Exxon/Mobil says that without government action temperatures will raise from 7-10 degrees f. If we can't believe Exxon/Mobil who can we believe? Exxon/Mobils recommendation is a carbon neutral tax.Fossil fuels would be taxed and the revenue would be returned to taxpayers.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 12-07-2015).]
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: What They Haven't Told You About Climate Change
It's almost like Mother Nature doesn't care about your propaganda.
"The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for October 2015 was the highest for October in the 136-year period of record, at 0.98°C (1.76°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F). This marked the sixth consecutive month a monthly global temperature record has been broken and was also the greatest departure from average for any month in the 1630 months of record keeping, surpassing the previous record high departure set just last month by 0.13°F (0.07°C). The October temperature is currently increasing at an average rate of 0.06°C (0.11°F) per decade." Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 12-11-2015).]
We just took a new core sample and the evidences is clear that co2 increases occur ahead of temperature rises.
And the evidence is right here
Sorry the bag was all we had to carry it in. Transportation by bicycle was chosen to avoid a dangerous co2 release. Apparently the influence of co2 on temperature was so powerful it began absorbing thermal radiation and re-radiated back into the bag causing it to melt. We were going to retrieve another sample but The map to the core sample drill site was accidentally left at the drill site and we can't remember how to get there. At least it's bio degradable so no damage to the environment will occur...... Click to show
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 12-13-2015).]
The areas covered by sea ice in the Antarctic have been observed to have some upwards or increasing trends during the last few years.
More sea ice in the Southern Polar region? That seems to run against the reality of global warming, from the perspective of any layperson's intuition. (You are probably more accustomed to seeing "layman" than "layperson"--anyone who does not have a day job using scientific methods to study the Earth and its climate.)
Washington Post science reporter Chris Mooney has been discussing the Antarctic sea ice with some of the climate researchers.
The towering symbols of a fading religion, over 14,000 wind turbines, abandoned, rusting, slowly decaying. When it is time to clean up after a failed idea, no green environmentalists are to be found. Wind was free, natural, harnessing Earth’s bounty for the benefit of all mankind, sounded like a good idea. Wind turbines, like solar panels, break down. They produce less energy before they break down than the energy it took to make them. The wind does not blow all the time, or even most of the time. When it is not blowing, they require full-time backup from conventional power plants.
Without government subsidy, they are unaffordable. With governments facing financial troubles, the subsidies are unaffordable. It was a nice dream, a very expensive dream, but it didn’t work.
California had the “big three” of wind farm locations — Altamont Pass, Tehachapi, and San Gorgonio, considered the world’s best wind sites. California’s wind farms, almost 80% of the world’s wind generation capacity ceased to generate even more quickly than Kamaoa Wind Farm in Hawaii. There are five other abandoned wind farms in Hawaii. When they are abandoned, getting the turbines removed is a major problem. They are highly unsightly, and they are huge, and that’s a lot of material to get rid of.
Unfortunately the same areas that are good for siting wind farms are a natural pass for migrating birds. Altamont’s turbines have been shut down four months out of every year for migrating birds after environmentalists filed suit. According to the Golden Gate Audubon Society 75-110 Golden Eagles, 380 Burrowing Owls, 300 Red-Tailed Hawks and 333 American Kestrels are killed by the turbines every year. An Alameda County Community Development Agency study points to 10,000 annual bird deaths from Altamont wind turbines. The Audubon Society makes up numbers like the EPA, but there’s a reason why they call them bird Cuisinarts.
Palm Springs has enacted an ordinance requiring their removal from San Gorgonio Pass, but unless something else changes abandoned turbines will remain a rotting eyesores, or the taxpayers who have already paid through the nose for overpriced energy and crony-capitalist tax scams will have to foot the bill for their removal.
President Obama’s offshore wind farms will be far more expensive than those sited in California’s ideal wind locations. Salt water is far more damaging than sun and rain, and offshore turbines don’t last as long. But nice tax scams for his crony-capitalist backers will work well as long as he can blame it all on saving the planet.
Have you finished reading it? They talk about aerosols from burning fossil fuels having a cooling effect locally but at the end the conclusion was that the previous estimates were an under estimate and that it will be even warmer. I wish that we could have some good news and if I ever hear some I will be the first one here gleefully reporting it. It's a learning process but we're constantly getting better tools and software. Climate science is really really complex.
I came away feeling like someone had to admit something while negating it's relevance simultaneously. I did catch the mention of the cooling as temporary.
I really think it's time for all industries to pool their money and file a class action to force the EPA /GOV to prove the claims used to legitimize the restrictive regulations that have been imposed over the past 30 years. I really think they will be unable to provide any fact (indisputable) other than a consensus (general agreement) specifically CO2. I'm tired of the rule by mob and misrepresentation system we are under. Nearly every argument presented here has been a rehash of the "chicken or eggs" debate. The climate-alarmist have never seen a legitimate piece evidence to the contrary and The climate-deniers haven't seen any legitimate evidence to support it.
I know what I believe and the test for me has always been simple. bring the evidence down to the table and demonstrate it in real time. I don't need to listen to another explanation of how the model works or someone else's interpretation of the data. It should be demonstrable. I should be able to collect the data myself and analyze it and reach a quick conclusion without having to balance what I have just seen to square with someone else's consensus. This has to be the biggest ball of egos spun into utter ambiguity that any other topic has produced. Take it to court and let the best evidence win.....
Probably the worse expression of the Courts confidence in the data would be
quote
The Supreme Court on Monday took away some of the government's power to tighten emission standards, but preserved the majority of its authority under federal law to regulate greenhouse gases.
Furthermore, The ruling was not based (nor confirmation) on the cause of global warming. instead it was a confirmation of the gases (that are claimed) to be responsible for global warming "are pollutants" and the EPA is has the authority to regulate pollutants.
In a (5 - 4) ruling from The Supreme Court of the Unite States
quote
greenhouse gases blamed for global warming are pollutants
Please note the use of word "blamed" and the lack of the words "cause", "leads to", "contribute" nor any other language linking "greenhouse gases" or "pollutants" to affect global temperature nor does it confirm global warming as an effect.
So despite the fact that this is a SCOTUS ruling and was a test of the EPA's authority, it is not a test of the claim that any of these pollutants are a cause or effect if either. So my little rant above was a suggestion that the claim should stand trail. Allow it to be subject to prosecution with the right of defense and let the evidence persuade our legal system to rule one way or the other. Either way the ruling would most certainly have an Affect of the EPA's Authority and scope...
I wonder if fishing restrictions will be lifted. I'm feeling optimistic for the commercial fishing industry, Maybe time to change the 401k allocation just a bit....
I don't know what the oceans capacity is but it's been recently reported that the estimated take has been under reported by 30-50%. I am pretty sure that unrestricted fish harvesting with todays technology can take more than the ocean can replenish. It would be nice if I were wrong. Fish is my favorite protein source.
Yeah, I was being a bit sarcastic in light of recent stories crediting the oceans absorption of excess heat for generating "the pause" in global warming expectations.....
quote
Greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, continue to be pumped into the atmosphere, but sometime around 1998, the rise in Earth’s average temperatures slowed, deviating from the rates predicted by models. Scientists have proposed that what some call “the pause” could be the result of a number of factors, including heat storage in deep ocean waters to unexpectedly high amounts of aerosols in the stratosphere helping deflect solar rays back into space. Now, a new study suggests that natural cycles in the Pacific Ocean are the culprit.
Whether or not it is true doesn't matter much to me. but if they are actually saying the ocean is absorbing enough to offset the trend, that sounds like they are saying the oceans are at risk of getting warmer. so, sarcasm, the ocean are trending toward longer spawning cycles....
2015 smashed global temp records. Deniers sure to weigh in soon with some utter nonsense. Source.
"cherry picking" data again - the earth is much older then your 1881 and it is known the earth has been much warmer in the past before, so hardly "smashed global temp records" way to embellish the "story" there bub.
"cherry picking" data again - the earth is much older then your 1881 and it is known the earth has been much warmer in the past before, so hardly "smashed global temp records" way to embellish the "story" there bub.
There doubtless were times in the deep geologic past when the earth was much warmer than we saw in 2015.
Before there were enough of the necessary life forms (certain kinds of bacteria; organisms that are photosynthesizing like the potted plant in the foyer) there was a huge abundance of greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane in the earth's atmosphere, and hardly any oxygen.
When there was just one land mass in the center of a global ocean.
When magma came bubbling out of the earth's crust in volcanic eruptions that extended for hundreds of miles and continuously pumped greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for periods of many thousands of years without letup.
Were any of these factors recent enough to affect what is going on today?
Are any of these factors expected to recur during the next thousand years? During the next two or three hundred years?
How would episodes like these, which were many millions of years ago, be relevant to the forecasting horizon of someone who is considering the impacts of man-made global warming? Do we expect our governments and societies to try to cope with the remainder of the current century and the next century, or to cope with what could lie ahead many thousands or millions of years in the planet's future?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-21-2016).]
Originally posted by Tony Kania: If you would approach me with learned regard, and not brandishing disrespect, I would listen to you. But for now, we are at an impartial deafening.
Such a wussy cop out. "I'm not going to address the validity of overwhelming evidence because you hurt my feelings."
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: "cherry picking" data again - the earth is much older then your 1881 and it is known the earth has been much warmer in the past before, so hardly "smashed global temp records" way to embellish the "story" there bub. ]
Here's some of that utter nonsense I was talking about.
How do Deniers defend only relying on the satellite data when uncertainties are 5 times the thermometer data? Simple. It's because satellite data is the coldest running dataset after being adjusted to death. Deniers complain about spatial coverage yet satellite data is adjusted with weather balloons for heaven's sake.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-21-2016).]
There doubtless were times in the deep geologic past when the earth was much warmer than we saw in 2015.
Before there were enough of the necessary life forms (certain kinds of bacteria; organisms that are photosynthesizing like the potted plant in the foyer) there was a huge abundance of greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane in the earth's atmosphere, and hardly any oxygen.
...the dinosaurs were part of that time frame...
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
Here's some of that utter nonsense I was talking about.
Prove me wrong...it is well documented that earth's temperatures (and CO2 levels) have been higher, or are you simply denying this because it doesn't fit your "agenda"? You stated that 2015 is the hottest year on record, and I said you are so full of it and provided a link - so are you now saying that those scientists are all wrong and that 2015 is truly the hot year ever yet? I already know the answer, you are simply going to say it is the hottest since 1881 - but how old is the earth once again, once again we have you limiting the data to the area that is most relevant to your argument???
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
Rather than feed the trolls... how about another dose of reality?
How do Deniers defend only relying on the satellite data when uncertainties are 5 times the thermometer data? Simple. It's because satellite data is the coldest running dataset after being adjusted to death. Deniers complain about spatial coverage yet satellite data is adjusted with weather balloons for heaven's sake.
....like I said, once again limiting said data to fit your agenda...
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 01-21-2016).]
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Prove me wrong.
The problem is you prove yourself wrong. The entire premise of your flawed argument is rooted in such deep ignorance it's funny.
The funny part is these spikes in temperature you claim negate 2015 as the hottest year in the thermometer era are directly associated with massive extinction events.
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: ...the dinosaurs were part of that time frame...
And..?
Do you think that modern humans would thrive if the climate were to shift over the next 150 or 200 years to repeat some of the warmest global climates that occurred during the roughly 135 million year period when there were dinosaurs? Should "we" look forward to that, instead of doing what looks to be possible to avoid it?
Have you considered the magnitude of the evolutionary changes that occurred during the 135 million years of dinosaurs? Are you aware of how many different dinosaur species appeared and then vanished as the planet's climate oscillated through very warm and very cold cycles during this 135 million year period? Are you aware of the dissimilarities that are inherent in comparing the 135 million year lineage of the dinosaurs to the roughly 100,000 year lineage of modern humans? That is like comparing 1350 to 1.
Why are you seeming to be trying to draw a comparison that is the equivalent of apples to oranges asteroids?
I don't think that you are really thinking it through (to use that idiom), when it comes to the topics that are being discussed here.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-22-2016).]
Originally posted by Tony Kania: Like excluding data? Only using facts, in which you often post, that are limited in scope?
Such a toothless claim without examples and rationale. But let's face it you're not equipped for that kind of discussion.
The irony of such a claim is overwelming considering your claim is the primary tactic used by Deniers. You only had to go back one page to find a superb example of a Denier using cherry picked data to get a manipulated result.
quote
Originally posted by Tony Kania: Make me believe.
It's not my job to keep you from being an ignorant fool. That's your job. So get to work.
Over the next few days and weeks you will hear lots and lots of stories about how 2015 was the “Hottest Year Evah”.
Every time you do so, reach for your Browning. Whoever makes this claim will be an idiot, a liar, a charlatan – or, in the case of many establishment climate scientists, most likely all three.
I’ll explain why in a moment. But first, meet the morons:
Peter Hannam, Environment Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald
At some point, you would think most climate change deniers would throw in the towel.
Fifteen of the 16 hottest years on record have happened this century and the other year wasn’t much earlier, in 1998. And 2015 was a breakaway year.
Joe Rottweiler, George Soros’s pet Romm
We just lived in the hottest year on record
Some guy in the National Journal
Global temperatures in 2015 were the warmest since record-keeping began—and it wasn’t even close.
This other guy in the New York Times
Scientists reported Wednesday that 2015 was the hottest year in the historical record by far, breaking a mark set only the year before — a burst of heat that has continued into the new year and is roiling weather patterns all over the world.
Damian Carrington of the Guardian
Experts warn that global warming is tipping climate into ‘uncharted territory’, as Met Office, Nasa and Noaa data all confirm record global temperatures for second year running
Bob zzzzzzz Ward, Grantham shill; writer of long letters about climate change so boring you can’t fini
This [record heat] should put pressure on governments to urgently implement their commitments to act against climate change, and to increase their planned cuts of greenhouse gases. The warming is already affecting the climate around the world, including dangerous shifts in extreme weather events. Those who claim that climate change is either not happening, or is not dangerous, have been conclusively proven wrong by the meteorological evidence around the world.”
Etc
Here is why they’re all talking rubbish and you needn’t worry about that “Hottest Year Evah” one bit.
1. The satellite data show no warming
2016-01-20-13-31-07
Compare the two trends (right): the upward one comes from the surface temperature dataset used by NASA GISS (and NOAA and the Met Office – they’re all pretty much interchangeable); the flat trend comes from the more accurate satellite data. Which one do you trust?
2. NASA has fiddled the raw temperature data on an ‘unbelievable scale’
From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.
3. NOAA is just as bad
Whether this represents mere incompetence or calculated fraud by NOAA is for future courts to decide. What we do know is that the problem dates back at least to the 1990s when, for some unexplained reason, NOAA decided to halve the number of weather stations used for its official records. Even more mysteriously, the ones it chose to keep tended to show more global warming while the ones it rejected tended to show much less.
4. According to the satellites it was only the third warmest year (since 1979)
image_thumb39
image_thumb40
As you can see 1998 was hotter; so was 2010. And that’s just in the years since satellite records began in 1979. The planet has been hotter than this many times before, most recently during the Medieval Warming Period.
5. The claim is meaningless anyway
Here’s how Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, puts it:
“I urge you when looking at a graph, check the scales! The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree.”
“When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree.”
“And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made. If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree.”
Originally posted by avengador1: Over the next few days and weeks you will hear lots and lots of stories about how 2015 was the “Hottest Year Evah”.
Every time you do so, reach for your Browning.
Breitbart encouraging politically motivated violence. How classy.
Climate Deniers: The New Religion of ‘Peace’
quote
Originally posted by avengador1: 1. The satellite data show no warming
Number 4 on this list says it was the 3rd hottest year according to the satellite record which is the coldest running dataset with 5 times the uncertainty of the thermometer record.
Talk about double speak.
quote
Originally posted by avengador1: 2. NASA has fiddled the raw temperature data on an ‘unbelievable scale’
It strikes me as very strange for Deniers to claim adjustments make thermometer data invalid yet satellite data is adjusted more than thermometer data.
quote
Originally posted by avengador1: 3. NOAA is just as bad
Yet the satellite is 5 times worse. The only reason they don’t care is because it’s the coldest dataset out there. How scientific.
quote
Originally posted by avengador1: 4. According to the satellites it was only the third warmest year (since 1979)
Wait I thought there was no warming?
quote
Originally posted by avengador1: 5. The claim is meaningless anyway
Then why write this article making similar claims?
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-23-2016).]
