Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#3,226
#3,226
BartW said:
639.gif
Click to expand...

So we didn't. Why not 100 years? Why not 50?
 
#3,228
#3,228
If you’d read the rest of the article, you’d know the heavy ice there is an effect of local weather and not climate. In fact this past month had the third lowest polar ice extent on record. This is another fine example of cherry-picking (the third characteristic of scientific denialism). Do you actually deny the precipitous decline in arctic sea ice?

Third lowest May? Definitely indicates a trend change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,229
#3,229
BartW said:
Faster than IPCC projections
CopenhagenArcticSeaIce.png


and even more dramatic when you consider the 3rd dimension
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OBCXWAHo5I[/youtube]

Trend change? You've gotta be kidding

2013_Arctic_Escalator_500.gif
Click to expand...

Did your buddy John scirbble that in?
 
#3,230
#3,230
This is from National Snow and Ice Data Center:

Ice extent was lower than average in the Barents and Bering seas. While not visible in the monthly average extent plot, the evolution of the sea ice through the month of May is characterized by the opening of several polynyas along the coast of Siberia, northern Baffin Bay, and along the coast of Hudson Bay. Nevertheless, satellites detected high sea ice concentrations over the Arctic as a whole. This contrasts with 2006, 2007, and 2012 when broad areas of low-concentration ice were observed.

Definitely an indicator of a trend change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,236
#3,236
Climate change deniers

37 minutes ago

Climate change deniers ‘serious threat’ to future, Obama says


Posted by
CNN White House Producer Kevin Liptak

Anaheim, California (CNN) — Describing lawmakers and pundits who deny manmade climate change as a “fairly serious threat to everybody’s future,” President Obama on Saturday called for less debate and more action in combating warming trends.

Delivering the address at University of California Irvine’s commencement, Obama underscored the view of some scientists that the effects of climate change are already being felt nationwide and said he was allocating new funds for communities recovering from natural disasters.



Speaking at Angel Stadium in Anaheim, Obama compared the scientific problem of curbing climate change to that of putting a man on the moon. And while skeptics in the 1960s may have made a case against the mission, Obama said he couldn’t remember “saying the moon wasn’t there, or that it was made of cheese.”

“Today’s Congress, though, is full of folks who stubbornly and automatically reject the scientific evidence about climate change,” he said. “They’ll tell you it’s a hoax, or a fad.”

Obama said Republicans had a long history of supporting environmental causes, naming Teddy Roosevelt, Richard Nixon and George H. W. Bush as examples of past presidents who did more than current GOP politicians.

“People are thinking about politics instead of thinking about what’s good for the next generation,” he added later.

The White House has taken on climate change as a top issue for Obama’s second term, announcing at the beginning of the month proposed new restrictions on power plants that would reduce emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030.

On Saturday Obama announced a $1 billion fund for towns and cities recovering from disasters. About $130 million is reserved for places affected by 2012’s Superstorm Sandy; the rest will be distributed nationwide.

Opponents of Obama’s actions on climate change— some of whom deny humans are responsible for climate change — say the rules will kill jobs and increase the cost of energy.

On Saturday Obama reserved his harshest criticism for politicians who he said avoid questions about climate by claiming a lack of knowledge — and a press he says ignores the issue.

Climate change deniers, he said, at least “have the brass to say what they actually think.”

Others, he said, duck questions about climate change by saying, “Hey, I’m not a scientist.”

“Let me translate: what that means is, ‘I accept that manmade climate change is real, but if I admit it, I’ll be run out of town by a radical fringe that thinks climate science is a liberal plot,’” he said.
Click to expand...
Nothing like the thought police.
 
#3,237
#3,237
I think man has a negative influence on climate. I think how much is debatable as El Nino is being blamed for just about everything right now.

Regardless of what I think on the science for which I know little, what I do "KNOW" is that the American public is going to pay exceedingly more for energy that will not reach our emissions goals. In fact, emissions will most likely go up and the economy will hurt. Right now, nuclear and hydro account for +80% of clean energy. Hydro is at max capacity. Nuclear is not only financially hurting from the free market side, but also from the government/environmental side (ironic) due to regulations and wind/solar subsidies. Nuclear is falling out quickly, with no plans to make up for lost plants. And once we replace the coal and nuclear generation with subsidized green source, we are going to be paying significantly more, either through costs, taxes, or most likely debts. With no real emission changes to show for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,238
#3,238
Weezy said:
I think man has a negative influence on climate. I think how much is debatable as El Nino is being blamed for just about everything right now.

Regardless of what I think on the science for which I know little, what I do "KNOW" is that the American public is going to pay exceedingly more for energy that will not reach our emissions goals. In fact, emissions will most likely go up and the economy will hurt. Right now, nuclear and hydro account for +80% of clean energy. Hydro is at max capacity. Nuclear is not only financially hurting from the free market side, but also from the government/environmental side (ironic) due to regulations and wind/solar subsidies. Nuclear is falling out quickly, with no plans to make up for lost plants. And once we replace the coal and nuclear generation with subsidized green source, we are going to be paying significantly more, either through costs, taxes, or most likely debts. With no real emission changes to show for it.
Click to expand...

This. This. This. This.

I liked the nuclear fall out. Nice touch.
 
#3,239
#3,239
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,240
#3,240
Plant more trees. Problem solved

/thread



(oh yeah clamp down on those turd world countries polluting like its 1899)
 
#3,242
#3,242
Leonardo DiCaprio borrows superyacht to treat his pals to World Cup in style | Mail Online

Hollywood superstar Leonardo DiCaprio has taken over one of the world's largest superyachts in order to watch the World Cup in style.
DiCaprio and more than 20 friends are said to have taken over the 482-foot Topaz, worth £400million, while staying in Brazil for the football tournament.
The yacht is owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emitates and owner of Manchester City FC.
Click to expand...

Save the Oceans, right Leo?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,243
#3,243
Good article on solar and nuclear.

New solar power plant is the first to go ‘supercritical’, but solar’s long-term cost and efficiency still questioned | ExtremeTech

The problem is, even assuming this capability is exploited to its fullest, the capacity factor of the Crescent Dunes plant is just 52% (i.e. it is only operating at max capacity 52% of the time). The new nuclear reactors being built at Vogtle using an advanced Generation III design (Westinghouse’s AP1000) have a capacity factor of 90%. Combine those two facts, and Crescent Dunes costs nearly 2x what the Vogte Nuclear plants do.

...

These sorts of cost comparisons aren’t popular with vast swathes of the environmental movement, who prefer to pretend that the Earth doesn’t actually rotate when solar efficiency is under discussion. Unfortunately, decades of scare tactics from the anti-nuclear crowd have poisoned the discussion around advanced nuclear technologies. Trotting out arguments from the 1960s about plant safety and fuel rod longevity makes for great ad copy, but it doesn’t do much to move the ball forward on actually cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, the overwhelming majority of low-carbon energy is produced by two sources — hydro power and nuclear power.

...
Click to expand...
 
#3,247
#3,247
Feel Good Story of the Day | Power Line

Greenpeace has suffered a 3.8 million-euro ($5.2 million) loss on an ill-timed bet in the currency market by a well-intentioned — if reckless — employee in its finance department.
Click to expand...

By the way, keep Greenpeace’s $400 million budget in mind next time you hear the left complain about the Koch brothers/fossil fuel-funded critics of environmentalism. The combined total budgets for all purposes of AEI, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the Hoover Institution is barely half of Greenpeace’s annual budget
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,248
#3,248
Greenpeace Executive Commutes 250 Miles To Work Via Plane | The Daily Caller

Executive director of Greenpeace John Sauven wrote in his blog, “What kind of compromises do you make in your efforts to try to make the world a better place? I think there is a line there. Honesty and integrity to the values that are at the heart of the good you’re trying to do in the world cannot be allowed to slip away. For what it’s worth, I don’t think we’ve crossed that line here at Greenpeace.”

It seems the values that Greenpeace hold dear are the comforts of their executives. In their own words, “cheap flights haven’t created better access to air travel for the poor; they’ve just allowed people with more money to fly more often.”
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top