Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 12, 2016 15:02:12 GMT -5
We may only have a few years left. Excerpt from an article by the Washington Post: The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable. Published November 2, 1922. Sorry. The Gen-6 climate models "officially" broke (finally) a few days ago. I figured the climate modelers could use a reminder of their ancestors valiantly waging war in days of old. It'll give them the encouragement they need to develop the hockey-stick-predicting Gen 7 models and demand we all send trillions to JP Morgan with straight faces. It's not as easy as it looks.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Dec 12, 2016 15:47:26 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2016 12:54:53 GMT -5
We may only have a few years left. Excerpt from an article by the Washington Post: The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable. Published November 2, 1922. Sorry. The Gen-6 climate models "officially" broke (finally) a few days ago. I figured the climate modelers could use a reminder of their ancestors valiantly waging war in days of old. It'll give them the encouragement they need to develop the hockey-stick-predicting Gen 7 models and demand we all send trillions to JP Morgan with straight faces. It's not as easy as it looks. I once gave a presentation on the latent heat principle at a not to be named college some years ago. As a learning tool, I first totally convinced the whole room, except for a couple of advanced students, that this principle was a hoax, by leaving out key facts, and perpetrated by the air conditioning industry. It was rather easily done. It makes me smile now, when I hear the argument put forth by AGW proponents, that the discussion is over and AGW is real, because most believe AGW exists. I've used that report (your link) many times right here (forum) in the old AGW arguments we had a couple of years ago. It is somewhat humorous when presented today.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 13, 2016 13:04:40 GMT -5
who cares? the Rapture is coming, so let's just feast while the feasting is good, right?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 13, 2016 13:05:50 GMT -5
We may only have a few years left. Excerpt from an article by the Washington Post: The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable. Published November 2, 1922. Sorry. The Gen-6 climate models "officially" broke (finally) a few days ago. I figured the climate modelers could use a reminder of their ancestors valiantly waging war in days of old. It'll give them the encouragement they need to develop the hockey-stick-predicting Gen 7 models and demand we all send trillions to JP Morgan with straight faces. It's not as easy as it looks. I once gave a presentation on the latent heat principle at a not to be named college some years ago. As a learning tool, I first totally convinced the whole room, except for a couple of advanced students, that this principle was a hoax, by leaving out key facts, and perpetrated by the air conditioning industry. It was rather easily done. It makes me smile now, when I hear the argument put forth by AGW proponents, that the discussion is over and AGW is real, because most believe AGW exists. I've used that report (your link) many times right here (forum) in the old AGW arguments we had a couple of years ago. It is somewhat humorous when presented today. AGW is the INTELLIGENT debate. what many are doing is not about AGW, though. and that, imo, is not very intelligent at all.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2016 13:14:04 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 13, 2016 13:16:15 GMT -5
We may only have a few years left. Excerpt from an article by the Washington Post: The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable. Published November 2, 1922. Sorry. The Gen-6 climate models "officially" broke (finally) a few days ago. I figured the climate modelers could use a reminder of their ancestors valiantly waging war in days of old. It'll give them the encouragement they need to develop the hockey-stick-predicting Gen 7 models and demand we all send trillions to JP Morgan with straight faces. It's not as easy as it looks. I once gave a presentation on the latent heat principle at a not to be named college some years ago. As a learning tool, I first totally convinced the whole room, except for a couple of advanced students, that this principle was a hoax, by leaving out key facts, and perpetrated by the air conditioning industry. It was rather easily done. It makes me smile now, when I hear the argument put forth by AGW proponents, that the discussion is over and AGW is real, because most believe AGW exists. I've used that report (your link) many times right here (forum) in the old AGW arguments we had a couple of years ago. It is somewhat humorous. I'm a fence-sitter on AGW--or more specifically, on man-made climate change. I even lean in the direction of believing it to be true. What confounds me to no end is why so many intelligent, well-meaning people concerned about climate change throw all reason out the window when it comes to assessing potential solutions. They seem to be so overwhelmed by the existence of the problem that they'll believe just about anything that's proposed to fix it, including cap and trade rackets, carbon taxes, funding of green-but-not-really technologies (there's even a word for this: "greenwashing"), and more dangerous ideas like population control and geoengineering. There's a reason the climate change narrative is alarmist to the point that federal politicians have toyed with the idea of making "climate change denial" illegal: imminent destruction is the only circumstance under which any reasonable person would even entertain the "solutions" globalists are proposing. Unfortunately for the globalists, their predictions about how the climate is going to change and how mankind will be affected have failed for over a century, and anyone who's conducted any decent research into the subject knows this.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 13, 2016 13:19:41 GMT -5
in regards to your last post- who do you think the "globalists" are? i think you and i see them differently.
from MY perspective, the globalists are those that view natural resources as "externalities" to their businesses.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 13, 2016 13:56:30 GMT -5
in regards to your last post- who do you think the "globalists" are? i think you and i see them differently. from MY perspective, the globalists are those that view natural resources as "externalities" to their businesses. Firstly, follow the money. Where do the trillions (with a 'T') in funding for climate change science come from? The Big Money boys like Goldman, JP Morgan, the World Bank, the IMF, et al. Corporatist politicians pushing cap and trade. NGOs like the Rockefeller Institute, the Sierra Club, et al. bought and paid for by the 500 families. UN bureaucrats thirsting for more power over control of resources. Second, follow the message. You'll note every last one of the proposed "solutions" requires a concerted, globe-spanning degree of control. In particular, cap and trade, carbon taxes, population control--the three most popular--require every nation on Earth to be on board. Thus they require a supranational authority presiding over regulation, which is precisely what globalists desire. Global warming was one of the issues "selected" by globalist interests in the 1970's as an ideal vector for these policies. They talk about it plainly in their own writings. Hence if you want to determine who's working (inadvertently or otherwise) as an agent of globalism, look for any ideologue who refuses to entertain any proposed solution to climate change other than "the big three". Also, since the big three are plainly inapplicable to many of the proposed causes of climate change (even among the man-made ones), look for ideologues who insist the specific cause of climate change must be factors that would be curbed by the big three. Look for a degree of certainty inconsistent with the legacy of failure of climate change modeling. Follow the money and the message, and you'll find a few thousand families, organizations, and career politicians at the top. They're the same people who control most of the world's wealth. The same people pushing every globalist initiative in existence that isn't run out of a hippie shack in Colorado. These are who I call "globalists", as well as anyone with an active role in plugging their policies (e.g. Al Gore, clueless politicians who don't know any better, greenwashers, etc.)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 13, 2016 15:11:32 GMT -5
in regards to your last post- who do you think the "globalists" are? i think you and i see them differently. from MY perspective, the globalists are those that view natural resources as "externalities" to their businesses. Firstly, follow the money. Where do the trillions (with a 'T') in funding for climate change science come from? The Big Money boys like Goldman, JP Morgan, the World Bank, the IMF, et al. Corporatist politicians pushing cap and trade. NGOs like the Rockefeller Institute, the Sierra Club, et al. bought and paid for by the 500 families. UN bureaucrats thirsting for more power over control of resources. Second, follow the message. You'll note every last one of the proposed "solutions" requires a concerted, globe-spanning degree of control. In particular, cap and trade, carbon taxes, population control--the three most popular--require every nation on Earth to be on board. Thus they require a supranational authority presiding over regulation, which is precisely what globalists desire. Global warming was one of the issues "selected" by globalist interests in the 1970's as an ideal vector for these policies. They talk about it plainly in their own writings. Hence if you want to determine who's working (inadvertently or otherwise) as an agent of globalism, look for any ideologue who refuses to entertain any proposed solution to climate change other than "the big three". Also, since the big three are plainly inapplicable to many of the proposed causes of climate change (even among the man-made ones), look for ideologues who insist the specific cause of climate change must be factors that would be curbed by the big three. Look for a degree of certainty inconsistent with the legacy of failure of climate change modeling. Follow the money and the message, and you'll find a few thousand families, organizations, and career politicians at the top. They're the same people who control most of the world's wealth. The same people pushing every globalist initiative in existence that isn't run out of a hippie shack in Colorado. These are who I call "globalists", as well as anyone with an active role in plugging their policies (e.g. Al Gore, clueless politicians who don't know any better, greenwashers, etc.) can i ask you to answer this post in less than 20 words? i read through your response, and it seems like you are trying to influence what I think. i can assure you, i already have my own well thought out ideas about this subject, and i don't need your help with them. but thanks, all the same. so, stop with the pointillism and just tell me the image, please.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 13, 2016 18:04:34 GMT -5
Firstly, follow the money. Where do the trillions (with a 'T') in funding for climate change science come from? The Big Money boys like Goldman, JP Morgan, the World Bank, the IMF, et al. Corporatist politicians pushing cap and trade. NGOs like the Rockefeller Institute, the Sierra Club, et al. bought and paid for by the 500 families. UN bureaucrats thirsting for more power over control of resources. Second, follow the message. You'll note every last one of the proposed "solutions" requires a concerted, globe-spanning degree of control. In particular, cap and trade, carbon taxes, population control--the three most popular--require every nation on Earth to be on board. Thus they require a supranational authority presiding over regulation, which is precisely what globalists desire. Global warming was one of the issues "selected" by globalist interests in the 1970's as an ideal vector for these policies. They talk about it plainly in their own writings. Hence if you want to determine who's working (inadvertently or otherwise) as an agent of globalism, look for any ideologue who refuses to entertain any proposed solution to climate change other than "the big three". Also, since the big three are plainly inapplicable to many of the proposed causes of climate change (even among the man-made ones), look for ideologues who insist the specific cause of climate change must be factors that would be curbed by the big three. Look for a degree of certainty inconsistent with the legacy of failure of climate change modeling. Follow the money and the message, and you'll find a few thousand families, organizations, and career politicians at the top. They're the same people who control most of the world's wealth. The same people pushing every globalist initiative in existence that isn't run out of a hippie shack in Colorado. These are who I call "globalists", as well as anyone with an active role in plugging their policies (e.g. Al Gore, clueless politicians who don't know any better, greenwashers, etc.) can i ask you to answer this post in less than 20 words? i read through your response, and it seems like you are trying to influence what I think. i can assure you, i already have my own well thought out ideas about this subject, and i don't need your help with them. but thanks, all the same. so, stop with the pointillism and just tell me the image, please. Just read the bolded.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Dec 13, 2016 18:51:49 GMT -5
If you go against the "beliefs " you're long winded. If you tout the party line, you can blather on forever.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 13, 2016 21:21:18 GMT -5
can i ask you to answer this post in less than 20 words? i read through your response, and it seems like you are trying to influence what I think. i can assure you, i already have my own well thought out ideas about this subject, and i don't need your help with them. but thanks, all the same. so, stop with the pointillism and just tell me the image, please. Just read the bolded. thanks. that was helpful. so you blame politicians? i think you are barking up the wrong tree.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 13, 2016 21:23:30 GMT -5
If you go against the "beliefs " you're long winded. If you tout the party line, you can blather on forever. nah, he is just long winded, period.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 13, 2016 22:47:56 GMT -5
Just read the bolded. thanks. that was helpful. so you blame politicians? i think you are barking up the wrong tree. Sure. Many politicians are complicit. Who brought in carbon taxes here in Ontario? Who banned natural gas for home heating? Who scrapped funding for heavy metal scrubbers in the smokestacks of nickel plants because cleaning carcinogens out of the air doesn't reduce carbon emissions? Politicians. Politicians. Politicians. They might not be the originators, but they're useful pieces on the chess board.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 13, 2016 23:12:04 GMT -5
thanks. that was helpful. so you blame politicians? i think you are barking up the wrong tree. Sure. Many politicians are complicit. Who brought in carbon taxes here in Ontario? Who banned natural gas for home heating? Who scrapped funding for heavy metal scrubbers in the smokestacks of nickel plants because cleaning carcinogens out of the air doesn't reduce carbon emissions? Politicians. Politicians. Politicians. They might not be the originators, but they're useful pieces on the chess board. i'll admit that an army doesn't function without footsoldiers, but i will always be more concerned about the top brass. the fish rots from the head down.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2016 11:45:18 GMT -5
in regards to your last post- who do you think the "globalists" are? i think you and i see them differently. from MY perspective, the globalists are those that view natural resources as "externalities" to their businesses. Firstly, follow the money. Where do the trillions (with a 'T') in funding for climate change science come from? The Big Money boys like Goldman, JP Morgan, the World Bank, the IMF, et al. Corporatist politicians pushing cap and trade. NGOs like the Rockefeller Institute, the Sierra Club, et al. bought and paid for by the 500 families. UN bureaucrats thirsting for more power over control of resources. Second, follow the message. You'll note every last one of the proposed "solutions" requires a concerted, globe-spanning degree of control. In particular, cap and trade, carbon taxes, population control--the three most popular--require every nation on Earth to be on board. Thus they require a supranational authority presiding over regulation, which is precisely what globalists desire. Global warming was one of the issues "selected" by globalist interests in the 1970's as an ideal vector for these policies. They talk about it plainly in their own writings.Hence if you want to determine who's working (inadvertently or otherwise) as an agent of globalism, look for any ideologue who refuses to entertain any proposed solution to climate change other than "the big three". Also, since the big three are plainly inapplicable to many of the proposed causes of climate change (even among the man-made ones), look for ideologues who insist the specific cause of climate change must be factors that would be curbed by the big three. Look for a degree of certainty inconsistent with the legacy of failure of climate change modeling. Follow the money and the message, and you'll find a few thousand families, organizations, and career politicians at the top. They're the same people who control most of the world's wealth. The same people pushing every globalist initiative in existence that isn't run out of a hippie shack in Colorado. These are who I call "globalists", as well as anyone with an active role in plugging their policies (e.g. Al Gore, clueless politicians who don't know any better, greenwashers, etc.) Convincing a bigger room. With the capability/means to do so. Edit; Al Gores "go to guy" for the science, would fail undergraduate physics.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 14, 2016 11:59:05 GMT -5
Firstly, follow the money. Where do the trillions (with a 'T') in funding for climate change science come from? The Big Money boys like Goldman, JP Morgan, the World Bank, the IMF, et al. Corporatist politicians pushing cap and trade. NGOs like the Rockefeller Institute, the Sierra Club, et al. bought and paid for by the 500 families. UN bureaucrats thirsting for more power over control of resources. Second, follow the message. You'll note every last one of the proposed "solutions" requires a concerted, globe-spanning degree of control. In particular, cap and trade, carbon taxes, population control--the three most popular--require every nation on Earth to be on board. Thus they require a supranational authority presiding over regulation, which is precisely what globalists desire. Global warming was one of the issues "selected" by globalist interests in the 1970's as an ideal vector for these policies. They talk about it plainly in their own writings.Hence if you want to determine who's working (inadvertently or otherwise) as an agent of globalism, look for any ideologue who refuses to entertain any proposed solution to climate change other than "the big three". Also, since the big three are plainly inapplicable to many of the proposed causes of climate change (even among the man-made ones), look for ideologues who insist the specific cause of climate change must be factors that would be curbed by the big three. Look for a degree of certainty inconsistent with the legacy of failure of climate change modeling. Follow the money and the message, and you'll find a few thousand families, organizations, and career politicians at the top. They're the same people who control most of the world's wealth. The same people pushing every globalist initiative in existence that isn't run out of a hippie shack in Colorado. These are who I call "globalists", as well as anyone with an active role in plugging their policies (e.g. Al Gore, clueless politicians who don't know any better, greenwashers, etc.) Convincing a bigger room. With the capability/means to do so. Edit; Al Gores "go to guy" for the science, would fail undergraduate physics. are you saying that people that don't have physics degrees, but are concerned about the environment, should be excluded from the debate?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Dec 15, 2016 11:40:28 GMT -5
At least Mountain Standard time 9:36 AM.
Current temperature in Fairbanks AK is -5 degrees.
Current temperature at the South Pole which is going into Summer is -9 degrees.
Yea, always amazes me how we are are having ice melt at below -o degrees!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 15, 2016 13:29:04 GMT -5
Of course AGW is a real thing. This year's effects in the Arctic are more severe than any previous. (They are more extreme in the northern latitudes.) An old friend of mine is a climatologist who studies the effects there and he is flabbergasted by the data. Our shrimp fishery is done. Northern Shrimp no longer can tolerate the warmth of our waters in any sustainable quantity. Our lobster is starting to see the effects of Shellfish Wasting Disease, as it migrates north. Our tick population has exploded, and with it our affliction with Lyme disease. These are a few of the negative effects. One of the positives is that the golf season is, on average, increasing. That is a good thing. Look, I am 56 years old. I personally don't really care, as this has no effect on me. If the world crisps in 100 years it does not effect me. However I think we should possibly heed the wisest words that GW Bush ever spoke, which were on this subject. "Get used to it!". Denying it is just.... not too observant. There are a lot of "levels", you might say. - skepticism that climate is changing.
- skepticism that climate is changing radically
- skepticism that climate is changing radically (and will continue to change) because of human behaviour
- skepticism that climate is changing radically (and will continue to change) because of human behaviour, and that something can and must be done to prevent it
- skepticism that climate is changing radically (and will continue to change) because of human behaviour, that something can and must be done to prevent it, and that the "big three" can accomplish this objective
- skepticism that climate is changing radically (and will continue to change) because of human behaviour, that something can and must be done to prevent it, that the "big three" can accomplish this objective, and that nothing except the big three can accomplish the objective
As for your climatologist friend, while my skepticism definitely falls at a level higher than (2), the OP is clear evidence that even flabbergasting data can be misleading.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 15, 2016 14:55:59 GMT -5
At this point it can't be prevented. Perhaps future change could be mitigated, to what extent is way beyond my knowledge level in this matter, and certainly there us no reason that it MUST be done. It is what it is. The congratulations, you're a category-4 climate change denier. Welcome to the club.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Dec 15, 2016 15:14:56 GMT -5
Global warming end game: CO2 utilization, waste(including sewage) to recycled products and energy.... and the climate still changed! Only now we aren't killing ourselves and our environment with toxins, nor are we wasting money on useless left wing agendas. The bonus? The north and south poles will be free of ice, and we have like, the other half of the worlds land mass where it's been to damn cold to truly live to proceed forward with; while being in balance with our environment. Just my thoughts.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2016 13:50:53 GMT -5
Convincing a bigger room. With the capability/means to do so. Edit; Al Gores "go to guy" for the science, would fail undergraduate physics. are you saying that people that don't have physics degrees, but are concerned about the environment, should be excluded from the debate? The flat earth society also deserves a seat at the debate table.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2016 13:52:44 GMT -5
Of course AGW is a real thing. This year's effects in the Arctic are more severe than any previous. (They are more extreme in the northern latitudes.) An old friend of mine is a climatologist who studies the effects there and he is flabbergasted by the data. Our shrimp fishery is done. Northern Shrimp no longer can tolerate the warmth of our waters in any sustainable quantity. Our lobster is starting to see the effects of Shellfish Wasting Disease, as it migrates north. Our tick population has exploded, and with it our affliction with Lyme disease. These are a few of the negative effects. One of the positives is that the golf season is, on average, increasing. That is a good thing. Look, I am 56 years old. I personally don't really care, as this has no effect on me. If the world crisps in 100 years it does not effect me. However I think we should possibly heed the wisest words that GW Bush ever spoke, which were on this subject. "Get used to it!". Denying it is just.... not too observant. I wish to observe something. Can you tell me your best explanation on what AGW is. A big picture summary will suffice. No weather details needed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2016 16:21:08 GMT -5
AGW is global warming caused by human activity. Specifically the release of CO2 (and maybe other) gases into the atmosphere. How does the CO2 warm the earth? (Please quote me for notification to continue this exchange)
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 16, 2016 16:51:54 GMT -5
AGW is global warming caused by human activity. Specifically the release of CO2 (and maybe other) gases into the atmosphere. How does the CO2 warm the earth? (Please quote me for notification to continue this exchange) You've never seen videos on the greenhouse effect? Photons in the visible light spectrum hit CO 2 molecules, imparting some thermal energy and being released as lower energy (i.e. lower frequency) photons. The lower-energy photons are more easily absorbed by the ground and particles in the upper atmosphere, causing them to "bounce around" (for lack of a better word) while bleeding energy that's ultimately converted into heat. ( ETA: I should also mention that CO 2 absorbs infrared-band photons radiated from the ground, re-emitting them in random directions, and thus "trapping" radiation near the Earth.) Supposedly the effect can be demonstrated experimentally at modest scales, although it's not easy to do properly. The effect was theorized to exist as early as the late 19th Century, by founders of quantum theory like Poincare and Lorentz, no less.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 16, 2016 21:38:21 GMT -5
are you saying that people that don't have physics degrees, but are concerned about the environment, should be excluded from the debate? The flat earth society also deserves a seat at the debate table. they clearly have one. you didn't answer my question. but given the extreme lack of physics degrees among the mentioned group, i will assume the answer is no.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 16, 2016 21:40:24 GMT -5
At least Mountain Standard time 9:36 AM. Current temperature in Fairbanks AK is -5 degrees. Current temperature at the South Pole which is going into Summer is -9 degrees. Yea, always amazes me how we are are having ice melt at below -o degrees! you would need to know the daytime high to know whether ice melts. i live in CA, near the ocean. tomorrow, ice would not melt between 6 and 8AM.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 17, 2016 10:43:25 GMT -5
At least Mountain Standard time 9:36 AM. Current temperature in Fairbanks AK is -5 degrees. Current temperature at the South Pole which is going into Summer is -9 degrees. Yea, always amazes me how we are are having ice melt at below -o degrees! Just like you were amazed the waters around Tahiti were more frigid than around Alaska.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:22:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2016 11:31:59 GMT -5
How does the CO2 warm the earth? (Please quote me for notification to continue this exchange) You've never seen videos on the greenhouse effect? Photons in the visible light spectrum hit CO 2 molecules, imparting some thermal energy and being released as lower energy (i.e. lower frequency) photons. The lower-energy photons are more easily absorbed by the ground and particles in the upper atmosphere, causing them to "bounce around" (for lack of a better word) while bleeding energy that's ultimately converted into heat. ( ETA: I should also mention that CO 2 absorbs infrared-band photons radiated from the ground, re-emitting them in random directions, and thus "trapping" radiation near the Earth.) Supposedly the effect can be demonstrated experimentally at modest scales, although it's not easy to do properly. The effect was theorized to exist as early as the late 19th Century, by founders of quantum theory like Poincare and Lorentz, no less. Any late spectrograph of the earths atmosphere shows the CO2 at energy saturation. At saturation, energy transfer occurs at speed of light. Can you clarify your statement of "trapping" at near earth and parameters of ? Also my current stance, Quote; The central dogma is critically evaluated in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory of the IPCC, claiming the Planck response is 1.2K when CO2 is doubled. The first basis of it is one dimensional model studies with the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5°K/km. It is failed from the lack of the parameter sensitivity analysis of the lapse rate for CO2 doubling. The second basis is the Planck response calculation by Cess in 1976 having a mathematical error. Therefore, the AGW theory is collapsed along with the canonical climate sensitivity of 3°K utilizing the radiative forcing of 3.7W/m2 for CO2 doubling. The surface climate sensitivity is 0.14-0.17K in this study with the surface radiative forcing of 1.1W/m2. - See more at: notrickszone.com/2016/01/08/agw-theory-is-collapsed-japanese-scientist-finds-co2-climate-sensitivity-grandly-overstated-by-factor-of-three/#sthash.CFpiekDw.dpuf And conclusion. Quote; The central dogma of the IPCC is theoretically failed that the zero feedback climate sensitivity (Planck response) is 1.2K for 2xCO2, resulting in the collapse of the AGW theory claiming the canonical climate sensitivity of 3K for CO2 doubling.” - See more at: notrickszone.com/2016/01/08/agw-theory-is-collapsed-japanese-scientist-finds-co2-climate-sensitivity-grandly-overstated-by-factor-of-three/#sthash.CFpiekDw.dpuf
|
|