Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#6,302
#6,302
Sandvol said:
Global cooling is much more problematic. During warming periods the world can feed people. During cooling periods many will starve.
Click to expand...

[Youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LObn2Sk7tVg[/Youtube]

I saw this some time back. Its states that before the last Mini Ice Age it was so hot that you could grow wine grapes in England. Then the Mini Ice Age hit cause crops to died to and extending the length of the Dark Ages.
 
#6,303
#6,303
carlos86 said:
[Youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LObn2Sk7tVg[/Youtube]

I saw this some time back. Its states that before the last Mini Ice Age it was so hot that you could grow wine grapes in England. Then the Mini Ice Age hit cause crops to died to and extending the length of the Dark Ages.
Click to expand...

I'll try to watch that. I think the Dark Ages occurred before that time frame but I think it would be interesting to watch.
 
#6,307
#6,307
Climate change alarmists are like women.

They create problems out of nothing and then proceed to complain about it while trying to drag everyone in to the nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,309
#6,309
lawgator1 said:
I know the entire article is exhaustingly long, like at least 6 paragraphs, but you really need to read past the first few sentences.
Click to expand...

I normally would not waste a post on you (being a super smart lawyer and all) but I know what the piece reads. The point is that the wizards of smart still have a long way to go before they can declare they really know what is going on with climate change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,315
#6,315
carlos86 said:
Well if you didn't know. We might be at the beginning of a new mini Ice Age.
Forbes Welcome
Click to expand...
Old ‘news’, discussed ITT here

(Spoiler: We're not entering an ice age)
Sandvol said:
Bart says no and that it is a figment of our imaginations.
Click to expand...
The "global cooling" myth has been covered ITT ad nauseum and you’re not even getting the basic premise right. Nobody ever predicted CO2 would cause global cooling. As you know, the physics behind CO2’s greenhouse warming effect has been understood since the 19th century. The small number of papers discussing cooling in the 70s were talking about aerosols like sulfates which do have a cooling effect but have declined since then thanks to the Clean Air Act.
FLVOL69 said:
*
Click to expand...
And those TIME covers had nothing to do with “global cooling”, as discussed ITT here.

The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers – by David Kirtley
gasguy98 said:
NASA says Antarctic ice may be growing after all - AOL
Click to expand...
Impossible! NASA is one big climate cabal, haven't you heard?

I figured the usual crowd would be all over this one. I’m disappointed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6,316
#6,316
theutvolunteers said:
They've been begging for a big ass hurricane for years.
Click to expand...
VolsNSkinsFan said:
They are seriously upset nobody was killed and no serious damage from that Mexico hurricane.
Click to expand...
That’s just sick. Nobody wants a repeat of Haiyan from 2 years ago or Sandy 3 years ago. Nobody wanted Patricia to bring Texas its second 1000-year flood this year (despite the drought). South Carolina’s record tidal flooding last week was described as “totally worse than the 1000-year flood” they had earlier this year. More recently still, another rare and unusually powerful cyclone has spun up in the Arabian Sea and could bring eight years worth of rain to war-torn Yemen (which has never experienced a hurricane). And let’s not forget we’ve already had our share of death and destruction from this year’s record fire season. Hottest year on record must be a coincidence...

1gjdAX7.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#6,317
#6,317
SandVol, here’s something for you to chew on. Remember when I posted this in May?

BartW said:
Here’s What 2015’s Strong El Niño Means For This Year’s Hurricane Season
Click to expand...
A strengthening El Niño is the main reason scientists predict a particularly quiet season. El Niño — characterized by unusually warm temperatures in the equatorial regions of the Pacific Ocean — changes global wind patterns, creating hostile upper-level winds in the tropical Atlantic that in turn create unfavorable conditions for the formation of hurricanes.

“In the Atlantic, El Niño brings stronger than normal winds, which creates a hostile environment for hurricanes,” James Done, a meterologist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, told ThinkProgress. “Hurricanes generally favor calm environments, and strong winds tend to tear hurricanes apart.”

But while the Atlantic might see a reprieve from an active hurricane season, El Niño will have the opposite effect for the Pacific region. Both the waters around Hawaii and those in the northeast Pacific could see a 50 percent increase in activity from average years, Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at Weather Underground, told ThinkProgress.

An active Pacific storm season could bring intense rains to the U.S. Southwest, with states like Arizona, New Mexico, and the western part of Texas most likely to see the remnants of hurricanes that develop off the coast of Mexico.
Click to expand...

That sounds familiar. But why, you ask, would anyone want to predict El Nino?

Climate Economics: The Impact of El Nino

Buncha dumb liberals, eh? English is my second language so if I am misinterpreting your suggestion that 'real scientists don't make predictions', please do explain
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#6,318
#6,318
Shell to Abandon Oil-Sands Project — Energy Journal
Royal Dutch Shell PLC blamed an uncertain business environment for abandoning plans for a Canadian oil-sands project and taking a $2 billion write-down, Chester Dawson reports. The oil giant also voiced concerns about having sufficient pipeline capacity to ship oil-sands crude to markets amid delays in pipelines such as Keystone XL to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Carmen Creek isn’t the first oil-sands project to face problems with cost, design, delays and low crude prices. Earlier this year, three major Canadian energy companies said they would stop new or expanded oil-sands ventures, and last year French oil company Total SA and Statoil ASA of Norway put off plans.

Norway’s sovereign-wealth fund, which relies on government transfers of oil revenue, is also struggling as the world’s biggest such fund by assets reported a near five percentage-point drop in the value of its investments in the third quarter, Kjetil Malkenes Hovland reports. Mining company Glencore PLC and Volkswagen AG were among the companies that hurt the fund’s results.

Meanwhile, contract oil driller Nabors Industries Ltd. reported a $295.8 million loss for the third quarter amid the downturn in the energy sector, Josh Beckerman reports.

Also in Canada, oil companies are uncertain what the future holds as they face the end of an oil-friendly government with the election of Justin Trudeau as prime minister, the Financial Times reports.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6,319
#6,319
And Bart ignores Pacers video link. Not surprised. Instead its deflect, deflect and deflect. Hey Bart I guess now NASA is full of conspiracy nuts huh? Or has the tobacco industry infiltrated NASA and are now spreading propaganda? Hahahahahahahaha.
 
#6,320
#6,320
BartW said:

Old ‘news’, discussed ITT here

(Spoiler: We're not entering an ice age)

The "global cooling" myth has been covered ITT ad nauseum and you’re not even getting the basic premise right. Nobody ever predicted CO2 would cause global cooling. As you know, the physics behind CO2’s greenhouse warming effect has been understood since the 19th century. The small number of papers discussing cooling in the 70s were talking about aerosols like sulfates which do have a cooling effect but have declined since then thanks to the Clean Air Act.

And those TIME covers had nothing to do with “global cooling”, as discussed ITT here.

The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers – by David Kirtley

Impossible! NASA is one big climate cabal, haven't you heard?

I figured the usual crowd would be all over this one. I’m disappointed.
Click to expand...

But as you know Tyndall himself said carbon dioxide's contribution to temperature is insignificant. So yes it has been understood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,322
#6,322
BigOrangeTrain said:
And Bart ignores Pacers video link. Not surprised. Instead its deflect, deflect and deflect. Hey Bart I guess now NASA is full of conspiracy nuts huh? Or has the tobacco industry infiltrated NASA and are now spreading propaganda? Hahahahahahahaha.
Click to expand...

That NASA admission really has Bart upset.
 
#6,323
#6,323
BartW said:
SandVol, here’s something for you to chew on. Remember when I posted this in May?




That sounds familiar. But why, you ask, would anyone want to predict El Nino?

Climate Economics: The Impact of El Nino

Buncha dumb liberals, eh? English is my second language so if I am misinterpreting your suggestion that 'real scientists don't make predictions', please do explain
Click to expand...

Bart still hasn't figured out the difference between weathermen and scientists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top