Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
NCCommish

The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism

Recommended Posts

While I know this is pretty much pointless in this thread, here goes:

Pauses are part of natural climate variability, and their existence does not refute long-term climate change trends.[6][7] Also, other means of measuring climate change exist besides global mean surface temperatures, such as sea level rise, which has not stopped in recent years,[8] as well as continuing record high temperatures and Arctic sea ice decline.[9][10] Short term hiatus periods of global warming are compatible with long-term climate change patterns.

Yep. I really wish the Jim11s and Dr Js and jon mxs of the world were right about this. Sadly they're not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I know this is pretty much pointless in this thread, here goes:

Pauses are part of natural climate variability, and their existence does not refute long-term climate change trends.[6][7] Also, other means of measuring climate change exist besides global mean surface temperatures, such as sea level rise, which has not stopped in recent years,[8] as well as continuing record high temperatures and Arctic sea ice decline.[9][10] Short term hiatus periods of global warming are compatible with long-term climate change patterns.

Yep. I really wish the Jim11s and Dr Js and jon mxs of the world were right about this. Sadly they're not.

For a long time I just chalked it up to climate "variation". Now we're warming, we'll cool again later. But reading up on it, I just can't dispute the science. I know they'll jump in and say it's all rigged, etc, but that is just not possible, IMO. Not with the number of people involved, papers being published, etc. 52 "reasons" is just the scientific process doing what it does, not a "bad thing". The correct explanations will rise to the top, the incorrect ones will be weeded out by science.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I know this is pretty much pointless in this thread, here goes:

Pauses are part of natural climate variability, and their existence does not refute long-term climate change trends.[6][7] Also, other means of measuring climate change exist besides global mean surface temperatures, such as sea level rise, which has not stopped in recent years,[8] as well as continuing record high temperatures and Arctic sea ice decline.[9][10] Short term hiatus periods of global warming are compatible with long-term climate change patterns.

Yep. I really wish the Jim11s and Dr Js and jon mxs of the world were right about this. Sadly they're not.

For a long time I just chalked it up to climate "variation". Now we're warming, we'll cool again later. But reading up on it, I just can't dispute the science. I know they'll jump in and say it's all rigged, etc, but that is just not possible, IMO. Not with the number of people involved, papers being published, etc. 52 "reasons" is just the scientific process doing what it does, not a "bad thing". The correct explanations will rise to the top, the incorrect ones will be weeded out by science.

It's not rigged. It is, however, painfully obvious that even the best in the field don't have a handle on the basic variables that affect our climate system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I know this is pretty much pointless in this thread, here goes:

Pauses are part of natural climate variability, and their existence does not refute long-term climate change trends.[6][7] Also, other means of measuring climate change exist besides global mean surface temperatures, such as sea level rise, which has not stopped in recent years,[8] as well as continuing record high temperatures and Arctic sea ice decline.[9][10] Short term hiatus periods of global warming are compatible with long-term climate change patterns.

Yep. I really wish the Jim11s and Dr Js and jon mxs of the world were right about this. Sadly they're not.

Maybe. Wasn't it supposed to be dwindling?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-14/record-coverage-of-antarctic-sea-ice/5742668

Scientists say the extent of Antarctic sea ice cover is at its highest level since records began.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I know this is pretty much pointless in this thread, here goes:

Pauses are part of natural climate variability, and their existence does not refute long-term climate change trends.[6][7] Also, other means of measuring climate change exist besides global mean surface temperatures, such as sea level rise, which has not stopped in recent years,[8] as well as continuing record high temperatures and Arctic sea ice decline.[9][10] Short term hiatus periods of global warming are compatible with long-term climate change patterns.

Yep. I really wish the Jim11s and Dr Js and jon mxs of the world were right about this. Sadly they're not.

Maybe. Wasn't it supposed to be dwindling?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-14/record-coverage-of-antarctic-sea-ice/5742668

Scientists say the extent of Antarctic sea ice cover is at its highest level since records began.

Not according to you article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I know this is pretty much pointless in this thread, here goes:

Pauses are part of natural climate variability, and their existence does not refute long-term climate change trends.[6][7] Also, other means of measuring climate change exist besides global mean surface temperatures, such as sea level rise, which has not stopped in recent years,[8] as well as continuing record high temperatures and Arctic sea ice decline.[9][10] Short term hiatus periods of global warming are compatible with long-term climate change patterns.

Yep. I really wish the Jim11s and Dr Js and jon mxs of the world were right about this. Sadly they're not.

Maybe. Wasn't it supposed to be dwindling?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-14/record-coverage-of-antarctic-sea-ice/5742668

Scientists say the extent of Antarctic sea ice cover is at its highest level since records began.

Not according to you article.

love this comment from the article

icyduggie2

10:11 PM on 15/09/2014

Does this mean that it will eventually get so hot that all the oceans will freeze?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I know this is pretty much pointless in this thread, here goes:

Pauses are part of natural climate variability, and their existence does not refute long-term climate change trends.[6][7] Also, other means of measuring climate change exist besides global mean surface temperatures, such as sea level rise, which has not stopped in recent years,[8] as well as continuing record high temperatures and Arctic sea ice decline.[9][10] Short term hiatus periods of global warming are compatible with long-term climate change patterns.

Absolutely true. I just wish real scientists would be as skeptical about short term trends that support their views. As an example, see site 8 in that quote. So 14 years of little warming doesn't mean anything. But the most recent 17 years showing an increase in sea level change from a 0.067-inch-per-year average rate to 0.125 means:

Sea levels are going up "like gangbusters," Willis said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I know this is pretty much pointless in this thread, here goes:

Pauses are part of natural climate variability, and their existence does not refute long-term climate change trends.[6][7] Also, other means of measuring climate change exist besides global mean surface temperatures, such as sea level rise, which has not stopped in recent years,[8] as well as continuing record high temperatures and Arctic sea ice decline.[9][10] Short term hiatus periods of global warming are compatible with long-term climate change patterns.

Absolutely true. I just wish real scientists would be as skeptical about short term trends that support their views. As an example, see site 8 in that quote. So 14 years of little warming doesn't mean anything. But the most recent 17 years showing an increase in sea level change from a 0.067-inch-per-year average rate to 0.125 means:

Sea levels are going up "like gangbusters," Willis said.

We have been in a warming trend for 13,000 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I know this is pretty much pointless in this thread, here goes:

Pauses are part of natural climate variability, and their existence does not refute long-term climate change trends.[6][7] Also, other means of measuring climate change exist besides global mean surface temperatures, such as sea level rise, which has not stopped in recent years,[8] as well as continuing record high temperatures and Arctic sea ice decline.[9][10] Short term hiatus periods of global warming are compatible with long-term climate change patterns.

Absolutely true. I just wish real scientists would be as skeptical about short term trends that support their views. As an example, see site 8 in that quote. So 14 years of little warming doesn't mean anything. But the most recent 17 years showing an increase in sea level change from a 0.067-inch-per-year average rate to 0.125 means:

Sea levels are going up "like gangbusters," Willis said.

We have been in a warming trend for 13,000 years.

Coming out of an ice age? No way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I know this is pretty much pointless in this thread, here goes:

Pauses are part of natural climate variability, and their existence does not refute long-term climate change trends.[6][7] Also, other means of measuring climate change exist besides global mean surface temperatures, such as sea level rise, which has not stopped in recent years,[8] as well as continuing record high temperatures and Arctic sea ice decline.[9][10] Short term hiatus periods of global warming are compatible with long-term climate change patterns.

Absolutely true. I just wish real scientists would be as skeptical about short term trends that support their views. As an example, see site 8 in that quote. So 14 years of little warming doesn't mean anything. But the most recent 17 years showing an increase in sea level change from a 0.067-inch-per-year average rate to 0.125 means:

Sea levels are going up "like gangbusters," Willis said.

We have been in a warming trend for 13,000 years.

Coming out of an ice age? No way

Yes way. And we have had a series of ups and downs ever since. But somehow the so-called scientist want to sell us on the earth's climate as stable and blame all movement on man. There is merit to their theory, but they grossly oversell their confidence level in what they attribute to man. There is still a lot of variability that they struggle to explain. It is a new explanation every time which only establishes there is still a lot which is not understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I know this is pretty much pointless in this thread, here goes:

Pauses are part of natural climate variability, and their existence does not refute long-term climate change trends.[6][7] Also, other means of measuring climate change exist besides global mean surface temperatures, such as sea level rise, which has not stopped in recent years,[8] as well as continuing record high temperatures and Arctic sea ice decline.[9][10] Short term hiatus periods of global warming are compatible with long-term climate change patterns.

Absolutely true. I just wish real scientists would be as skeptical about short term trends that support their views. As an example, see site 8 in that quote. So 14 years of little warming doesn't mean anything. But the most recent 17 years showing an increase in sea level change from a 0.067-inch-per-year average rate to 0.125 means:

Sea levels are going up "like gangbusters," Willis said.

or this:

Study finds global sea levels rose up to 5 meters per century at the end of the last 5 ice ages

post-glacial_sea_level-incl-3-mm-yr-1-trFrom the University of Southampton

Land-ice decay at the end of the last five ice-ages caused global sea-levels to rise at rates of up to 5.5 metres per century, according to a new study.

An international team of researchers developed a 500,000-year record of sea-level variability, to provide the first account of how quickly sea-level changed during the last five ice-age cycles.

The results, published in the latest issue of Nature Communications, also found that more than 100 smaller events of sea-level rise took place in between the five major events.

Dr Katharine Grant, from the Australian National University (ANU), Canberra, who led the study, says: “The really fast rates of sea-level rise typically seem to have happened at the end of periods with exceptionally large ice sheets, when there was two or more times more ice on the Earth than today.

“Time periods with less than twice the modern global ice volume show almost no indications of sea-level rise faster than about 2 metres per century. Those with close to the modern amount of ice on Earth, show rates of up to 1 to 1.5 metres per century.”

Co-author Professor Eelco Rohling, of both the University of Southampton and ANU, explains that the study also sheds light on the timescales of change. He says: “For the first time, we have data from a sufficiently large set of events to systematically study the timescale over which ice-sheet responses developed from initial change to maximum retreat.”

“This happened within 400 years for 68 per cent of all 120 cases considered, and within 1100 years for 95 per cent. In other words, once triggered, ice-sheet reduction (and therefore sea-level rise) kept accelerating relentlessly over periods of many centuries.”

Professor Rohling speculates that there may be an important lesson for our future: “Man-made warming spans 150 years already and studies have documented clear increases in mass-loss from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. Once under way, this response may be irreversible for many centuries to come.”

The team reconstructed sea-levels using data from sediment cores from the Red Sea, an area that is very sensitive to sea-level changes because it’s only natural connection with the open (Indian) ocean is through the very shallow (137 metre) Bab-el-Mandab Strait. These sediment samples record wind-blown dust variations, which the team linked to a well-dated climate record from Chinese stalagmites. Due to a common process, both dust and stalagmite records show a pronounced change at the end of each ice age, which allowed the team to date the sea-level record in detail.

The researchers emphasise that their values for sea-level change are 500-year averages, so brief pulses of faster change cannot be excluded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I know this is pretty much pointless in this thread, here goes:

Pauses are part of natural climate variability, and their existence does not refute long-term climate change trends.[6][7] Also, other means of measuring climate change exist besides global mean surface temperatures, such as sea level rise, which has not stopped in recent years,[8] as well as continuing record high temperatures and Arctic sea ice decline.[9][10] Short term hiatus periods of global warming are compatible with long-term climate change patterns.

Absolutely true. I just wish real scientists would be as skeptical about short term trends that support their views. As an example, see site 8 in that quote. So 14 years of little warming doesn't mean anything. But the most recent 17 years showing an increase in sea level change from a 0.067-inch-per-year average rate to 0.125 means:

Sea levels are going up "like gangbusters," Willis said.

We have been in a warming trend for 13,000 years.

Coming out of an ice age? No way
Yes way. And we have had a series of ups and downs ever since. But somehow the so-called scientist want to sell us on the earth's climate as stable and blame all movement on man. There is merit to their theory, but they grossly oversell their confidence level in what they attribute to man. There is still a lot of variability that they struggle to explain. It is a new explanation every time which only establishes there is still a lot which is not understood.
The Earth isn't able to absorb the extra CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I know this is pretty much pointless in this thread, here goes:

Pauses are part of natural climate variability, and their existence does not refute long-term climate change trends.[6][7] Also, other means of measuring climate change exist besides global mean surface temperatures, such as sea level rise, which has not stopped in recent years,[8] as well as continuing record high temperatures and Arctic sea ice decline.[9][10] Short term hiatus periods of global warming are compatible with long-term climate change patterns.

Absolutely true. I just wish real scientists would be as skeptical about short term trends that support their views. As an example, see site 8 in that quote. So 14 years of little warming doesn't mean anything. But the most recent 17 years showing an increase in sea level change from a 0.067-inch-per-year average rate to 0.125 means:

Sea levels are going up "like gangbusters," Willis said.

We have been in a warming trend for 13,000 years.

Coming out of an ice age? No way
Yes way. And we have had a series of ups and downs ever since. But somehow the so-called scientist want to sell us on the earth's climate as stable and blame all movement on man. There is merit to their theory, but they grossly oversell their confidence level in what they attribute to man. There is still a lot of variability that they struggle to explain. It is a new explanation every time which only establishes there is still a lot which is not understood.
The Earth isn't able to absorb the extra CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere.

And? We still don't know what the impact will be. Perhaps it will lead to more cloud coverage and provide a cooling to help offset potential warming. Besides, if you really want to get rid of CO2 in the atmosphere, why not just open the Ozone hole back up by pumping aerosols?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I know this is pretty much pointless in this thread, here goes:

Pauses are part of natural climate variability, and their existence does not refute long-term climate change trends.[6][7] Also, other means of measuring climate change exist besides global mean surface temperatures, such as sea level rise, which has not stopped in recent years,[8] as well as continuing record high temperatures and Arctic sea ice decline.[9][10] Short term hiatus periods of global warming are compatible with long-term climate change patterns.

Absolutely true. I just wish real scientists would be as skeptical about short term trends that support their views. As an example, see site 8 in that quote. So 14 years of little warming doesn't mean anything. But the most recent 17 years showing an increase in sea level change from a 0.067-inch-per-year average rate to 0.125 means:

Sea levels are going up "like gangbusters," Willis said.

We have been in a warming trend for 13,000 years.

Coming out of an ice age? No way

Yes way. And we have had a series of ups and downs ever since. But somehow the so-called scientist want to sell us on the earth's climate as stable and blame all movement on man. There is merit to their theory, but they grossly oversell their confidence level in what they attribute to man. There is still a lot of variability that they struggle to explain. It is a new explanation every time which only establishes there is still a lot which is not understood.

This is pretty much gross misinterpretation of how science works in order to say, well they can't be right because they have a number of ideas why things are working the way they are working. Here's those "so-called" scientists:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I know this is pretty much pointless in this thread, here goes:

Pauses are part of natural climate variability, and their existence does not refute long-term climate change trends.[6][7] Also, other means of measuring climate change exist besides global mean surface temperatures, such as sea level rise, which has not stopped in recent years,[8] as well as continuing record high temperatures and Arctic sea ice decline.[9][10] Short term hiatus periods of global warming are compatible with long-term climate change patterns.

Absolutely true. I just wish real scientists would be as skeptical about short term trends that support their views. As an example, see site 8 in that quote. So 14 years of little warming doesn't mean anything. But the most recent 17 years showing an increase in sea level change from a 0.067-inch-per-year average rate to 0.125 means:

Sea levels are going up "like gangbusters," Willis said.

We have been in a warming trend for 13,000 years.

Coming out of an ice age? No way
Yes way. And we have had a series of ups and downs ever since. But somehow the so-called scientist want to sell us on the earth's climate as stable and blame all movement on man. There is merit to their theory, but they grossly oversell their confidence level in what they attribute to man. There is still a lot of variability that they struggle to explain. It is a new explanation every time which only establishes there is still a lot which is not understood.
The Earth isn't able to absorb the extra CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere.

And? We still don't know what the impact will be. Perhaps it will lead to more cloud coverage and provide a cooling to help offset potential warming. Besides, if you really want to get rid of CO2 in the atmosphere, why not just open the Ozone hole back up by pumping aerosols?

Actually we have a very good idea what the impact will be - warming. That's how CO2 in the atmosphere work. The Ozone hole is a pretty bad joke (and for your sake I hope it was a joke attempt).

Edited by Maelstrom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty much gross misinterpretation of how science works in order to say, well they can't be right because they have a number of ideas why things are working the way they are working. Here's those "so-called" scientists:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Not as impressive as all of those petitions signed mostly by physicians, meteorologists, and engineers claiming that the jury is still out on smoking, on creation science, on climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty much gross misinterpretation of how science works in order to say, well they can't be right because they have a number of ideas why things are working the way they are working. Here's those "so-called" scientists:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Not as impressive as all of those petitions signed mostly by physicians, meteorologists, and engineers claiming that the jury is still out on smoking, on creation science, on climate change.

Excellent point. I read a book on this subject- it's remarkable how similar the global warming deniers are to the smoking causes cancer deniers of the 60s and 70s- from the pseudo scientists, to the corporations that funded them, to the political conservatives who buy into it, to the EXACT SAME WAY that they argue that the jury is still out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually we have a very good idea what the impact will be - warming. That's how CO2 in the atmosphere work. The Ozone hole is a pretty bad joke (and for your sake I hope it was a joke attempt).

Not exactly. The pure warming due to the CO2 assuming the Earth is a black body is some very basic physics. But that only accounts for about a third of the warming being predicted. The rest is using many different feedback mechanisms with varying levels of understanding. And the rate of warming is extremely important in determining the best course of action to take unless you have an (IMO naive) view that our changing nature is simply wrong.

Edited by Mello

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty much gross misinterpretation of how science works in order to say, well they can't be right because they have a number of ideas why things are working the way they are working. Here's those "so-called" scientists:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Not as impressive as all of those petitions signed mostly by physicians, meteorologists, and engineers claiming that the jury is still out on smoking, on creation science, on climate change.

Excellent point. I read a book on this subject- it's remarkable how similar the global warming deniers are to the smoking causes cancer deniers of the 60s and 70s- from the pseudo scientists, to the corporations that funded them, to the political conservatives who buy into it, to the EXACT SAME WAY that they argue that the jury is still out.

What is it going to take for you to realize that conservatives are just wrong on most of the major issues?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty much gross misinterpretation of how science works in order to say, well they can't be right because they have a number of ideas why things are working the way they are working. Here's those "so-called" scientists:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Not as impressive as all of those petitions signed mostly by physicians, meteorologists, and engineers claiming that the jury is still out on smoking, on creation science, on climate change.

Excellent point. I read a book on this subject- it's remarkable how similar the global warming deniers are to the smoking causes cancer deniers of the 60s and 70s- from the pseudo scientists, to the corporations that funded them, to the political conservatives who buy into it, to the EXACT SAME WAY that they argue that the jury is still out.

What is it going to take for you to realize that conservatives are just wrong on most of the major issues?

How come you refuse to consider nuclear energy as the most logical alternative to fossil fuels? (By you, I mean progressives in general; I don't know what your specific opinion is on this.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty much gross misinterpretation of how science works in order to say, well they can't be right because they have a number of ideas why things are working the way they are working. Here's those "so-called" scientists:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Not as impressive as all of those petitions signed mostly by physicians, meteorologists, and engineers claiming that the jury is still out on smoking, on creation science, on climate change.

Excellent point. I read a book on this subject- it's remarkable how similar the global warming deniers are to the smoking causes cancer deniers of the 60s and 70s- from the pseudo scientists, to the corporations that funded them, to the political conservatives who buy into it, to the EXACT SAME WAY that they argue that the jury is still out.

Don't you find it a bit interesting that those who make very good living by applying the knowledge gained from science are those front and center denying science?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty much gross misinterpretation of how science works in order to say, well they can't be right because they have a number of ideas why things are working the way they are working. Here's those "so-called" scientists:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Not as impressive as all of those petitions signed mostly by physicians, meteorologists, and engineers claiming that the jury is still out on smoking, on creation science, on climate change.

Excellent point. I read a book on this subject- it's remarkable how similar the global warming deniers are to the smoking causes cancer deniers of the 60s and 70s- from the pseudo scientists, to the corporations that funded them, to the political conservatives who buy into it, to the EXACT SAME WAY that they argue that the jury is still out.

Don't you find it a bit interesting that those who make very good living by applying the knowledge gained from science are those front and center denying science?

I may be dense but I'm not quite getting you here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come you refuse to consider nuclear energy as the most logical alternative to fossil fuels? (By you, I mean progressives in general; I don't know what your specific opinion is on this.)

Because despite a brief resurgence in investor interest when a few plants were re-licensed for an additional twenty years after their planned shut down dates, the market has once again rejected nuclear power despite the government creating more and more incentives the past twenty years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty much gross misinterpretation of how science works in order to say, well they can't be right because they have a number of ideas why things are working the way they are working. Here's those "so-called" scientists:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Not as impressive as all of those petitions signed mostly by physicians, meteorologists, and engineers claiming that the jury is still out on smoking, on creation science, on climate change.

Excellent point. I read a book on this subject- it's remarkable how similar the global warming deniers are to the smoking causes cancer deniers of the 60s and 70s- from the pseudo scientists, to the corporations that funded them, to the political conservatives who buy into it, to the EXACT SAME WAY that they argue that the jury is still out.

Don't you find it a bit interesting that those who make very good living by applying the knowledge gained from science are those front and center denying science?

I may be dense but I'm not quite getting you here.

Who are the "scientists" that sign the denier petitions? (Hint: I listed them.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come you refuse to consider nuclear energy as the most logical alternative to fossil fuels? (By you, I mean progressives in general; I don't know what your specific opinion is on this.)

Because despite a brief resurgence in investor interest when a few plants were re-licensed for an additional twenty years after their planned shut down dates, the market has once again rejected nuclear power despite the government creating more and more incentives the past twenty years.

If we have to rely on the market, we're going to be stuck with oil, coal, and natural gas. Any movement away from fossil fuels is going to require government investment, not just incentives. Nuclear energy is viable. So far, wind and solar are not. Yet progressives are consistently against nuclear and in favor of wind and solar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come you refuse to consider nuclear energy as the most logical alternative to fossil fuels? (By you, I mean progressives in general; I don't know what your specific opinion is on this.)

Because despite a brief resurgence in investor interest when a few plants were re-licensed for an additional twenty years after their planned shut down dates, the market has once again rejected nuclear power despite the government creating more and more incentives the past twenty years.

If we have to rely on the market, we're going to be stuck with oil, coal, and natural gas. Any movement away from fossil fuels is going to require government investment, not just incentives. Nuclear energy is viable. So far, wind and solar are not. Yet progressives are consistently against nuclear and in favor of wind and solar.

I consider myself a rational, not progressive or conservative, and I'm all for some nuclear. I think Solar will eventually be the way to go, a distributed grid is a pretty cool goal, but it's not quite there yet (although getting cheaper all the time). I'd love to see nuclear viability extended another 20-30 years, or more, particularly if they can find cleaner and more efficient ways of using nuclear power and reducing the waste product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How come you refuse to consider nuclear energy as the most logical alternative to fossil fuels? (By you, I mean progressives in general; I don't know what your specific opinion is on this.)

Because despite a brief resurgence in investor interest when a few plants were re-licensed for an additional twenty years after their planned shut down dates, the market has once again rejected nuclear power despite the government creating more and more incentives the past twenty years.

If we have to rely on the market, we're going to be stuck with oil, coal, and natural gas. Any movement away from fossil fuels is going to require government investment, not just incentives. Nuclear energy is viable. So far, wind and solar are not. Yet progressives are consistently against nuclear and in favor of wind and solar.

No nuclear plant anywhere in the world has ever been built without government investment. And in the US they were all built while the liberals at their peak of power. The conservative revolution equaled bailing on half done construction projects all over the country. Sorry, the tree huggers are not the culprit for the disinterest in building new nuclear plants. Neither is the government.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody got the memo?

It is now "Global Disruption".

Hey....if the govt. would throw BILLIONS of dollars at me to study Bigfoot....that big, hairy, mother####er would not only exist....he'd ride a skateboard, drink latte, and eat vegan.

Whatever it took to keep that money rolling in....I'd PROVE that he exists......and the debate would be over!

I would give definitive dates on which he was to show up.

When he failed to show....I'd have a reason for it and change the date....again and again.

I may have to change his name every now and then just to keep everyone engaged....but he WILL exist!

Of course, all of my data may have to be "tweaked" in favor of proving Bigfoot exists and be completely made up of computer models....but there would be no debating the point because if I admit there is no Bigfoot....the money stops..

case closed.

Edited by Varmint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody got the memo?

It is now "Global Disruption".

Hey....if the govt. would throw BILLIONS of dollars at me to study Bigfoot....that big, hairy, mother####er would not only exist....he'd ride a skateboard, drink latte, and eat vegan.

Whatever it took to keep that money rolling in....I'd PROVE that he exists......and the debate would be over!

I would give definitive dates on which he was to show up.

When he failed to show....I'd have a reason for it and change the date....again and again.

I may have to change his name every now and then just to keep everyone engaged....but he WILL exist!

Of course, all of my data may have to be "tweaked" in favor of proving Bigfoot exists and be completely made up of computer models....but there would be no debating the point because if I admit there is no Bigfoot....the money stops..

case closed.

Be honest. What is the highest level science course you completed? 6th grade?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody got the memo?

It is now "Global Disruption".

Hey....if the govt. would throw BILLIONS of dollars at me to study Bigfoot....that big, hairy, mother####er would not only exist....he'd ride a skateboard, drink latte, and eat vegan.

Whatever it took to keep that money rolling in....I'd PROVE that he exists......and the debate would be over!

I would give definitive dates on which he was to show up.

When he failed to show....I'd have a reason for it and change the date....again and again.

I may have to change his name every now and then just to keep everyone engaged....but he WILL exist!

Of course, all of my data may have to be "tweaked" in favor of proving Bigfoot exists and be completely made up of computer models....but there would be no debating the point because if I admit there is no Bigfoot....the money stops..

case closed.

Be honest. What is the highest level science course you completed? 6th grade?

He said case closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I know this is pretty much pointless in this thread, here goes:

Pauses are part of natural climate variability, and their existence does not refute long-term climate change trends.[6][7] Also, other means of measuring climate change exist besides global mean surface temperatures, such as sea level rise, which has not stopped in recent years,[8] as well as continuing record high temperatures and Arctic sea ice decline.[9][10] Short term hiatus periods of global warming are compatible with long-term climate change patterns.

Absolutely true. I just wish real scientists would be as skeptical about short term trends that support their views. As an example, see site 8 in that quote. So 14 years of little warming doesn't mean anything. But the most recent 17 years showing an increase in sea level change from a 0.067-inch-per-year average rate to 0.125 means:

Sea levels are going up "like gangbusters," Willis said.

We have been in a warming trend for 13,000 years.

Coming out of an ice age? No way
Yes way. And we have had a series of ups and downs ever since. But somehow the so-called scientist want to sell us on the earth's climate as stable and blame all movement on man. There is merit to their theory, but they grossly oversell their confidence level in what they attribute to man. There is still a lot of variability that they struggle to explain. It is a new explanation every time which only establishes there is still a lot which is not understood.
The Earth isn't able to absorb the extra CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere.

And? We still don't know what the impact will be. Perhaps it will lead to more cloud coverage and provide a cooling to help offset potential warming. Besides, if you really want to get rid of CO2 in the atmosphere, why not just open the Ozone hole back up by pumping aerosols?

Actually we have a very good idea what the impact will be - warming. That's how CO2 in the atmosphere work. The Ozone hole is a pretty bad joke (and for your sake I hope it was a joke attempt).

Our atmosphere and impacts on global climate are not that simplistic, especially with the complete lack of understanding of how the resulting increase in cloud cover will feedback into the equation. For a long time it was assumed cloud cover would amplify the warming, but it really depends on the types of clouds and altitude, they could potentially offset the impact of greenhouse gases. And yes the science says, even according to the IPCC, that the closing of the Ozone hole was a contributer to the warming trend. If warming is the ultimate environmental concern, opening up the Ozone hole is a known solution. It would be a radical act, but it would work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know enough to know when a sham is a sham

Go ahead Dr. Science....show me ONE BIT of evidence of global warming, climate change, global cooling, global disruption that is not a computer model....or a pic of a polar bear.

Besides....Bigfoot exists!!

The science has been settled!!

now....send me my money.

Edited by Varmint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know enough to know when a sham is a sham

Go ahead Dr. Science....show me ONE BIT of evidence of global warming, climate change, global cooling, global disruption that is not a computer model....or a pic of a polar bear.

Besides....Bigfoot exists!!

The science has been settled!!

now....send me my money.

Just so sad.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.


It IS sad.



It's sad that people can believe anything....without a shred of evidence...simply because they want to believe.



18yr old Seniors in high school have not experienced a single day of "global warming" yet, they've been brainwashed since birth that it exists.



Hook, line, and sinker....we need more expensive light bulbs!!


Why?


Well...besides the fact that GE wants to make more money.....we can save the environment!!


Oh...but you'll need to call a hazmat team if you break one.



Is the climate changing?


Absolutely



Has it been changing since the Earth's conception?


Absolutely



Will it continue to change in ways we have NO idea about?


Absolutely



Are we the cause of it?


Doubtful



Can we do anything to make it "optimal"


What is "optimal"?


What temperature SHOULD it be?


If we've screwed it up, someone should be able to tell us what the temperature SHOULD be.....right?



I wonder how much crap was spewed into the atmosphere during the eruptions of Mt Pinatubo, Mt St Helens, Novarupta, Santa Maria, Karkatoa...etc...etc...etc....but somehow, with all those countless volcanic eruptions, here we are.


Did WE clean those up?


Did WE "fix" the atmosphere after any of these events?



Hey....hair on a pine tree!!!



BIGFOOT LIVES!! :excited:



....send me my money.


Edited by Varmint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.

It IS sad.

It's sad that people can believe anything....without a shred of evidence...simply because they want to believe.

18yr old Seniors in high school have not experienced a single day of "global warming" yet, they've been brainwashed since birth that it exists.

Hook, line, and sinker....we need more expensive light bulbs!!

Why?

Well...besides the fact that GE wants to make more money.....we can save the environment!!

Oh...but you'll need to call a hazmat team if you break one.

Is the climate changing?

Absolutely

Has it been changing since the Earth's conception?

Absolutely

Will it continue to change in ways we have NO idea about?

Absolutely

Are we the cause of it?

Doubtful

Can we do anything to make it "optimal"

What is "optimal"?

What temperature SHOULD it be?

If we've screwed it up, someone should be able to tell us what the temperature SHOULD be.....right?

I wonder how much crap was spewed into the atmosphere during the eruptions of Mt Pinatubo, Mt St Helens, Novarupta, Santa Maria, Karkatoa...etc...etc...etc....but somehow, with all those countless volcanic eruptions, here we are.

Did WE clean those up?

Did WE "fix" the atmosphere after any of these events?

Hey....hair on a pine tree!!!

BIGFOOT LIVES!! :excited:

....send me my money.

Just so sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boulder researcher: 2013's flood-triggering rains not caused by climate change

NOAA-led study examined history of such storms over 130 years
Edited by StrikeS2k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody got the memo?

It is now "Global Disruption".

Hey....if the govt. would throw BILLIONS of dollars at me to study Bigfoot....that big, hairy, mother####er would not only exist....he'd ride a skateboard, drink latte, and eat vegan.

Whatever it took to keep that money rolling in....I'd PROVE that he exists......and the debate would be over!

I would give definitive dates on which he was to show up.

When he failed to show....I'd have a reason for it and change the date....again and again.

I may have to change his name every now and then just to keep everyone engaged....but he WILL exist!

Of course, all of my data may have to be "tweaked" in favor of proving Bigfoot exists and be completely made up of computer models....but there would be no debating the point because if I admit there is no Bigfoot....the money stops..

case closed.

Be honest. What is the highest level science course you completed? 6th grade?

he's mocking you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to solutions to lots of stuff, including climate change (or not) - Sandia is very close to break even with their fusion reactor. This makes three groups close to or at break even. The future is coming and it had zero impetus from Al Gore, scientists on the govt. teat, ####ty surface temperature measurements, rising antarctic sea ice, falling arctic sea ice, and/or rising CO2 levels. It will, however, have a huge effect on all of these - shut him up, make them irrelevant, make those irrelevant too, increase one and decrease the other(or the other way around), and finally (hopefully) stagnate the rise in those levels.

Edited by Sand
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody got the memo?

It is now "Global Disruption".

Hey....if the govt. would throw BILLIONS of dollars at me to study Bigfoot....that big, hairy, mother####er would not only exist....he'd ride a skateboard, drink latte, and eat vegan.

Whatever it took to keep that money rolling in....I'd PROVE that he exists......and the debate would be over!

I would give definitive dates on which he was to show up.

When he failed to show....I'd have a reason for it and change the date....again and again.

I may have to change his name every now and then just to keep everyone engaged....but he WILL exist!

Of course, all of my data may have to be "tweaked" in favor of proving Bigfoot exists and be completely made up of computer models....but there would be no debating the point because if I admit there is no Bigfoot....the money stops..

case closed.

Be honest. What is the highest level science course you completed? 6th grade?

Honestly....12th grade (just like most)

HOWEVER...during MY 12 grades of science....it was global COOLING!!

Beware of the oncoming ICE AGE!!

Look....a foot print!! :excited:

BIG FOOT LIVES!!

(send money)

Edited by Varmint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to solutions to lots of stuff, including climate change (or not) - Sandia is very close to break even with their fusion reactor. This makes three groups close to or at break even. The future is coming and it had zero impetus from Al Gore, scientists on the govt. teat, ####ty surface temperature measurements, rising antarctic sea ice, falling arctic sea ice, and/or rising CO2 levels. It will, however, have a huge effect on all of these - shut him up, make them irrelevant, make those irrelevant too, increase one and decrease the other(or the other way around), and finally (hopefully) stagnate the rise in those levels.

Sandia receives zero taxpayer funding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody got the memo?

It is now "Global Disruption".

Hey....if the govt. would throw BILLIONS of dollars at me to study Bigfoot....that big, hairy, mother####er would not only exist....he'd ride a skateboard, drink latte, and eat vegan.

Whatever it took to keep that money rolling in....I'd PROVE that he exists......and the debate would be over!

I would give definitive dates on which he was to show up.

When he failed to show....I'd have a reason for it and change the date....again and again.

I may have to change his name every now and then just to keep everyone engaged....but he WILL exist!

Of course, all of my data may have to be "tweaked" in favor of proving Bigfoot exists and be completely made up of computer models....but there would be no debating the point because if I admit there is no Bigfoot....the money stops..

case closed.

Be honest. What is the highest level science course you completed? 6th grade?

Honestly....12th grade (just like most)

HOWEVER...during MY 12 grades of science....it was global COOLING!!

Beware of the oncoming ICE AGE!!

Look....a foot print!! :excited:

BIG FOOT LIVES!!

(send money)

Your science teachers failed you. Your understanding of the scientific method is lacking, to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boulder researcher: 2013's flood-triggering rains not caused by climate change

NOAA-led study examined history of such storms over 130 years

Whoa...Boulder CO.???

The most liberal city West of the Mississippi??

How the HELL did THIS get printed???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boulder researcher: 2013's flood-triggering rains not caused by climate change

NOAA-led study examined history of such storms over 130 years

https://mattkuhar.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/bodysnatchers1.jpg

INTERLOPER!!

How DARE you muddy the waters with a difference of opinion!!

Sounds like he echoes most other climate scientists who say it's difficult to conclude that any specific weather anomaly is the result of climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody got the memo?

It is now "Global Disruption".

Hey....if the govt. would throw BILLIONS of dollars at me to study Bigfoot....that big, hairy, mother####er would not only exist....he'd ride a skateboard, drink latte, and eat vegan.

Whatever it took to keep that money rolling in....I'd PROVE that he exists......and the debate would be over!

I would give definitive dates on which he was to show up.

When he failed to show....I'd have a reason for it and change the date....again and again.

I may have to change his name every now and then just to keep everyone engaged....but he WILL exist!

Of course, all of my data may have to be "tweaked" in favor of proving Bigfoot exists and be completely made up of computer models....but there would be no debating the point because if I admit there is no Bigfoot....the money stops..

case closed.

Be honest. What is the highest level science course you completed? 6th grade?

Honestly....12th grade (just like most)

HOWEVER...during MY 12 grades of science....it was global COOLING!!

Beware of the oncoming ICE AGE!!

Look....a foot print!! :excited:

BIG FOOT LIVES!!

(send money)

Your science teachers failed you. Your understanding of the scientific method is lacking, to say the least.

But you listen to the "smart' scientists....not those dummies who don't agree with the mantra?

..as have Leo DIcaprio, Al Gore, and many others who talk the talk then leave a carbon footprint bigger than a Sasquatch...

oh...but they buy carbon offsets....I'm sure :lmao:

Sasquatch??

BIG FOOT LIVES!!

(send money)

Edited by Varmint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad we have tommyboy here to help us parse through all the noise and separate truth from political fiction. As I recall, leading up to the 2012 election, he was the level-headed voice of reason around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some "so-called" data from the "so-called" climatologists at the NOAA.

The combined average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces for August 2014 was record high for the month, at 0.75°C (1.35°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F), topping the previous record set in 1998.

The global land surface temperature was 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average of 13.8°C (56.9°F), the second highest on record for August, behind 1998.

For the ocean, the August global sea surface temperature was 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.4°F). This record high departure from average not only beats the previous August record set in 2005 by 0.08°C (0.14°F), but also beats the previous all-time record set just two months ago in June 2014 by 0.03°C (0.05°F).

The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for the June–August period was also record high for this period, at 0.71°C (1.28°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), beating the previous record set in 1998.

With records dating back to 1880, the global temperature across the world's land and ocean surfaces for August 2014 was 0.75°C (1.35°F) higher than the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F). This makes August 2014 the warmest August on record for the globe since records began in 1880, beating the previous record set in 1998. Nine of the 10 warmest Augusts on record have occurred during the 21st century.

The last month whose global temperature was below the 20th Century average February 1985. That's 354 straight months.

The real big news is that the global sea temperature reflected the largest departure from normal temperature in history. The oceans have been absorbing so much heat in recent years, helping mask the true increase in global temps. If they are no longer able to absorb so much heat, the surface temps are going to begin to really cook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.