol:

Conan: The Obamas installed 54 Christmas trees for the White House this year. It’s all part of their, “For the last time, we’re not Muslim” campaign.

Greyfox

12-11-2012, 03:43 PM

Conan: The Obamas installed 54 Christmas trees for the White House this year. It’s all part of their, “For the last time, we’re not Muslim” campaign.

Yeah...sure. :rolleyes:
(Psst. hcap - He's never denied being Muslim, but to get into that would take this thread off track.)

hcap

12-11-2012, 03:49 PM

He does not have to. Pure idiocy

PSST....

I believe I proved my point on AGW. :cool:

PaceAdvantage

12-11-2012, 08:22 PM

Yeah...sure. :rolleyes:
(Psst. hcap - He's never denied being Muslim, but to get into that would take this thread off track.)Isn't declaring himself CHRISTIAN and a BELIEVER IN JESUS CHRIST about as good as saying he isn't Muslim?

Wouldn't a Muslim not take kindly to another Muslim declaring himself a Christian and saying that Jesus Christ is his Lord and Savior?

I personally don't think Obama is into much of anything. I think he is whatever it is he thinks will keep him in power. I think Obama believes first and foremost in the power of OBAMA, and nothing else... :lol:

TJDave

12-12-2012, 03:21 AM

I personally don't think Obama is into much of anything. I think he is whatever it is he thinks will keep him in power. I think Obama believes first and foremost in the power of OBAMA, and nothing else... :lol:

Me too. I think that about most politicians who profess their faith in God. How about you?

Or is your distrust limited to OBAMA?

Tom

12-12-2012, 07:48 AM

When Obama "crosses" himself, he says,"In the name of me, myself, and I."

fast4522

12-12-2012, 07:59 AM

Me too. I think that about most politicians who profess their faith in God. How about you?

Or is your distrust limited to OBAMA?

Just watch the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w86QhV7whjs

delayjf

12-12-2012, 08:39 AM

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[103] no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.
Did they all conduct their own research or are they simply signing on to whats been reported - possibly for political / funding reasons.

Has Tom's question ever been answered - what is the correct temperature?

hcap

12-12-2012, 10:22 AM

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[103] no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change. Did they all conduct their own research or are they simply signing on to whats been reported - possibly for political / funding reasons.

Has Tom's question ever been answered - what is the correct temperature?Toms' question has been answered many times. And your speculation about political and funding payoffs is pathetic in the context of the entire article. PATHETIC!

hcap

12-12-2012, 10:32 AM

Just watch the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w86QhV7whjs

Just what the anti-Commie doctor Mr Filth ordered. A 1950's absurd short film probably shown in tandem with "Reefer Madness"

/w86QhV7whjs?

/PMrzGauQJdk?

Tom

12-12-2012, 10:37 AM

Must've missed it.....what temperature is it?

60?
65?
70?
75?
80?
85?

How can you hold a planet that has been molten and frozen, more than once?

And Jeff's question about funding....Question EVERYTHING.

hcap

12-12-2012, 10:52 AM

Must've missed it.....what temperature is it?
Yes you did. Many, many, Many times

And if you were to read any of the stuff I have posted and linked to, yours' and Jeff's question would not have been asked.

This is getting silly as any of our previous thread about AGW has gotten. All of this has been gone over many, many, many, many, many, times.

I just try to post recent developments you guys DON'T like to hear. Sorry to upset your teenie, tiny, itsy bitsy non consequential apple cart.

Tom

12-12-2012, 11:55 AM

So, YOU can't answer my question, huh?
Shows what a lot YOU know about it! :lol::lol::lol:

fast4522

12-12-2012, 03:11 PM

Although from the 50's there is nothing controversial inside the content of the video that hits home with many of our current problems. The class warfare was started by the other guy, so we should all get into it and label all socialists and communists as low life degenerates who are counter to what this country needs. And in doing so use all socialists and communists as the target of our class warfare we engage in.

hcap

12-12-2012, 07:55 PM

hcap

12-12-2012, 08:01 PM

Poor old Hcap.

He started the thread with such high hopes, but, once again, ends up getting Ned Beatty'd by Tom. So sad. So tragic.:

Relax, and check the archives. Unless like Tom, you just can't make any sense of this, as the signal to noise ratio of functioning brain cells that have survived the 60's, is approaching zero.

Tom

12-12-2012, 09:18 PM

Krl_pXXfKEI

...and RED STATES!!!!

delayjf

12-12-2012, 10:09 PM

Actor

12-12-2012, 11:52 PM

Has Tom's question ever been answered - what is the correct temperature?What question? I've gone back through every post Tom has made in this thread and I can't find any question relating to temperature. Is it in some other thread?

rastajenk

12-13-2012, 06:13 AM

hcap

12-13-2012, 07:15 AM

Hcap, can you provide a list of those scientist / organizations that do not receive federal funding??

Back in 2010, they were reporting record ice coverage in Antartica ( I believe ) the science is mixed. And given climategate and the fact that Nasa is having problems calculating avg temps, Mann's hockey stick myth. Excuse me if I'm not willing to send our already hurting economy down the toilet over this Chicken Little BS.Did you read the article in Wiki listing ALL the organizations and associations supporting AGW?

And do as I do post a link to "record ice coverage"
The hockey stick is not a myth, and climategate has no merit.

hcap

12-13-2012, 07:18 AM

It's in just about every climate change (nee global warming) thread we've ever had. It exposes hcap's version of being a conservative: pick a point in time, and cling to it like it's the absolute ideal.You have not read my previous answers to what is the ideal temperature on previous threads, or you would not make silly statements like this.

Have you?

fast4522

12-13-2012, 07:45 AM

I think you smoked too much ganja when yo were younger. Or when you submitted this.

Nope, unlike yourself I did not abuse myself and everything works at my age.
And as a result my mind is clear not to buy into climate change wealth redistribution scam.

badcompany

12-13-2012, 07:50 AM

Excuse me if I'm not willing to send our already hurting economy down the toilet over this Chicken Little BS.

Isn't this really what the radical Environmentalist Pinko Left wants. These rejects believe that the only reason Capitalism hasn't failed is because Evil Capitalists have exploited the environment the same way they've exploited labor.

delayjf

12-14-2012, 12:09 AM

Here is one article that discusses the growing ice in yhe Antarcitic

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

PaceAdvantage

12-14-2012, 01:13 AM

Here is one article that discusses the growing ice in yhe Antarcitic

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/I expect there to be some sort of rationalization for this forthcoming thusly post-haste.

plainolebill

12-14-2012, 04:15 AM

No comment on the article other than he's confused about the location of polar bears.

Also where is East Antarctica? When you are down there everything is North. :lol:

hcap

12-14-2012, 04:23 AM

Here is one article that discusses the growing ice in yhe Antarcitic

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/The Fiorbes article refers back to a Climate Denying blog run by Steven Goddard who is a joke among those that do the real science. Ironically Goddard's site is called "Real Science" It is the subject of a number of parody's

Just sayin'

If you want a serious discussion go here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Watts-Up-With-That-ignorance-regarding-Antarctic-sea-ice.html

Actor

12-14-2012, 12:33 PM

Also where is East Antarctica? When you are down there everything is North. :lol:Good question. One which I asked when I first heard the term.

East Antarctica is that part of Antarctica that lies in the eastern hemisphere. Draw a line from the south pole northward along 0 degrees longitude, sweep it eastward (i.e., clockwise) until you reach 180 degrees longitude. The swept area is East Antarctica.

hcap

12-16-2012, 10:15 AM

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/uncategorized/our-latest-poll-findings-18

Well it looks like there are fewer and fewer GW deniers left. Apparently most of them post here.

AP-GfK Poll: Belief in global warming rises with thermometers, even among US science doubters

The biggest change in the polling is among people who trust scientists only a little or not at all. About 1 in 3 of the people surveyed fell into that category. Within that highly skeptical group, 61 percent now say temperatures have been rising over the past 100 years.

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/460x.jpg

Tom

12-16-2012, 10:45 AM

Another nice day here - no snow, we have only had 0.9 inches so far this year. Not cold. I might grill steaks tonight. And shrimp.

Your concern is noted.

:lol::lol::lol:

hcap

12-16-2012, 10:52 AM

Another nice day here - no snow, we have only had 0.9 inches so far this year. Not cold. I might grill steaks tonight. And shrimp.

Your concern is noted.

:lol::lol::lol:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/11.30.2012.Obama_Fiscal_Cliff_Ostrich.jpg

Tom

12-16-2012, 11:34 AM

La la la....got that right!:kiss:

hcap

12-16-2012, 01:38 PM

La la la....got that right!:kiss:

Invite some friends why dontcha'?

http://funny-stuff.3961608.n2.nabble.com/file/n3399741/ostritch.jpg

Tom

12-16-2012, 03:16 PM

How long do you have to cook them?

hcap

12-16-2012, 07:45 PM

How long do you have to cook them?Let me check with NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and NOAA's climate scientists. My suspicion is pretty soon you will be able to just leave them outside in the sun, OVERNIGHT :cool:

Tom

12-16-2012, 08:54 PM

And yet another benefit to GW!

hcap

12-16-2012, 09:13 PM

And yet another benefit to GW!Until summer
We are literally talking "Country Fried" everything

Stock up on beer now. During summer, forget the expression "have a cold one"

'

fast4522

12-20-2012, 08:36 PM

No better youtube than good old George.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eGOBm2J4tn0

nomad1102

12-20-2012, 10:53 PM

LENR at present is a controversial form of energy. It may solve the worlds energy problems in the near future.
Mankind does have a good track record for finding solutions through science for profit.

http://energycatalyzer3.com/news/toyota-and-mitsubishi-collaborate-on-new-lenr-research-in-japan

nomad1102

12-20-2012, 11:22 PM

Cold Fusion and the Energy Crisis: to be or not to be?

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/11/30/cold-fusion-and-the-energy-crisis-to-be-or-not-to-be/

nomad1102

12-20-2012, 11:41 PM

SVT Documentary Published
December 19, 2012

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHXc7NNMiWo&feature=youtu.be

hcap

12-21-2012, 12:26 AM

Cold Fusion and the Energy Crisis: to be or not to be?

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/11/30/cold-fusion-and-the-energy-crisis-to-be-or-not-to-be/I am very skeptical. For this device to work, a new type of a nuclear fusion reaction must be taking place. One where no radiation is produced. Stars produce an entire spectrum of all forms of radiation, and that is why temperatures rise into the millions. So the main source of "heat" in both fission and fusion nuclear reactions are both electromagnetic radiation and the emissions of particles and fragments of nuclei. All deadly without the proper shielding. I suspect either outright fraud, or a chemical reaction maybe as a result of Rossis' secret nickel powder composite.

nomad1102

12-21-2012, 12:30 PM

Having Followed the developments of LENR and LANR and other forms of cold fusion for the last several years leaves me presently optimistic due to the many entities such as NASA, several major universities, large private corporations, and esteemed physicists reporting promising test results. NASA's recognition of the work presented by Ponds and Flieshman in the 80's also adds credibility that nuclear reactions may be occurring under conditions believed impossible by the established intelligentsia.

hcap

12-21-2012, 02:49 PM

How can any reputable source recreate this device without knowing all the details?. I understand that secrecy provides ownership, but a part of the scientific process is showing similar results as the original when replicated by others. As far as Ponds and Fleischmann:

Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes fell with the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.

Any links directly to NASA or any universities you mention? Do any of the notable and esteemed observers have access to the internal workings? Whatever promising test results you mention, are to say the least, premature. Don't get me wrong, I wish there was some merit here.

nomad1102

12-22-2012, 01:31 PM

LENR demonstration projects recently initiated at respected places like MIT, the University of Missouri, and the University of Bologna; public presentations by executives at one of the world's largest instrument companies, National Instruments, apparently designed to attract the top LENR researchers into a project to test and quantify observed LENR effects; and a July report from the European Commission's research and development center that LENR at least has sustainable future energy technology potential.

But near the top of the cold fusion research community's hit parade are musings from NASA, like the fact that the agency apparently filed two LENR-related patents last year and that a leading NASA scientist has indicated that LENR is real enough to pay attention to and study. Boeing and NASA may even be testing aircraft using LENR or other similar concepts.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2012/08/08/new-burst-of-energy-could-bring-cold-fusion-to-front-burner

hcap

12-22-2012, 02:11 PM

There may be another reason behind some of the bigger players showing interest. It is not "fusion" but another type of reaction that still might accomplish some of the goals of cold fusion with at least an underpinning of a theoretical explanation and no dependence on knowing the secrets of the E-cat device. Which so far is not public

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/nov/27-big-idea-bring-back-the-cold-fusion-dream#.UNYDVnd4zMB

..Their theory showed how a film of negatively charged electrons covering the palladium could combine with positively charged protons from the water’s hydrogen atoms to form neutrons. Those neutrons could then be gobbled up by nearby lithium nuclei, disturbing the delicate balance of protons and neutrons that keep the nuclei stable. The lithium nuclei would rapidly decay, first into beryllium and then into helium, and emit radiation. Finally, the film of electrons would absorb the radiation and reemit it as heat. Widom and Larsen called this chain of events a low-energy nuclear reaction, or LENR—a more accurate and palatable term than cold fusion. The European Physical Journal C published their theory in 2006.

nomad1102

12-22-2012, 04:57 PM

hcap

12-22-2012, 06:10 PM

It appears we share similar conclusions on the topic.

Thanks for the link.

Sufficient excess heat production and no pollution by any means or name would be a life changing source of energy for the entire world.I am preliminarily following the mainstream approach. Tokamak and laser focus confinement. Both have quite a ways to go. I still doubt cold fusion and cold whatever of the previous link, but I agree that it would be ideal. Let's see. If either E-cat or other LENR devices have "legs"

It cannot be covered up. Japan, India, China and other countries would pay thu' the nose, and even if the vested interests could bury it, eventually they will HAVE to give in. There are also major advances in solar and wind abroad. An international "Manhattan" style project could change the world. Setting priorities is missing. Even simple technological solutions are doable. But what else is new?

nomad1102

12-22-2012, 08:28 PM

Keeping a close eye on this one.

They are accepting pre-orders for domestic and commercial units for 2013. These units do not produce the holy grail of temperature sufficient to generate steam. But,they will be useful for pre-heating in commercial applications and domestic water heating.

http://www.e-cataustralia.com/

hcap

12-23-2012, 05:44 PM

The Fiorbes article refers back to a Climate Denying blog run by Steven Goddard who is a joke among those that do the real science. Ironically Goddard's site is called "Real Science" It is the subject of a number of parody's

Just sayin'

If you want a serious discussion go here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Watts-Up-With-That-ignorance-regarding-Antarctic-sea-ice.html

And this recent study

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/23/west-antarctica-warming-climate-change_n_2356287.html

hcap

12-24-2012, 05:17 AM

http://www.alternet.org/environment/how-country-one-worlds-largest-economies-ditching-fossil-fuels

How a Country With One of the World's Largest Economies Is Ditching Fossil Fuels
.
....n the shadows of what was for many another disappointing international climate negotiation at COP 18 in Doha, the German energy transformation or “Energiewende” has all the signs of a modern miracle: A complete shift of the world’s fourth largest economy to 80% renewable energy and complete buy-in from all political parties—from the most conservative to most liberal. So, where is the sustainability energy Kool-Aid and how can we get some for the U.S. Congress?

Greyfox

12-30-2012, 03:17 PM

hcap

01-09-2013, 11:03 AM

cj's dad

01-09-2013, 01:11 PM

Your graph is flawed. The low point is about 50.4* and the high is 55.5*

The graph is very compact which shows a temp rise of 1* to be dramatic.

2012 - the hottest year ever. Whew, I'm burning up !!

Tom

01-09-2013, 01:26 PM

Good eye....let's see that graphed out to reality - ICE and FIRE as the scale, actual temperatures the Earth has been at.

This guy must sell used cars. :lol:

Actor

01-09-2013, 01:35 PM

Your graph is flawed. The low point is about 50.4* and the high is 55.5*How does that make it flawed?

cj's dad

01-09-2013, 01:43 PM

How does that make it flawed?

You are correct; it is not flawed.

It does however over dramatize temp change 0f 1*

Valuist

01-09-2013, 01:52 PM

Tom

01-09-2013, 02:11 PM

Operative words here being "on record."

Draw a trend line from 1895 to 1922......we have not come close to that yet.
Better look into the horse side from time to time, hcap, they guys there have a handle on small samples.

hcap

01-09-2013, 05:04 PM

rastajenk

01-09-2013, 05:28 PM

Why do you keep throwing up weather reports when the topic is climate? This graph, like some article you linked to last month, is a weather report. Weather reports from around the world is still weather. Weather reports from around the world for an entire year is still weather. When are you going to learn the difference between weather and climate? Jeesh, you can be thick-headed sometimes.

hcap

01-09-2013, 05:44 PM

Bull. You are out of it.I explained it last month. Enough already.

rastajenk

01-09-2013, 08:36 PM

No, you didn't. You just think you did. All that data, from such a short period of time, is merely weather.

sammy the sage

01-09-2013, 10:26 PM

We are discussing THE whole world...somebody forgot to include THE chinese...coldest winter currently in MANY many years :rolleyes:

hcap

01-09-2013, 10:56 PM

No, you didn't. You just think you did. All that data, from such a short period of time, is merely weather.

http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/basics/weather_vs_climate.html

What is the Difference Between Weather and Climate?

Weather is the day-to-day state of the atmosphere, and its short-term (minutes to weeks) variation. Popularly, weather is thought of as the combination of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, visibility, and wind. We talk about the weather in terms of "What will it be like today?", "How hot is it right now?", and "When will that storm hit our section of the country?"

Climate is defined as statistical weather information that describes the variation of weather at a given place for a specified interval. In popular usage, it represents the synthesis of weather; more formally it is the weather of a locality averaged over some period (usually 30 years) plus statistics of weather extremes.

We talk about climate change in terms of years, decades or even centuries. Scientists study climate to look for trends or cycles of variability (such as the changes in wind patterns, ocean surface temperatures and precipitation over the equatorial Pacific that result in El Niño and La Niña), and also to place cycles or other phenomena into the bigger picture of possible longer term or more permanent climate changes.

.................................................. ........

In many other threads I have repeatedly posted info going back thousands of years. Also going back further to illustrate the rate of acceleration of change. It also depends on how large the "given place" is. Do a search of previous posts. It's all there

Tom

01-09-2013, 11:02 PM

BgdLdl60EMA

nomad1102

01-10-2013, 01:24 AM

NOAA released its end-of-year temperature records for 2012 today, and the chart below tells the story. For the contiguous 48 states, 2012 was the hottest year in the US on record by an enormous margin. It was a full degree hotter than the previous two record-setting years in 1998 and 2006.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_us_temperature_2012.jpg

So Greyfox, what about the sun and the info from that TV weatherman? :lol:

The end of the last Glacial period was about 12,500 years ago. The 120 years of data since the last Glacial period represent about 17 hours in a mans life if he lives to an average ripe old age. Measuring the hair on his head for 17 hours does not indicate weather his hair is growing slow, fast or is long or short in relation to his entire life.

If we were to drastically cut CO emissions and eliminate or cheapest
source of fuel we will negatively impact the quality of life for most of mankind.
If we do not cut CO emissions we may negatively impact the quality of life for most of mankind. We are only able to surmise the present and future effects of and on the current global warming to the planet.

Wiki Glacial Period Excerpt
While the end of the last ice age may not yet have come: little evidence points to a stop of the glacial-interglacial cycle of the last million years.

hcap

01-11-2013, 03:57 PM

Hang on to your seatbelts, but a leaked draft of the UN's next 5 year assessment is concluding that the IPCC overestimated the effect of CO2 and underestimated the impact of the Sun.
Apparently the leaked AR5 report is somewhere at http://wattsupwiththat.com/
but I haven't located it.Anthony Watts, the guy responsible for wattsupwiththat.com, is a weatherman, not a climatologist.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/your_weatherman_probably_denies_global_warming/

...For instance, when it comes to weather forecasters, a recent Rolling Stone magazine assessment of the local news scene found that “there’s a shockingly high chance that your friendly TV weatherman is a full-blown climate denier.” The report cited a 2010 survey finding that in the vast wasteland of Ron Burgundys****, only half of all local weather forecasters believe climate change is even happening, and fewer than a third acknowledge the scientific evidence proving that it is “caused mostly by human activities.” Not surprisingly, their forecasts often omit any discussion of climate change’s effect on the weather systems, thus forfeiting a chance to properly contextualize severe weather events.

Ron Burgundy (A very funny Will Ferrell)****

http://media.salon.com/2013/01/Anchorman_140Pyxurz1-620x412.jpg

Anything new from Watts on the underestimation of solar influences?

hcap

01-11-2013, 05:45 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/national-climate-assessment-global-warming_n_2458905.html

A federal committee has published a draft of the nation's third climate assessment report, a comprehensive analysis of the latest and best peer-reviewed science on the extent and impacts of global warming on the United States.

None of the body's findings are entirely new, but the report suggests that evidence is now stronger and clearer than ever that the climate is rapidly changing -- primarily as a result of human activities, including the copious burning of fossil fuels. Observed weather extremes are on the rise, and the connection between at least some of these events and human-induced climate change is also more clear. The nation can expect increased impacts on everything from crops to fresh water supplies, and better and broader national plans for adaptation are needed.

Tom

01-11-2013, 10:04 PM

Lots of new Bigfoot sightings lately, too.
Wonder if those as as over-blown as Global Warming? :lol:

hcap

01-11-2013, 11:37 PM

Lots of new Bigfoot sightings lately, too.
Wonder if those as as over-blown as Global Warming? :lol:

So Tom while your out for a midnight stroll, just remember the real dangers of
ass over-blownin'

Tom

01-12-2013, 09:51 AM

Been warmer, been colder.
Polar ice caps melting?

uQJ8WrKnLUs

hcap

01-12-2013, 10:08 AM

I think Dorothy landed on you. Don't fret, the Munchkins although very liberal (freely give you directions to OZ, like giving away ObamaPhones), will be your friends. BTW, it does look like the witch (Margaret Hamilton) was purposefully made up to resemble Ayn Rand.

http://cdn.makeuptalk.com/2/2e/200x200px-ZC-2e56e8dd_the_wizard_of_oz_witch-11603.jpeg http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/20110423_USP501_290.jpg

hcap

01-15-2013, 01:09 AM

/u_0JZRIHFtk?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/14/no_global_warming_for_16_years_debunking_climate_c hange_denial.html

...By the way, Lamar Smith (R-Tex) is a climate change denier. And he’s taking over the Congressional House Science Committee. :) :) :)

Tom

01-15-2013, 07:32 AM

GW over the last 16 years?
How about a chart The Stock Market Over the Last 9 Seconds?

hcap

01-15-2013, 07:49 AM

GW over the last 16 years?
How about a chart The Stock Market Over the Last 9 Seconds?If you had read the article I linked to, entitled, "Debunking the Denial: “16 Years of No Global Warming” maybe you would get it. In fact some knuckle draggier-perhaps YOU- even posted that junk here in one of the many GW threads. Besides the same methodology ruling out natural phenomena-other than man made factors, is used over hundreds and thousands of years. This is one way we know that recently the rate of acceleration of warming is strongly influenced by green house gasses.

Oner of the GW deniers that started this nonsense was the Wall Street Journal. The article, called "No Need to Panic About Global Warming", fueled the nonsensical debate.

Tom

01-15-2013, 08:28 AM

This just in.....temps in western NY been going down for the last 16 hours.....ice age looming? :lol:

hcap

01-15-2013, 08:49 AM

This just in.....temps in western NY been going down for the last 16 hours.....ice age looming? :lol:And you are still burying your head in the ground. Imagine that! Considering the "feeze", over the last 16 hors, you will NOW have to go down to the permafrost level, to avoid brain freeze of your last few remaining synapses and neurons :)

badcompany

01-15-2013, 12:07 PM

And you are still burying your head in the ground. Imagine that! Considering the "feeze", over the last 16 hors, you will NOW have to go down to the permafrost level, to avoid brain freeze of your last few remaining synapses and neurons :)

I don't get why you're so down on Global Warming. It gets cold in Upstate NY, especially at night. One would think those old bones of yours would welcome the warmth :confused:

Tom

01-15-2013, 12:38 PM

Keep dreaming righties. Just another piece of a collection of overwhelming evidence that seems to "burn" riighty climate change deniers. :lol: :lol:

Why aren't you guys out there picketing and complaining about evolution and the heliocentric solar system

UGH! me say science bad, dumbness good :)

The truth of it is, hcap, there just aren't enough ass-clowns out there to keep us entertained, so you are providing a real service for people of intellect.
Keep on posting, dude, no other AC's are as public as you are! :lol::lol::lol:

badcompany

01-15-2013, 01:33 PM

And you are still burying your head in the ground. Imagine that! Considering the "feeze", over the last 16 hors, you will NOW have to go down to the permafrost level, to avoid brain freeze of your last few remaining synapses and neurons :)

Looks like Hcap picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue:

Record bitter cold weather grips California
ASSOCIATED PRESS January 14, 2013 7:50AM

Heidi Blood carries her dog to the side of the road for a drink of water while waiting in line with her car along Interstate 5 north of Los Angeles on Friday, Jan. 11, 2013. The California Highway Patrol has partially reopened a 40-mile stretch of Interstate 5 north of Los Angeles that was closed for many hours due to snow. The CHP began escorting southbound motorists through the high mountain pass Friday morning. Northbound lanes are still closed. (AP Photo/Nick

View Gallery
Updated: January 14, 2013 7:50AM

LOS ANGELES — Winds up to 50 mph are adding to California’s big chill misery, as farmers struggle to save citrus crops in sub-freezing temperatures and residents bundle up in record cold.

hcap

01-15-2013, 05:05 PM

You gentlemen are out and out srewballs

Not sure who is worse.......Ugh never mind.
Tom by an ostrich neck :cool:

badcompany

01-15-2013, 05:51 PM

You gentlemen are out and out srewballs

Not sure who is worse.......Ugh never mind.
Tom by an ostrich neck :cool:

So, I guess HUFFINGTON POST is making this stuff up?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/13/california-cold-weather_n_2468378.html

California Cold Hits Record Low Temperatures

LOS ANGELES — Residents remained bundled up and growers in the Central Valley again took measures to protect their citrus crops Sunday, as California's cold snap entered its fourth night.

Alerts predicting freezing temperatures and frost were becoming familiar in much of the state, with new high wind warnings in place for the mountains around Los Angeles beginning early Monday.

hcap

01-15-2013, 06:54 PM

As rastajenk said to me earlier, " you post weather not climate." He was wrong about me, but not you. Climate refers to years and large areas. Typically 30 years or more. Weather is much more temporary. Californias' week or month of a cold snap is only weather

rastajenk

01-15-2013, 08:05 PM

Now you're getting it! :ThmbUp:

hcap

01-15-2013, 11:32 PM

Now you're getting it! :ThmbUp:
Thanks fopr your support, :) :) but your recent comment came after I posted a graph going back to the end of the 19th century. Well over 30 years.

You said
Why do you keep throwing up weather reports when the topic is climate? This graph, like some article you linked to last month, is a weather report. Weather reports from around the world is still weather. Weather reports from around the world for an entire year is still weather. When are you going to learn the difference between weather and climate? Jeesh, you can be thick-headed sometimes.

Tom

01-15-2013, 11:40 PM

Go back further and you see it has been a LOT hotter in the past.
Been there, done that. :sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:

hcap

01-15-2013, 11:52 PM

You have learned zippo, nada. And it is not as though this is the first GW thread on off topic. Thanks Froggy.

Tom

01-16-2013, 07:53 AM

History never changes.
Been hotter, been colder.
Will be both again.

The continents move, shore lines rise and they sink.
Get used to it.....the world is not static.

Only fools worry about it.

Tom

01-23-2013, 02:46 PM

*Bump*

It is pretty COLD here today.
How COLD was it?
It is so COLD that I saw a Democrat with his hands in his OWN pockets!

badcompany

01-23-2013, 05:44 PM

*Bump*

It is pretty COLD here today.
How COLD was it?
It is so COLD that I saw a Democrat with his hands in his OWN pockets!

I guess it's hard for Hcap to put his heart into this thread when he's busy freezing his ass off. :(

hcap

01-23-2013, 05:47 PM

I guess it's hard for Hcap to put his heart into this thread when he's busy freezing his ass off. :(After reading the last few posts, laughing my ass off :)

Bettowin

01-24-2013, 11:21 AM

*Bump*

It is pretty COLD here today.
How COLD was it?
It is so COLD that I saw a Democrat with his hands in his OWN pockets!

It's so cold the gangbangers have their pants pulled up.

badcompany

01-24-2013, 11:54 AM

When Hcap regains feeling in his extremities, you guys are in big trouble.:mad:

In the meantime, there's a not whole lot "melting" in Monroe, NY, but at least it's Sunny.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/photo3.png

Tom

01-24-2013, 11:59 AM

This morning it was :9: here.

badcompany

01-24-2013, 01:14 PM

This morning it was :9: here.

It was a "balmy" :15: here.

Last night, I checked temps in various cities. Saratoga was a -4.

Tom

01-24-2013, 01:46 PM

It was -30! :eek: somewhere in northern NY.......hear that, ALL GORE?

badcompany

01-24-2013, 07:25 PM

It was -30! :eek: somewhere in northern NY.......hear that, ALL GORE?

Hcap's "Note to self":

"Next time, wait until Spring before starting a Global Warming thread"

http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/01/24/wind-chill-washington-registers-degrees-below-zero/CZhJlFuSgjBhil63ktp5wN/story.html

Wind chill at Mt. Washington registers 70 degrees below zero

As New England’s highest point, Mt. Washington is the self-proclaimed home of the world’s worst weather. And today is proof: Current conditions at the observation deck have wind chill at just over 70 degrees below zero.

hcap

01-24-2013, 11:51 PM

Still laughing my ass off!

Btw I moved to a small town in western NY. It was -6 degrees this morning.

It is winter. :cool:

We all know what our weather is. But you gents are still unaware of what climate is. And how it is rapidly changing so abruptly that modern humans will not be able to adapt to the consequences.....

PaceAdvantage

01-26-2013, 08:05 PM

But you gents are still unaware of what climate is. And how it is rapidly changing so abruptly that modern humans will not be able to adapt to the consequences.....Shit, somebody ought to do something about that, don't you think?

Where's the UN? Where's the President? :eek:

Don't tell me those POWERLESS Republicans are getting in the way of SAVING THE EARTH yet again!?!?!?!? :rolleyes: :bang: :faint:

Mike at A+

01-26-2013, 08:23 PM

Actor

01-26-2013, 09:12 PM

I repeat from a previous thread:

IF HUMANS ARE REALLY AFFECTING THE CLIMATE IN A BAD WAY, THEN THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT SHOULD TAKE MEASURES ON THEIR OWN THAT THEY BELIEVE WILL FIX EVERYTHING INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR LEGISLATION MANDATING THAT WE ALL DO WHAT THEY THINK SHOULD BE DONE. IF 50% OF THE PEOPLE (IE. THE DEMOCRATS) TOOK THOSE MEASURES, IT SHOULD HAVE A FAVORABLE AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.

SO LIBS, STEP UP AND JUST DO IT BECAUSE OUR GOVERNMENT NEVER WILL.

Only one third of the adult population of the U.S. are Democrats.
Democrats living in the U.S. make up about 1% of the earth's population.
Ergo, every Democrat taking measures would have a negligible impact.

My own beliefs..

Climate change is real.
It's a long term problem.
Short term political and business considerations take precedence.
Ergo, nothing meaningful is going to be done about it.
During the rest of my life (I expect to live another 20 to 25 years) the greatest impact on me will be increased food prices due to drought and higher taxes to pay for disasters like Hurricane Sandy.
Something will eventually be done about it but it will be too little, too late.
We will adapt. School children will learn about a bygone past when great cities did not have sea walls surrounding their harbors, and when most of Florida was above water.
The cost of the aforesaid will be orders of magnitude greater than the price of doing something about it now. This will be our economic legacy to our great grandchildren, not the national debt.
There's a slight chance (less than 10%) that the human race will become extinct, effectively dying in our own waste. That would be good thing for most other species on the planet.
There's nothing I can do about it, so I'm not going to waste my remaining years worrying about it.

ArlJim78

01-26-2013, 09:13 PM

the planet will be fine, it's us we should be worrying about. when are we going to do something about man-caused culture change? societal decay can be directly correlated to government programs and the agenda of the left, in other words a glut of noxious gaseous emissions from Washington. why do the deniers fail to acknowledge our melting culture and rising debt load? when will they end their war on logic?

Mike at A+

01-26-2013, 09:41 PM

There's nothing I can do about it, so I'm not going to waste my remaining years worrying about it.
Exactly!

hcap

01-26-2013, 11:29 PM

hcap

01-27-2013, 08:25 AM

Shit, somebody ought to do something about that, don't you think?

Where's the UN? Where's the President? :eek:

Don't tell me those POWERLESS Republicans are getting in the way of SAVING THE EARTH yet again!?!?!?!? :rolleyes: :bang: :faint:Funny you should mention all the obstructing climate change denying, anti-science members of the House, and all the knuckle dragging reactionary members of various OFF TOPIC internet boards who think a few cold days in their back yards is proof they are correct

fast4522

01-27-2013, 09:13 AM

So you actually thing this country is stupid enough to pay carbon taxes to the UN in your lifetime? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

hcap

01-27-2013, 09:20 AM

The problem is not the stupidity of this country. Rather, the stupidity of certain citizens who believe in superstition over reason.

BTW, carbon taxes were originally suggested by republicans during the Reagan era as a "free market" approach to dealing with carbon emissions.

You knew that didn't you?

fast4522

01-27-2013, 09:25 AM

Stop lighting matches when you fart to heat your home Mr Green.

hcap

01-27-2013, 09:47 AM

Stop lighting matches when you fart to heat your home Mr Green.Did you take "stupid" lessons recently? Or is that your naturally occuring state?

Oh, and I particularly like your idiotic illiterate threat offer to send me extremely deadly virulent strains of diseases. Reminds me of a mentally retarded schmuck playing with fireworks. Guess which end to light? And where NOT to put it? :lol: :lol:

You do remember that idiotic post? Don't you? Of course PA allowed it. Without saying a word.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1388574#post1388574

post # 108

fast4522
Registered User

Nothing to do with the gun is you Hcap

This is for you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/23/antibiotic-resistant-diseases-apocalyptic-threat

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/1/23/1358970065941/The-hospital-superbug-MRS-010.jpg

fast4522

01-27-2013, 09:55 AM

Glad to make you feel warm and fuzzy, cool that you liked.

Here is a song for your melting tax hopes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjAPoN8qs0Q

hcap

01-27-2013, 10:01 AM

Glad to make you feel warm and fuzzy, cool that you liked.

Here is a song for your melting tax hopes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjAPoN8qs0QComparedd to you Tom is a Shakespearean genius.

fast4522

01-27-2013, 10:10 AM

Great coffee and some country music to go with Hcaps posts, poster boy for depends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmQit-lnnN0

hcap

01-27-2013, 10:35 AM

Contrary to all your stupid idiotic ASSinine, besides the point illiterate videos, here is someone who gets "it"

/cRkHz11giNI?

Tom

01-27-2013, 10:58 AM

xqDDbA8WeBs

Tom

01-27-2013, 11:00 AM

Great coffee and some country music to go with Hcaps posts, poster boy for depends.

No country, but will this do? :lol:
8E42mIvjzRw

hcap

01-27-2013, 04:41 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/27/nicholas-stern-climate-change-davos?INTCMP=SRCH

Nicholas Stern: 'I got it wrong on climate change – it's far, far worse'

Author of 2006 review speaks out on danger to economies as planet absorbs less carbon and is 'on track' for 4C rise

In an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Stern, who is now a crossbench peer, said: "Looking back, I underestimated the risks. The planet and the atmosphere seem to be absorbing less carbon than we expected, and emissions are rising pretty strongly. Some of the effects are coming through more quickly than we thought then."

-------------------------------------------------------------

But wait, the CONS over at PA off topics would rather giggle. And complain about how scientists have always been a tool of tyrannical liberal gub'mints :cool: :cool: :cool:

fast4522

01-27-2013, 05:11 PM

Mixing a new batch are we.

hcap

01-27-2013, 05:59 PM

I think that's a pretty representative cartoon to use as your avatar.

Or you could post this one of you and Alex Jones attending a GW denial meeting

http://www.gessford.com/work/images/mayor-Kool-Aid-Man-03416.JPG

Uncanny resemblance

http://static.infowars.com/pptv/images/2013-01-13Capture.JPG

No wonder you are so nuts! You and Alex are a HOT TICKET!
:lol: :lol:

Tom

01-27-2013, 06:19 PM

pssst, hcap.
There is NO boogie man.

hcap

01-27-2013, 11:43 PM

pssst, hcap.
There is NO boogie man.Fast in a warm up suit? Dipped in tar?
You after sitting on licorice?

hcap

01-28-2013, 06:28 AM

Still laughing my ass off. Tom and Fast have goitta be the dullest tools in the shed. Meanwhile, an illustration of Weather vs Climate.

/e0vj-0imOLw?

Tom

01-28-2013, 07:51 AM

Is that an icicle or are you just glad to see me?

hcap

01-29-2013, 01:23 AM

Is that an icicle or are you just glad to see me?Ok, I will explain the owner vs the dog in terms even you can understand.

http://cl.jroo.me/z3/F/A/W/d/a.aaa-Monkey-holding-leash-on-a-do.jpg

Tom

01-29-2013, 07:57 AM

We are both enjoying the nice warm weather here!

Greyfox

02-03-2013, 01:48 AM

hcap

02-03-2013, 06:29 AM

Let's see what sources OTHER than Fox reports..... :cool:

Meanwhile the last data that I know of that covers some of this period shows this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Over the last 30 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate are going in opposite directions. This has led a number of scientists independently concluding that the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.

One of the most common and persistent climate myths is that the sun is the cause. This argument is made by cherry picking the data - showing past periods when sun and climate move together but ignoring the last few decades when the two diverge.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif
Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

Read the article. There are intelligent comments questioning this assertion saying the sun has more of an influence. But as I said let's see if this current story has any legs. I doubt it but in a few weeks we will have some more info. Not as though I don't trust Fox :lol: :lol: :lol:

hcap

02-03-2013, 06:50 AM

Here is another chart

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png

The above illustration from Wikipedia shows some of the solar measurements as a function of time. The dominant fact from that illustration is that the overall solar output is incredibly constant -- varying only about one part in 1366! But the other variables are measured on a relative scale and represent much larger percentage variations, so it is possible that the solar flare index and the sunspot observations are windows to subtle influences on the Earth's climate that we don't understand.

We shall see.

Tom

02-03-2013, 09:17 AM

Voice of reason, Greyfox!:ThmbUp:

That would tend to explain the GW on MARS as well.
Duh.

hcap

02-03-2013, 09:23 AM

Voice of reason, Greyfox!:ThmbUp:

That would tend to explain the GW on MARS as well.
Duh.Or this would

http://newsliteimgs.s3.amazonaws.com/091223_monkeymars.jpg

Greyfox

02-03-2013, 09:23 AM

Today's News

The science about greenhouse emissions is falling apart.

"A leaked report by a United Nations’ group dedicated to climate studies says that heat from the sun may play a larger role than previously thought."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/01/report-show-un-admitting-solar-activity-may-play-significant-role-in-global/#ixzz2JoeFKAZh

hcap - I repeat what was said above.

The fact is much of the Science surrounding supposed "greenhouse emissions" is bogus.

Whether or not your graphs above have validity is not clear.

Many scientists "cooked" their data in order to get funding for their Universities. Also, to point out the obvious meant either not getting tenure or outright dismissal.

As I've said repeatedly on many of your threads about climate change,
the sun is responsible for 99.9 % of the variance of global warming or cooling.

When it comes to the human brain, "you are what you eat."
In your instance you've been reading ("eating") false propaganda about climate change for so long, it becomes a threat to your belief system to be objective and hear arguments against the cause of it.
That is unfortunate, because unwittingly you and others like yourself have become unpaid spokespeople for those with a cap and trade agenda that involves large redistribution of wealth on this planet. That you have been ensnared in that sort of a scheme is unfortunate.

Thirty years from now people like yourself will look back on this era and wonder how they were so duped.

Finally, the United Nations has a report which refutes earlier misleading claims about the role of the Sun in all of this.

hcap

02-03-2013, 09:46 AM

So you say. This report is just as premature as the one that started the Al Gore Impeachment thread.

Are you saying in this case Fox is to be trusted?

Greyfox

02-03-2013, 09:52 AM

So you say. This report is just as premature as the one that started the Al Gore Impeachment thread.

Are you saying in this case Fox is to be trusted?

When it comes to the subject of climate change there has been so much obfuscation of the truth, can any agency be trusted?

hcap

02-03-2013, 10:04 AM

When it comes to the subject of climate change there has been so much obfuscation of the truth, can any agency be trusted?
Sorry Grey, but the so called scandals you claim are non existent. The overwhelming support and funding by any group with their own agenda has been Koch Bros. organizations and the Seven Sisters.

Show me the so-called "proof" about many scientists cooking their data in order to receive funding. BTW, you do realize there is no government, academic, or accredited scientific agency that does not support anthropomorphic GW

Greyfox

02-03-2013, 10:38 AM

BTW, you do realize there is no government, academic, or accredited scientific agency that does not support anthropomorphic GW

Exactly. And they don't support any sceptic who doesn't believe it.
That's why the data was fudged.
Funding was unavailable for doubting Thomas Scientists.
Those glaciers in the Himalayas were supposed to be gone in 10 years.
Hmm? They are still there today.

hcap

02-03-2013, 10:42 AM

Exactly. And they don't support any sceptic who doesn't believe it.
That's why the data was fudged.
Funding was unavailable for doubting Thomas Scientists.
Those glaciers in the Himalayas were supposed to be gone in 10 years.
Hmm? They are still there today.Sorry, not true. I will add more details later, but so far I am debating many conservatives on a number of fronts on this board, and it is taking it's toll.

Time to take a break and watch FOX. Eat some popcorn and giggle :)

Tom

02-03-2013, 10:45 AM

Debating implies you are putting forth ideas.
You are not dodging that in any threads I see today.
Name calling and side-stepping is more like it. Shucking and jiving.
But I can see why you need a break - getting close running out of names to call people. :lol::lol::lol:

hcap

02-03-2013, 05:44 PM

http://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-draft-leak-global-warming-not-solar.html

IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun

Alec Rawls, an occasional guest poster on the climate contrarian blog WattsUpWithThat who signed up to review the upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (as anyone can), has "leaked" a draft version of the report and declared that it "contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing." This assertion was then repeated by James Delingpole at The Telegraph (with some added colorful language), and probably on many other climate contrarian blogs.

If the IPCC was to report that the sun is a significant player in the current rapid global warming, that would indeed be major news, because the body of peer-reviewed scientific literature and data clearly show that the sun has made little if any contribution to the observed global warming over the past 50+ years (Figure 1).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AttributionAll50.jpg
Figure 1: Percent contributions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), sulfur dioxide (SO2), the sun, volcanoes, and El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), and Wigley and Santer 2012 (WS12, dark gree

So why would the latest IPCC report contradict these studies when its purpose is to summarize the latest and greatest scientific research? The answer is simple — it doesn't. Rawls has completely misrepresented the IPCC report.
Cosmic Source of Confusion

The supposedly "game-changing admission" from the IPCC report is this:

"Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR [galactic cosmic rays] or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system...The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link."

This statement refers to a hypothesis of Henrik Svensmark from the Danish National Space Institute, who has proposed that galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) could exert significant influence over global temperatures. The GCR hypothesis suggests that when they reach Earth, GCRs (high-energy charged particles originating from somewhere in our galaxy) are capable of "seeding" clouds; thus at times when a lot of GCRs are reaching the Earth's surface, more clouds will form. Clouds generally have a cooling effect on the Earth's temperature, because they reflect sunlight.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/cosmic_temp.jpg
Figure 3: Global average surface temperature (red, NASA GISS) vs. GCR flux on Earth (blue, Krivova & Solanki 2003), with 11-year running
averages.

So, if GCRs really do amplify the solar influence on global temperatures, since 1980 they are amplifying a cooling effect. In fact, GCRs reaching Earth recently hit record high levels (Figure 4), yet temperatures are still way up.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/RecordCosmicRays.jpg

To sum up,

The leaked IPCC report states that there may be some connection between GCRs and some aspects of the climate system.

However, the report is also consistent with the body of scientific literature in stating that research indicates GCRs are not effective at seeding clouds and have very little influence on global temperatures.

Solar activity has been nearly flat and slightly decreasing in recent decades, meaning that if GCRs do amplify solar influences on climate, they are amplifying a cooling effect.

The body of peer-reviewed scientific literature is very clear: human greenhouse gas emissions, not solar activity or galactic cosmic rays, are causing global warming. The leaked IPCC report is entirely consistent with this conclusion. In fact, in attempting to argue to the contrary, Rawls has scored an own goal by showing that if anything, GCRs are currently amplifying a solar cooling effect.

Greyfox

02-03-2013, 07:27 PM

hcap - You need to get a copy of Eric Hoffer's book "The True Believer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer

hcap

02-04-2013, 12:41 AM

hcap - You need to get a copy of Eric Hoffer's book "The True Believer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer

I see that you have not commented on the contents of my post. You would rather stick to the theme that AGW is a giant hoax and there is no question that "Climategate" indeed was proof that it is all phony.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/media-not-excited-anymore-about-debunked-climategate-scandal/

Last week, five independent investigations cleared the scientists involved in the Climategate scandal from allegations that they had tampered with their research in order to prove global warming. The verdict is a major victory for environmentalists and a wake up call for climate change skeptics. CNN’s Howard Kurtz, however, notes a disparity between the amount of coverage Climategate received when the controversy first broke last year and the amount of media attention it’s getting now.

Actor

02-04-2013, 05:31 AM

Actor

02-04-2013, 05:40 AM

I'd like the unbelievers to explain three things.

Why polar bears are facing extinction due to the fact that arctic ice is retreating, forcing them to swim farther and farther to find food.
Why large chunks of Antarctica are breaking off and drifting away.
Why Grinnel Glacier in Glacier National Park will be gone in eight years. The original prediction is that it would be gone by 2030 but it's ahead of schedule.

Greyfox

02-04-2013, 06:00 AM

I'd like the unbelievers to explain three things.

Why polar bears are facing extinction due to the fact that arctic ice is retreating, forcing them to swim farther and farther to find food.

You've counted polar bears eh?

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/healthy-polar-bear-count-confounds-doomsayers/article2392523/?service=mobile

"The study shows that “the bear population is not in crisis as people believed,” said Drikus Gissing, Nunavut’s director of wildlife management. “There is no doom and gloom.”"

Greyfox

02-04-2013, 06:09 AM

I'd like the unbelievers to explain three things.

Why large chunks of Antarctica are breaking off and drifting away.

Satellite images say the Antartic ice is growing.

"NPR failed to mention anywhere in its article that Antarctic sea ice has been growing (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png) since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

Actor - the debate isn't about climate change. The climate is changing.
The debate is about whether or not climate change is man made.
So far the best evidence is that it is caused by the sun.

hcap

02-04-2013, 07:00 AM

Satellite images say the Antartic ice is growing.

"NPR failed to mention anywhere in its article that Antarctic sea ice has been growing (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png) since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

Actor - the debate isn't about climate change. The climate is changing.
The debate is about whether or not climate change is man made.
So far the best evidence is that it is caused by the sun.Not so!

Tom

02-04-2013, 07:40 AM

You're describing yourself here, Tom.

See Post #4 in your thread about GOP nuts......still waiting on YOU.

Tom

02-04-2013, 07:41 AM

As long we got grizzly's and white paint, we ain't got no worries!
Red-neck polar bars.

badcompany

02-04-2013, 11:50 AM

hcap - You need to get a copy of Eric Hoffer's book "The True Believer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer

"Hoffer believes that mass movements are interchangeable, that adherents will often flip from one movement to another, and that the motivations for mass movements are interchangeable; that religious, nationalist and social movements, whether radical or reactionary, tend to attract the same type of followers, behave in the same way and use the same tactics, even when their stated goals or values differed."

This is very true. The environmentalist movement arose from the ashes of the old Soviet Union. Disappointed by the failure of Communism and the success of Capitalism, Socialists posited that the reason Capitalism hasn't failed is because Capitalists "cheated" by exploiting the environment.

PaceAdvantage

02-04-2013, 10:18 PM

badcompany

02-07-2013, 07:51 PM

With a Blizzard approaching, you might think that Hcap would let this thread die, but, rest assured, once he digs himself out from under the snow he'll be back badder than ever.:ThmbUp:

Tom

02-09-2013, 04:45 PM

JmPSUMBrJoI

shouldacoulda

02-10-2013, 08:46 PM

I believe most of it is hot air from all the politicians making speeches.

On a serious note that nobody ever talks about. The Sun is giving off more neutrinos than ever and is a major contributor to what's happening. The polar ice caps on Mars are also receding. Only the omnipotent ignorance of mankind can think they can reverse this scenario. Whatever we have contributed to this through the industrial revolution is almost, if not totally irreversible. I want to retire to the mountains. I figure it will be waterfront property some day.

Actor

02-10-2013, 11:03 PM

The Sun is giving off more neutrinos than everWhat is your source for that information?and is a major contributor to what's happening.Neutrinos have near zero interaction with other particles. How could they possibly be a major contributor?
The polar ice caps on Mars are also receding.Again, what is your source for that information? Only the omnipotent ignorance of mankind can think they can reverse this scenario. Whatever we have contributed to this through the industrial revolution is almost, if not totally irreversible.On that you are probably right, although the reasons are more political and economic than engineering and scientific.
I want to retire to the mountains. I figure it will be waterfront property some day.Not likely. No one is predicting sea levels rising more than about 20 meters, even if all the ice of Antarctica and Greenland melts. (It takes very little math to confirm this.) Kevin Costner's Waterworld is not in our future. The worst case scenario (assuming we don't build dikes) is that coastal areas will be inundated along with most of Florida.

hcap

02-12-2013, 08:19 AM

So guys, where is the data showing the sun or more likely "cosmic rays" drive climate change?

Meanwhile, watch this full screen HiDef

/dVCe5elYvu0?

delayjf

02-12-2013, 08:37 AM

NASA - how many times have they had to recalculate their temp data?

hcap

02-12-2013, 08:56 AM

Why don't you tell us. And while your at it, why don't you tell us ONE legitimate scientific organization-private or governmental-that believes man is not responsible for the recent acceleration of climate warming? And cosmic rays are.

classhandicapper

02-12-2013, 12:07 PM

I think the probability that western civilization collapses economically under the weight of an unsound monetary system, the promises of the welfare state made by the left that can't be kept, constant war mongering by neocons and traitors, and the incompetence and corruption of politicians is much higher than the probability that my life or the life of generations soon after me will be seriously disrupted by global warming.

My view is that we ought to concentrate on keeping a clean environment regardless of whether GW is man made or not, but it's not the #1 priority right now.

If things get out of hand related to weather changes and ocean levels, people will slowly relocate just like animals and man have relocated every other time there was a natural major weather change. It will be disruptive on many levels for many, but it won't be disastrous for most.

If western civilization collapses economically or we have hyperinflation, that will be disastrous both short term and potentially long term. I'd estimate the odds at 2-1 or 3-1 that a collapse/hyperinflation occurs in my lifetime or in the generation right after me.

Actor

02-17-2013, 07:18 PM

"What we do with our world right now will propagate down through the centuries and powerfully affect the destiny of our descendents. It is well within our power to destroy our civilization and perhaps our species as well. If we capitulate to superstition or greed or stupidity we can plunge our world into a darkness deeper than the time between the collapse of classical civilization and the Italian renaissance, but we are also capable of using our compassion and our intelligence, our technology and our wealth to make abundant and meaningful life for every inhabitant of this planet, to enhance enormously our understanding of the universe and to carry us to the stars." -- Carl Sagan

ArlJim78

02-17-2013, 07:58 PM

I was a big fan of Sagan. In this case greed, superstition and stupidity apply directly to climate scaremongers like those at the UN and AlGore. We would not have the wealth and abundance that Sagan refers to if we wouldn't have discovered how to get energy from fossil fuels.

hcap

03-10-2013, 11:44 AM

Today's News

A United Nations report is finally admitting that the Sun may be a bigger player in global warming than was previously thought.

I think several of us have been saying that for years.
All of the other planets have been heating up too and they don't have factories or cars.

The science about greenhouse emissions is falling apart.

"A leaked report by a United Nations’ group dedicated to climate studies says that heat from the sun may play a larger role than previously thought."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/01/report-show-un-admitting-solar-activity-may-play-significant-role-in-global/#ixzz2JoeFKAZh

A leaked report? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ok. it's been quite a while since you posted this. Any more? Meanwhile....

The world is on track to surpass temperatures not seen since the dawn of civilization, according to new research.

Confirming "unprecedented" global warming, the new study published in Friday's issue of the journal Science shows that the earth's temperatures catapulted in just the last century at a rate that had previously taken 4,000 years.

"In 100 years, we've gone from the cold end of the spectrum to the warm end of the spectrum," said climatologist Shaun Marcott, lead author of the study. "We've never seen something this rapid. Even in the ice age the global temperature never changed this quickly."

Marcott said that current "global temperatures are warmer than about 75 percent of anything we've seen over the last 11,000 years or so." By 2100, he said, global temperatures will be "well above anything we've ever seen in the last 11,000 years."

"The climate changes to come are going to be larger than anything that human civilization and agriculture has seen in its entire existence," NPR quotes Gavin Schmidt, a climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, as saying. "And that is quite a sobering thought.

Tom

03-10-2013, 02:54 PM

OK, so we stock up on lemonade.
Happy now?

Look, whine all you want - there is NOTHING we can do about it. NOTHING.
If it is a global problem, as you suggest, then the solution needs to be global.

That will never happen.

fast4522

03-10-2013, 07:58 PM

Rather than do the bump with the resident, I will address #211.

The facts are that this rock we live on is the third one from the sun has done this before. If you go into the desert in Africa you will find sea fossils where there was sea prior. Our mass expanse which is best viewed from 30 or 40 thousand feet up to show you just how insignificant we really are. In particular with our rock is the fact that it has had a genesis that occurs exactly when it wants and has nothing to do with man or his pea sized brain several times.

Now at this point you are the one who is the non believer, and you want to give man much more credit than he ever deserved. Those of you fighting for more taxes because everyone has a uneducated family member who you know without public assistance would be living inside a old refrigerator box instead of a warm home. In the end it will turn out the same with a cardboard box and ashes.

Tom

03-10-2013, 09:26 PM

elysiantraveller

03-10-2013, 10:51 PM

Why do we need polar bears?
Do they vote democrat?

Funny, so much hoopla about saving the polar bear's future, but not a peep about the future of our grandchildren that is being sold out from under them by the same people.

Guess people don't count.

Polar Bear populations aren't declining... its a huge propaganda campaign by GW Activists based on the fact some have been found drowned attempting to swim too far.

People drown sometimes too, yet, I'm pretty sure our population is on the uptick.

johnhannibalsmith

03-11-2013, 12:23 AM

Why do we need polar bears?
...

Come to think of it, why do we even need Antarctica?

I keep reading about the long-term implications of global water shortages... sheeeeet, we ought to be able to hydrate plenty of people for a few decades with a few hairdryers and some global warming. :D

Tom

03-11-2013, 07:44 AM

John, you are good, my man. Very good! :D

badcompany

03-11-2013, 08:05 AM

Here's the real reason the left goes on and on and on about GW, and also why they'll lose. There's no way politicians are gonna let a tax revenue jackpot go to waste because of some environmentalretards.

http://investing.covestor.com/content/2012/11/ustopoilproducer.jpg

nomad1102

03-11-2013, 10:44 AM

Earth Is Warmer Today Than During 70 to 80 Percent of the Past 11,300 Years

National Science Foundation

March 7, 2013

With data from 73 ice and sediment core monitoring sites around the world, scientists have reconstructed Earth's temperature history back to the end of the last Ice Age.

The analysis reveals that the planet today is warmer than it's been during 70 to 80 percent of the last 11,300 years.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?org=NSF&cntn_id=127133&preview=false
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_images.jsp?cntn_id=127133&org=NSF

Are we just in the 20 to 30 percent cycle?

Tom

03-11-2013, 10:49 AM

Been warmer before the ice age.
What about those years?

hcap

03-11-2013, 08:39 PM

Been warmer before the ice age.
What about those years?It was a lot hotter during the big bang too :bang:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

The skeptic argument...

Climate's changed before

Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)

What the science says...

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so therefore humans cannot be causing global warming now. Interestingly, the peer-reviewed research into past climate change comes to the opposite conclusion. To understand this, first you have to ask why climate has changed in the past. It doesn't happen by magic. Climate changes when it’s forced to change. When our planet suffers an energy imbalance and gains or loses heat, global temperature changes.

There are a number of different forces which can influence the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. These effects are referred to as external forcings because by changing the planet's energy balance, they force climate to change.

It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can’t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can’t start bushfires because in the past they’ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate.

Looking at the past gives us insight into how our climate responds to external forcings. Using ice cores, for instance, we can work out the degree of past temperature change, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere. From this, we can determine how temperature has changed due to past energy imbalances. What we have found, looking at many different periods and timescales in Earth's history, is that when the Earth gains heat, positive feedbacks amplify the warming. This is why we've experienced such dramatic changes in temperature in the past. Our climate is highly sensitive to changes in heat. We can even quantify this: when you include positive feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 causes a warming of around 3°C.

What does that mean for today? Rising greenhouse gas levels are an external forcing, which has caused climate changes many times in Earth's history. They're causing an energy imbalance and the planet is building up heat. From Earth's history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify the greenhouse warming. So past climate change doesn't tell us that humans can't influence climate; on the contrary, it tells us that climate is highly sensitive to the greenhouse warming we're now causing.

horses4courses

03-11-2013, 08:50 PM

badcompany

03-11-2013, 09:20 PM

NBC Nightly News had report tonight on penguin population in Antarctica.
Down up to 90% in some areas.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/11/17239373-grave-indicator-penguins-survival-at-stake-as-antarctic-ice-disappears?lite

Are you aware that 99.9% of all species are extinct?

Extinction isn't the exception. It's the norm.

I believe a Penguin could make a more cogent case for Global Warming than you guys :lol:

horses4courses

03-11-2013, 09:25 PM

Are you aware that 99.9% of all species are extinct?

Extinction isn't the exception. It's the norm.

I believe a Penguin could make a more cogent case for Global Warming than you guys :lol:

That's the spirit!
Get that debt under control, keep the commie dictators in check, and screw the planet.

Just livin' the dream....... :rolleyes:

johnhannibalsmith

03-11-2013, 09:48 PM

Penguins need to learn to be pets if they want to survive in 2013. Or maybe they can be grooms at racetracks.

horses4courses

03-11-2013, 09:58 PM

Penguins need to learn to be pets if they want to survive in 2013. Or maybe they can be grooms at racetracks.

Or, maybe train them as researchers for refrigeration companies?

Nah...wouldn't work.
Obama would be accused of screwing with the unemployment numbers.

Tom

03-12-2013, 07:44 AM

The dinosaurs are gone.......we are doing ok without them.
Probably a good thing they aren't aren't LA anymore, eh?

hcap

03-12-2013, 12:54 PM

The dinosaurs are gone.......we are doing ok without them.
Probably a good thing they aren't aren't LA anymore, eh?Not quite extinct.

Found Circa 2001.

http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/newgoplogo.gif

And evolution led to this loser...........

found in the southern regions of the US right around November 7th 2012

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002376549/263x228xgop_logojpgpagespeedicfFJOujFcLM_xlarge.jp eg

Ocala Mike

03-12-2013, 02:03 PM

Tom

03-12-2013, 03:06 PM

God gave us dominion over the animals and the earth.
He does, however, frown on abortion.

Agian, the libs have no regard for humans.
But harm a tree, or a bear, or a seal.......oye vey!

hcap

03-12-2013, 03:19 PM

God gave us dominion over the animals and the earth.
He does, however, frown on abortion.

Agian, the libs have no regard for humans.
But harm a tree, or a bear, or a seal.......oye vey!The world has had many difficulties before. Been worse been better.

Besides what can we do about it?

badcompany

03-12-2013, 03:20 PM

How fitting to this thread! A banner ad for the film, "Oblivion," at the bottom of the screen.

Yes, extinction is the norm of the universe, not the exception, but do we have to help it along? By the way, how do religions handle the problem of certain extinction of species (and solar systems, for that matter)? In the beginning, God created everything but put an expiration date on it all?

Has the use of fossil fuels caused the population to decrease or has it allowed more people to live in areas that would've been otherwise inaccessible?

You know, all you big talkin' do nuthin' libs who want to DICTATE to everyone how we should live, why don't you start? Unplug your tv, refridgerator, computer and lights. Don't use air conditioning this summer. Sell your car.

When you all set this example, the rest of us we'll be so guilt ridden by our massive carbon footprints that we'll be compelled to follow suit.