Global warming

[GOPHER SLAYER]

By golly Al Gore must have been right all along. We woke up this morning to a very cold temp of 24% and by 9:30 it had warmed to a toasty 32%. When will we ever learn.

[nicholst55]

I was driving back to Yuma from Phoenix yesterday morning, and the car thermometer hit 29* outside temp for quite a while there. You're right, it MUST be global warming!

[GOPHER SLAYER]

Once again the site will only let me post one picture at a time so I will try an end run. Ah success. Is that snow I see. I thought we were supposed to be under salt water by now.

[starmac]

I got quite a laugh this morning. We were only 2 degrees colder than Las Vegas Nevada. lol It is too warm and there will be several crashes due to it.

[Bad Water Bill]

Here in Chiraq it is 12 degrees and the wing makes it feel like 0 out there.

Yes big Al is right AGAIN.:evil:

[tomme boy]

1* when I woke up this AM. I wish the global warming would hurry up and happen.

[Moondawg]

Boy, you guys are behind the times. Algore pronounced that it was climate disruption several months ago, and it was occurring a lot faster than anyone thought. Why it's possible that in a few years the whole earth will get so hot that it is nothing more than a flaming cinder in the sky. But, if everything first freezes and the earth is covered with glaciers a mile thick that is still climate disruption. I think Al has tornadoes, hurricanes, drought, plagues of locusts and/or bullfrogs and floods also covered. Here in far So. Texas the chill level is close to freezing, it is dark and dank and a wind out of the N. is howling. For us it is too cold to venture outside and I am sure it is caused by climate disruption, caused by the PU trucks everyone in Texas drives.
Ya'll Have a Happy New Year

[mexicanjoe]

Oh quit crying!! It's only 17 degrees here in Gods country. Numerous wrecks due to people not recognizing black ice. Oilfield is shut down due to safety concerns.
..

[Deep Six]

It was warmer here today: 10F. Last two days were single digits. Maybe the cold air will go back to Alaska where it belongs if I just burn a few more tanks of fossil fuel in my SUV.

[dakotashooter2]

The number one contributing factor to global warming..............???? The Sun..... We must destroy it................

[RED333]

My chicken water is freezing about every night, so in to the house they come.
I do have heaters but wont use them till it stays below 32* all day, cant let the water get to warn.
With all this globule warming going on I just don't know what to do.:veryconfu

[Hickory]

You better not get overly optimistic that everyone sees the scam in “globle warming" and knows it for the BS that it is.
Governments and the UN and people in high places see and know it for a money maker and will ignore the facts to devise some sort of law/scheme to get your money.
So, don't just make jokes about it and think it will go away, it's your money these crooks want.

[Charley]

Don't leave out the snowfall in Hawaii! Obviously climate change, even though a NWS spokesperson explained how it usually happened several times every year. Oh yeah, it was up on the MOUNTAIN TOPS. Idiotic media didn't get around to mentioning that part of the story, wanted to give the impression it snowed on the beaches...

[pworley1]

Don't give Al such a hard time. After all he invented the internet.

[kens]

Somebody tell me just what it is, that the Global Warming community stands to gain, from all the hysteria about global warming.
Where is the money?
Where is the gain?

[jmort]

Carbon credits. Gore has made a fortune

[RED333]

Somebody tell me just what it is, that the Global Warming community stands to gain, from all the hysteria about global warming.
Where is the money?
Where is the gain?

Poor country's want to grow, they need energy to do this, energy is made from burning something.
Or nuclear power plants, wind or solar. Solar is very pricy, wind is not always blowing.
Progressives see this as a way to get money and send it to these country's to build power plants and keep some for them self.
Burning is cheapest, as we all know it is fueling this global warming thing.:veryconfu

[blademasterii]

It has been over 80 all week. Monday it was 85.

[Bad Water Bill]

The EPA will see that the feds,politicians and their cronies make TONS of money.

Need more money have the EPA raise the standards and heavily fine every one after the 30 days they were given to meet the new restrictions.

[MaryB]

Sure is warm, burning 70 pounds of corn a day to heat the house(I like it warm like 79 in the living room by the stove)... was -10 when I went to bed last night... in other words normal MN winter.

[jmort]

Approximately how much does that 70 pounds run you?

[dtknowles]

I am going ramble a bit so bare with me or just be warned.

I could not care less about Global Warming or if it is man made or if it is real or if it is a long term natural trend. The ocean is rising or at least winning a battle against the land both here on the Gulf coast and the Atlantic coast. I don't think it can be stopped no matter the cause so proper preparation should be made to deal with the affects.

Oil and coal businesses are powerful and important and disliked by a faction of the U.S. political elite not just for their potential environmental damage but for their support for the Republicans.

Energy is one of the most powerful tools know to mankind. Its availability is a powerful enhancement to a society. If you control the price of energy you have great influence in the development of a community.


Just know that Global Warming is not about saving the planet it is about who will hold the reigns of power. The planet is doomed but while it is still livable having the power to shape its society is not trivial.

Being at peon, I can't change the battle of the gods but I can be prepared to live in the world they create. Oh, tell the grandkids not to buy property on the coast.

Not much has a set value, the market sets most prices. Energy is somewhat insensitive to misevaluation. You might say but what about the fact that the cost of oil almost halved. Two things, one technology can change the value of energy and two the boom and bust means that the instantaneous value of energy does not reflect the real value of energy.

BTU's per dollar would be a good way of gauging whether the dollar has gone up or down in value.

Tim

[jmort]

Drowning in Sea Level NonsenseBy Alan Carubahttp://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Ocean-Scene.jpg (http://iceagenow.info/2013/07/drowning-sea-level-nonsense/ocean-scene/)
New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D) and forty members of Congress believe the sea levels are rising, that a panel should be created to determine what should be done, and, of course, to throw billions of dollars at a problem that does not exist. Politicians were eager to scare the public with the discredited global warming hoax and now they have found a new one.
In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg has proposed a $20 billion flood barrier system to protect the city from future hurricanes and rising sea levels. Well, hurricanes like tropical storm Sandy are real, but rare. Rising sea levels, however, represent no threat at all.
William Happer who researched ocean physics for the U.S. Air Force and is currently a physics professor at Princeton University notes that “The sea level has been rising since 1800, at the end of the ‘little ice age’”, a cooling cycle last from around 1300 to 1850. Far from heating up, the Earth entered a new cooling cycle around 1996 or so.
Harrison Schmitt, a former Apollo 17 astronaut, U.S. Senator, and a geologist, says “Predicting a sea level rise of seven feet over the next few thousand years would seem too risky a prediction on which to spend tax dollars” and that is surely an understatement. Wasting billons on “climate change”, however, is the new siren call of the Obama administration, but the National Research Council is warning, as Fox News reported, “that those kinds of subsidies are virtually useless at quelling greenhouse gases.”
In fact, as the amount of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas—alleged to “trap” heat—has risen and has had zero effect on the cooling cycle.
A recent article in the British newspaper, The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/15/there_is_no_scientific_consensus_on_sealevel_rise_ say_scientists/), reported on a study by scientists in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, that was published in “Nature Geoscience” that concluded there was no “scientific consensus” to suggest the rate of the seas’ rise will accelerate dangerously.
The notion of the seas rising, swamping coastal cities, and creating havoc is the stuff of science fiction, not science. This is why spending millions or billions on the assertions of some who have a real stake in keeping the public frightened is a very bad idea.
At the center of the global warming scare campaign is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Its most recent report said that “no long-term acceleration of sea level has been identified using 20th-century data alone” but that does not discourage the IPCC from forecasting an increase due to global warming. This organization should be disbanded and, if I were in charge, many of its leaders would be in jail right now for fraud.
Who can you believe? One such person is Dr. Nils-Axel Morner (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf), the former chair of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is the past president (1999-2003) of the International Union for Quaternary Research Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution. He has been studying sea level and its effects on coastal areas for more than 35 years. I cited his credentials because others making predictions lack the same level of authority.
Dr. Morner acknowledges that “sea level was indeed rising from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. (Emphasis added). Get out your pocket ruler and look at what one millimeter represents. It is small. It is very small. Not surprisingly Dr. Morner is very critical of the IPCC and its headline-grabbing doomsday predictions. He scorns the IPCC’s claim to “know” that facts about sea level rise, noting that real scientists “are searching for the answer” by continuing to collect data “because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don’t find it!”
A recent paper reviewed by CO2 Science finds that sea levels have risen from 2002-2011 at a rate of only 1.7 millimeters per year over the past 110 years, the equivalent of 6.7 inches per century. This is close to Dr. Morner’s assertion that, at most, there has been a rate of increase that tops out at 1.1 millimeter per year. The review concluded that there is no evidence of any human influence on sea levels.
Even so, in early July a scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Josh Willis, told Fox News, that “There is no question that the time to prepare for sea level rise is now…We will definitely see seven feet of sea level rise—the only question is when.” And who funds NASA?
Between the scientists trying to gin up more government money for their agencies and departments and the politicians trying to find a new reason to spend more money, the public is left wondering if the oceans are rising and whether that represents something worth worrying about. The answer is (a) yes, sea levels are rising in infinitesimal amounts and (b) no, we need to stop spending money based on such claims.
It’s not the sea level rise you should worry about. It is the rising levels of national debt and the deficit.
© Alan Caruba, 2013


Sea-level rise the thickness of a nickelBy Robert FelixAccording to the above article, sea levels have been rising anywhere from one millimeter to 1.7 mm per year. How much is that in reality? Depending on which number you use, that ranges 3/64ths of an inch to 1/16th of an inch. That’s the thickness of a dime to, worst-case scenario, the thickness of a nickel.
That amount of sea-level rise is far below normal.BELOW normal!
Do the math. Sea levels stood about 370 feet lower at the end of the last ice age than they do today. Multiply 370 times 12 and you get 4,440 inches. Divide that by 11,500 years, and you get .39 inches (.99 cm) per year. That’s more than a third of an inch, the thickness of five nickels. That means that today’s sea-level rise is far below normal. (Which I would expect as we head into an ice age.)
Besides that, when we look at sea-level rise, why do we concentrate almost solely on melting ice?
What about the estimated three million underwater volcanoes (according to NASA) that are constantly pumping basalt into the seas? Wouldn’t that amount of basalt contribute to sea-level rise?
And what about erosion? What about the huge amounts of sediments that wash into the sea each year?
NASA estimates that the the Mississippi River dumps 550 million metric tons of sediment into the Gulf of Mexico each year (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1257), enough to to extend the coast of Louisiana 91 m (300 ft) each year.
And the Amazon River annually carries as much as 1,000 million tons of sediment into the oceans (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v278/n5700/abs/278161a0.html).
That’s just two rivers.
If you calculated the amount of sediments pouring into the seas from all of the world’s rivers, I wonder how that would affect the numbers?

* * * Exposing the global-warming con job.
Alan Caruba’s commentaries are posted daily at “Warning Signs” and shared on dozens of news and opinion websites. His blog recently passed more than two million page views. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. For information on his professional skills, Caruba Editorial Services is the place.

[MaryB]

About $4 this year and that is only on the coldest days. Most days runs 30-40 pounds


Approximately how much does that 70 pounds run you?

[MaryB]

Add in land subsidence from groundwater/oil pumping that has dropped some coasts. Plus I read today that the Greenland ice melt is being caused by geologic heat from below.


Drowning in Sea Level Nonsense

By Alan Caruba

http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Ocean-Scene.jpg (http://iceagenow.info/2013/07/drowning-sea-level-nonsense/ocean-scene/)
New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D) and forty members of Congress believe the sea levels are rising, that a panel should be created to determine what should be done, and, of course, to throw billions of dollars at a problem that does not exist. Politicians were eager to scare the public with the discredited global warming hoax and now they have found a new one.
In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg has proposed a $20 billion flood barrier system to protect the city from future hurricanes and rising sea levels. Well, hurricanes like tropical storm Sandy are real, but rare. Rising sea levels, however, represent no threat at all.
William Happer who researched ocean physics for the U.S. Air Force and is currently a physics professor at Princeton University notes that “The sea level has been rising since 1800, at the end of the ‘little ice age’”, a cooling cycle last from around 1300 to 1850. Far from heating up, the Earth entered a new cooling cycle around 1996 or so.
Harrison Schmitt, a former Apollo 17 astronaut, U.S. Senator, and a geologist, says “Predicting a sea level rise of seven feet over the next few thousand years would seem too risky a prediction on which to spend tax dollars” and that is surely an understatement. Wasting billons on “climate change”, however, is the new siren call of the Obama administration, but the National Research Council is warning, as Fox News reported, “that those kinds of subsidies are virtually useless at quelling greenhouse gases.”
In fact, as the amount of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas—alleged to “trap” heat—has risen and has had zero effect on the cooling cycle.
A recent article in the British newspaper, The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/15/there_is_no_scientific_consensus_on_sealevel_rise_ say_scientists/), reported on a study by scientists in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, that was published in “Nature Geoscience” that concluded there was no “scientific consensus” to suggest the rate of the seas’ rise will accelerate dangerously.
The notion of the seas rising, swamping coastal cities, and creating havoc is the stuff of science fiction, not science. This is why spending millions or billions on the assertions of some who have a real stake in keeping the public frightened is a very bad idea.
At the center of the global warming scare campaign is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Its most recent report said that “no long-term acceleration of sea level has been identified using 20th-century data alone” but that does not discourage the IPCC from forecasting an increase due to global warming. This organization should be disbanded and, if I were in charge, many of its leaders would be in jail right now for fraud.
Who can you believe? One such person is Dr. Nils-Axel Morner (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf), the former chair of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is the past president (1999-2003) of the International Union for Quaternary Research Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution. He has been studying sea level and its effects on coastal areas for more than 35 years. I cited his credentials because others making predictions lack the same level of authority.
Dr. Morner acknowledges that “sea level was indeed rising from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. (Emphasis added). Get out your pocket ruler and look at what one millimeter represents. It is small. It is very small. Not surprisingly Dr. Morner is very critical of the IPCC and its headline-grabbing doomsday predictions. He scorns the IPCC’s claim to “know” that facts about sea level rise, noting that real scientists “are searching for the answer” by continuing to collect data “because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don’t find it!”
A recent paper reviewed by CO2 Science finds that sea levels have risen from 2002-2011 at a rate of only 1.7 millimeters per year over the past 110 years, the equivalent of 6.7 inches per century. This is close to Dr. Morner’s assertion that, at most, there has been a rate of increase that tops out at 1.1 millimeter per year. The review concluded that there is no evidence of any human influence on sea levels.
Even so, in early July a scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Josh Willis, told Fox News, that “There is no question that the time to prepare for sea level rise is now…We will definitely see seven feet of sea level rise—the only question is when.” And who funds NASA?
Between the scientists trying to gin up more government money for their agencies and departments and the politicians trying to find a new reason to spend more money, the public is left wondering if the oceans are rising and whether that represents something worth worrying about. The answer is (a) yes, sea levels are rising in infinitesimal amounts and (b) no, we need to stop spending money based on such claims.
It’s not the sea level rise you should worry about. It is the rising levels of national debt and the deficit.
© Alan Caruba, 2013
Sea-level rise the thickness of a nickel

By Robert Felix

According to the above article, sea levels have been rising anywhere from one millimeter to 1.7 mm per year. How much is that in reality? Depending on which number you use, that ranges 3/64ths of an inch to 1/16th of an inch. That’s the thickness of a dime to, worst-case scenario, the thickness of a nickel.
That amount of sea-level rise is far below normal.BELOW normal!
Do the math. Sea levels stood about 370 feet lower at the end of the last ice age than they do today. Multiply 370 times 12 and you get 4,440 inches. Divide that by 11,500 years, and you get .39 inches (.99 cm) per year. That’s more than a third of an inch, the thickness of five nickels. That means that today’s sea-level rise is far below normal. (Which I would expect as we head into an ice age.)
Besides that, when we look at sea-level rise, why do we concentrate almost solely on melting ice?
What about the estimated three million underwater volcanoes (according to NASA) that are constantly pumping basalt into the seas? Wouldn’t that amount of basalt contribute to sea-level rise?
And what about erosion? What about the huge amounts of sediments that wash into the sea each year?
NASA estimates that the the Mississippi River dumps 550 million metric tons of sediment into the Gulf of Mexico each year (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1257), enough to to extend the coast of Louisiana 91 m (300 ft) each year.
And the Amazon River annually carries as much as 1,000 million tons of sediment into the oceans (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v278/n5700/abs/278161a0.html).
That’s just two rivers.
If you calculated the amount of sediments pouring into the seas from all of the world’s rivers, I wonder how that would affect the numbers?

* * *
Exposing the global-warming con job.
Alan Caruba’s commentaries are posted daily at “Warning Signs” and shared on dozens of news and opinion websites. His blog recently passed more than two million page views. If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews. For information on his professional skills, Caruba Editorial Services is the place.

[fouronesix]

By far the greatest green house component of the atmosphere is water vapor. The EPA would have a hard time calling that a hazardous pollutant so they picked an easy one- CO2. With a little effort helped by a truly dumb media, they could probably get significant public support for classifying dihydrogen monoxide as a hazardous pollutant.

If the most powerful computers on the planet can't accurately model 5 day or even 3 day weather- how in the world can they model cause-effect dynamic climate cycles that span thous, 100s of thous or millions of years?

How does man made global climate change (or whatever it's called this week) account for the many, many ice ages followed by an equal number of warmings since the Earth had an atmosphere?

Oh that's right, the "man made" industrial revolution which began in about 1800, spans most all the Earth's climate history.:veryconfu

[Elkins45]

People (including many who have written in this thread) need to start separating the SCIENCE of climate study from the political aspects of climate POLICY.

I'm in total agreement with the people who say proposed solutions like cap and trade, or subsidized wind & solar are just cronyism and socialist redistribution. That doesn't change the science, and there is a lot of data indicating there has been a change. Not all of the bad stuff has been climate: just search for ocean acidification and the effect it is having on the coastal oyster fishery.

There are at least four separate questions to the climate discussion, and people can be wrong and have hidden motives and agendas on both sides of all of the questions.

1) Does the data support the assertion that the climate is changing?
2) If so, what factor or factors are responsible for the change?
3) What solutions are available to stop or reverse the process?
4) Do the available solutions (if any) present an acceptable cost/benefit ratio?

[dtknowles]

You can speculate about causes all you want. It does not matter, the salt water is overcoming the land. I have lived on all three coasts for a period of 50 years, the sea is winning the battle. No amount of money or effort is going to turn the tide before serious damage is done. It is a waste and a losing battle to fight it. They want billions to protect the Louisiana wetlands, it will all be wasted because they will not be able to stop the many square miles of marsh lost each year. The gulf may not be rising but the marsh is going away. Florida beaches, lived their, saw it, might be the storms or ocean rise or the land sinking but the beaches either are replenished or the high tide line moves inland. Maryland cliffs along the Chesapeake bay and the cliffs in California are breaking down and being swallowed up by the water. It might be a natural process, they all might be a natural process but it is happening.

I read somewhere that as the ice melts over Greenland that the land actually rises as the weight comes off. I can't tell you about Global Warming.

Tim

[Elkins45]

I read somewhere that as the ice melts over Greenland that the land actually rises as the weight comes off.

Yes, it's called isostasy. Parts of the North American continent are still rebounding from the last ice age.

[marlin39a]

14 degrees here in mornings for last week. Cold daytime highs. Major snow yesterday. It's amazing how quiet the "Global Warmers" get in Winter.

[JSnover]

The planet is not doomed. It isn't even threatened. Until the sun goes supernova or something big crashes into the Earth, it will be here a lot longer than we will.
Coping with change would be a much more effective strategy than finding ways to stop it. But as someone pointed out, this is really about power.

[JSnover]

It's amazing how quiet the "Global Warmers" get in Winter.
Maybe we got it backwards. Instead of trying to teach them anything maybe every fall when the weather cools we should congratulate them for winning the War Against Climate Change, pin a tinfoil medal on their chest and talk them into doing something else. They're pretty stupid... It just might work.

[Hogtamer]

Well, the Pope's on board the climate change political train now. Seems to me he oughtta be more interested in the eschotological climate change that his predecessor Peter describes, and the souls effected thereby.

2 Peter 3:10-13New King James Version (NKJV)

The Day of the Lord

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

[cbrick]

There are at least four separate questions to the climate discussion, and people can be wrong and have hidden motives and agendas on both sides of all of the questions.

1) Does the data support the assertion that the climate is changing?
2) If so, what factor or factors are responsible for the change?
3) What solutions are available to stop or reverse the process?
4) Do the available solutions (if any) present an acceptable cost/benefit ratio?

1> Of course the climate is changing very simply for the fact that is has NEVER not been changing.
2> Nature, not the least of which is the constantly changing energy output of the sun.
3> Nothing unless you can control the sun, volcanoes and other natural phenomena. Taxing these things will help the rich get richer and the powerful get more powerful but change nature? Only in the mind of those that have been duped into believing the propaganda.
4> Acceptable? Sure but only to those on the receiving end of the gained power and billions in taxes.

Rick

[Menner]

Dtknowles I have to disagree that the world is Doomed. (DtKnowles the rest of this is not directed at you) This big ball was turning and burning and freezing and thawing long before Animals showed up on the scene the land masses have moved changed shape got smaller and yes larger for millions of years and to think that Humans have ANY control over this is ludicrous. Sure we can make changes to drain swamps so developers can make money and we can do something incredibly smart like build cities below sea level put levies around it and pump water out of the city and are stunned when it floods, or build houses on a BARRIER ISLAND and be amazed that the insurance companies want a fortune and that sooner or later Mother nature is going to slap them for being stupid. I live on the East Coast and have spent my whole life fishing the Atlantic Coast and Chesapeake Bay I have seen at least 3 Inlets change location and one of them return to the "original" (were it was the first time I seen it) location. We build jetties to try and control erosion and we pump sand up on the beach for the tourists but it makes little difference the tides ebb and flow, take and give that's the way this works. but the houses that are there on the coast were there when I was a kid I am 50 so it was not yesterday. Are the Coasts changing H#%% Yes they are but they have been changing before we got here and will be changing long after we have killed ourselves off. ANYTHING outside 3 days prediction on weather is VODOO!!! the computer "models" are generated with faulty information to prove out the what the Scientist wants to see to prove His/Her hypotenuse ( D*** that's a big word for a Sussex County Redneck) To many Scientist take ownership of their assumptions and place there reputation and measure of self worth over being correct instead of letting the information prove what it proves.
Alright I am going to stop I type at 5% of the speed of what is coming out of my mind and I tend to ramble around (not that my mind is that fast but I type REAL SLOW)

GLOBAL WARMING IS 100% created and driven by MONEY AND THE NEED FOR CONTROL AND POWER because we are to stupid to run our own lives they need to do it for us. It is an acceptable reason for some people to give up liberties and be controlled and we feel good about it
Tony

[randyrat]

I miss the warming trend we had in the 90s. Our winters are going back to normal brutal winters. We did have an Indian summer for a little spell last week and then winter came back with a good Nor west cold spell.

Global Warming hoopla is just about controlling our supply/use of fossil fuels and a big power grab, you have to admit is was brilliant attempt and it still fools a bunch of people. I think a bunch of people should be subject to a public trial and exiled out of this country or at least go to jail. It is Thievery/ Extortion in it's worst. If it was up to me I would Exile them to Cuba! or maybe North Korea.

[dtknowles]

The planet is not doomed. It isn't even threatened. Until the sun goes supernova or something big crashes into the Earth, it will be here a lot longer than we will.
Coping with change would be a much more effective strategy than finding ways to stop it. But as someone pointed out, this is really about power.

You, yourself have pointed out the planet is doomed right after you said it wasn't. The Sun will go thru significant changes long before it burns out or blows up but either way it is doomed. I think that the Sun evolutionary path is thru a Red Dwarf. Why shouldn't humans survive to be here when the Sun goes Nova or whatever. Maybe we can go hide behind Jupiter.

I am glad we agree that it will be much easier to adapt to the climate changes than to stop them.

Yes, the climate change debate is about Political Power and Money. Don't let that confuse you the climate is changing, has been, will be, and like an chaotic process it will be highly unpredictable except for some general trends.

Tim

[jmort]

One nice thing is that everything the anthropomorphic global warming drones say will happen does not happen. We have a record lack of hurricanes for exaple. We were supposed to have hurricanes up the wazoo. So far,they have come up short on all accounts.

[LynC2]

I sure would like to see some global warming here as it was in the low teens last night and if we get lucky the global warming might reach 32 if we are lucky. Not enough to even melt the snow on the ground. :cry:

[waksupi]

You can speculate about causes all you want. It does not matter, the salt water is overcoming the land. I have lived on all three coasts for a period of 50 years, the sea is winning the battle. No amount of money or effort is going to turn the tide before serious damage is done. It is a waste and a losing battle to fight it. They want billions to protect the Louisiana wetlands, it will all be wasted because they will not be able to stop the many square miles of marsh lost each year. The gulf may not be rising but the marsh is going away. Florida beaches, lived their, saw it, might be the storms or ocean rise or the land sinking but the beaches either are replenished or the high tide line moves inland. Maryland cliffs along the Chesapeake bay and the cliffs in California are breaking down and being swallowed up by the water. It might be a natural process, they all might be a natural process but it is happening.

I read somewhere that as the ice melts over Greenland that the land actually rises as the weight comes off. I can't tell you about Global Warming.

Tim

Keep in mind, most of the Great Plains were once ocean. Plenty fossils available as proof.

[Menner]

I just got back from the range was looking for a little global warming while I was there fingers getting chilly still not bad first cast out of my sons Ruger77 MkII 270 not bad proved the Boolit 150Gr will exit the barrel and land in the same spot at 50 yards with a couple starting loads now comes the fun

Tony

[JSnover]

You, yourself have pointed out the planet is doomed right after you said it wasn't. The Sun will go thru significant changes long before it burns out or blows up but either way it is doomed.

Tim
To clarify, then; it isn't threatened in any way by humans. We could nuke the planet. If we did it in such a way that every square inch was radioactive and hot enough to melt iron, the earth would eventually recover. It would be different but it would still be here. We would not.

[Idz]

In real science the axiom is "If your theory cannot make a testable prediction then its not physics it is philosophy" You'd think after a decade and billions of dollars the climate scientists could predict something that could be verified by the worldwide network of weather stations. So far, they only play the con-man game of a multitude of vague predictions and tout the ones they randomly get right.

[GOPHER SLAYER]

Boys and girls of cast boolit land and all friends of the cosmos, we are slipping into the abyss. When I awoke yesterday it was 22%, today it was only 20%. I tell you we are losing ground. I do wish Al would reappear and give us some guidance. As a side note. Why is CO2 the big bugaboo? Without it we wouldn't have life on earth at all. Plants breath the stuff and give us oxygen. We would surely be in a fix without plants.

[JSnover]

In 2008 Obama promised to lower sea levels if he was elected. So it's a done deal. Nothing left to worry about.

[ak_milsurp]

And it was 46 degrees and raining in Palmer, Alaska. Yesterday. Last night it was raining during the New Year's celebration in downtown Anchorage! Lol Of course, it did the same thi g about 30 years ago....

[starmac]

We had scary high temps in fairbanks the last couple of days too, luckily it was still snow instead of rain though. Suppose to be back below 0 tonight though.

[Bad Water Bill]

This OLD ball has been undergoing changes for millions of years.

Google Interstate 80 and route 1 in Homewood Il

Look at the big Limestone quarries I 80 crosses over.

At one time that was a subtropical reef that is many hundreds of feet deep and ???? miles long.

While the reef was forming and shifting around not 1 mammal or bird existed.

MOTHER nature is aptly named.

My mother lived in the same house for many years.

Every year it was move some furniture,repaint some things or plant new plants,trees or rose bushes (my Mothers Day gift to her every year for about 50 years).

That is just the way of most MOTHERS, always changing things.

Got to love every MOTHER and just accept their changes.

[Fishman]

Shouldn't this discussion be in the Pit?

[jmort]

Yes. I thought is was. Need to read sub-forum title before posting. I pull these up from "Today" tab. So I apologize.

[gew98]

Yes. I thought is was. Need to read sub-forum title before posting. I pull these up from "Today" tab. So I apologize.
Lord barky will have you put in a pillar for this out of pit sharing. Too much reality for one posting.

[Elkins45]

Keep in mind, most of the Great Plains were once ocean. Plenty fossils available as proof.

I'm a science teacher. I have met more than a few people over my career who dispute that. According to them the earth is about 5000 years old and looks pretty much the same as it did at the moment of Creation. They have told me those fossils were put there by the Devil to trick mankind and weaken their faith.

I have a degree in geology. You can imagine how difficult it is for me to engage in such a conversation. Some people see the world through a narrow lens and will go to any length to contort or outright reject mountains of evidence to avoid anything that challenges their beliefs.

[Echo]

Cold snap here in AZ. Freeze zapped my water solar heater - malfunction that will be repaired when the tech comes back next week. Warmed up to low 40's here so we decided to go out to the Sierra Vista Shooting Range. I hadn't seen it, and might want to do some shooting there. Well - it was closed. Jan First, so a holiday. Dang. But it was a very scenic drive.
126035
One can see Sierra Vista & Ft Huahuca nestled next to the Huachuca Mtns. Beautiful day...

[waksupi]

I'm a science teacher. I have met more than a few people over my career who dispute that. According to them the earth is about 5000 years old and looks pretty much the same as it did at the moment of Creation. They have told me those fossils were put there by the Devil to trick mankind and weaken their faith.

I have a degree in geology. You can imagine how difficult it is for me to engage in such a conversation. Some people see the world through a narrow lens and will go to any length to contort or outright reject mountains of evidence to avoid anything that challenges their beliefs.

Ask them how long God's days were.

[KYCaster]

I agree with Bad Water Bill. Mother Nature keeps changing things, but my Google-fu led me to a different place than his.

Head south on I75 through Cincinnati and you'll cross the Ohio river into "Northern Kentucky", as it's known locally. As you leave the river valley you'll see lots of the limestone strata that Bill mentioned, but that's not what this is about.

15 miles or so south of the river you'll see signs directing to this:

126034

Git yer mind out of the gutter! Google it and you won't find a bunch of porn! Instead you'll find things like, "Birthplace of American Paleontology", "William Clark Expedition" and "Friends of Big Bone"....there ya go again! :oops:

Anyway....follow the signs out Beaver Road, through Rabbit Hash and Beaver Lick.....WILL YOU STOP THAT!! Pretty soon you'll find the park.

Obviously, the name comes from the fossilized remains found there. Many of the remains are from animals generally associated with very warm climates. Animals that were forced to move south by the advance of glaciers expanding as the climate cooled.

So, in a span of less than 20 miles we find the Ohio river, which marked the southern influence of the glaciers, and the remains of animals from a much warmer period.....both within a relatively short geological era.

Jerry

[jmort]

"Some people see the world through a narrow lens and will go to any length to contort or outright reject mountains of evidence to avoid anything that challenges their beliefs."

Exactly like the consensus global warming scientists who fabricate "evidence" so they can get grant money. Right out of the liberal atheist playbook. I would rather be ignorant than be a liar.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01803/ChristopherBooker__1803683j.jpg (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/)
By Christopher Booker (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/)

4:04PM BST 21 Jun 2014
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/template/ver1-0/i/share/comments.gif12740 Comments (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html#disqus_thread)


When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science (https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/author/stevengoddard/), showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.


When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.

[dakotashooter2]

2nd main cause of global warming..... All the welfare and fuel assistance recipients keeping their doors and windows open when it is -10 outside........................

[Bad Water Bill]

2nd main cause of global warming..... All the welfare and fuel assistance recipients keeping their doors and windows open when it is -10 outside........................

But if they can not ADVERTISE just what they have to share they will not have any more tax deductions for US to pay for don't you know.:evil:

[MaryB]

Added comments in red below

People (including many who have written in this thread) need to start separating the SCIENCE of climate study from the political aspects of climate POLICY.

I'm in total agreement with the people who say proposed solutions like cap and trade, or subsidized wind & solar are just cronyism and socialist redistribution. That doesn't change the science, and there is a lot of data indicating there has been a change. Not all of the bad stuff has been climate: just search for ocean acidification and the effect it is having on the coastal oyster fishery.

There are at least four separate questions to the climate discussion, and people can be wrong and have hidden motives and agendas on both sides of all of the questions.

1) Does the data support the assertion that the climate is changing? Not that I have seen, temps globally have dropped the last 17 years making the rest of the questions invalid
2) If so, what factor or factors are responsible for the change?
3) What solutions are available to stop or reverse the process?
4) Do the available solutions (if any) present an acceptable cost/benefit ratio?

[Col4570]

Stop Building,start Planting.Halt Rainforrest destruction.

[MaryB]

I had a go round with someone on another forum over fossil temperature records. I asked multiple times what is the margin of error for temperature 5,000 years ago and they kept claiming they were as accurate as thermometers. He also insisted that 200 or so years of accurate thermometer temperatures are enough to determine the current climate cycle which is a minimum of 12,000 years old since the last glacial period ended. We have had some smaller changes in that time period, mini ice age etc but that is a weather variation not climate.

That is what we are dealing with, I read several papers on the fossil temperature determinations and could not find a margin of error listed in any I found online. So how can they claim we are warmer than 2,000 years ago when they do not know what the temp was then beyond a vague it was in this temp range due to these plants and these gasses in the ice... there is no way those temps are more accurate then +- 5 degrees f and so called warming is being claimed because we are 1 degree above normal??? I am sorry but the term SCAM comes to mind.

As far as the coastal stuff goes think about this. How much vegetation have we removed from the sand and dunes? Vegetation that holds the sand in place and stops erosion? What we are seeing on the coasts is a mix of erosion, the MS marshes is because we channeled the river past them and the silt load is dumping in the gulf instead. Florida is subsiding from groundwater depletion etc etc there are a lot of natural processes at work besides minor sea level rise.

[Bad Water Bill]

Several years ago there was a video taken by "THE U S NAVY" showing a crater in the bottom of the Pacific Ocean extending for many miles and every inch was spewing molten lava.

Now that must be causing a temp change but how are we to be blamed?

[jmort]

Three Million Underwater Volcanoes Can’t be Wrong

by ROBERT (http://iceagenow.info/author/xilef/) on JULY 17, 2014 · 29 COMMENTS (http://iceagenow.info/2014/07/million-underwater-volcanoes-wrong/#comments)









http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/plugins/trackable-social-share-icons/buttons/f4/facebook.png (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Ficeagenow.info%2F2014%2F 07%2Fmillion-underwater-volcanoes-wrong%2F) http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/plugins/trackable-social-share-icons/buttons/f4/twitter.png (http://twitter.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Ficeagenow.info%2F2014%2F07% 2Fmillion-underwater-volcanoes-wrong%2F&text=Three+Million+Underwater+Volcanoes+Can%26%238 217%3Bt+be+Wrong)


“This paper totally blows the man-made CO2 hype out of the water and underscores your own predictions of the amount if underwater volcanic activity,” says analytical chemist Hans Schreuder.
Most estimates of volcanogenic carbon dioxide emission are woefully low, says consulting geologist Timothy Casey.
An enormous and unmeasured amount of carbon dioxide degases from volcanoes, mostly submarine.

http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Underwater_volcano.jpg (http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Underwater_volcano.jpg)Underwater eruption

Lava contains a surprising amount of carbon dioxide, says Casey in his new paper, “Volcanic Carbon Dioxide (http://www.principia-scientific.org/volcanic-carbon-dioxide.html).” (Principia Scientific International,16 June 2014). In fact, CO2 is the second most abundantly emitted volcanic gas next to steam.
Carbon dioxide emissions from volcanoes – especially from underwater volcanoes – dwarf anthropogenic contributions (man-made) sources, says Casey. Unfortunately, some researchers dismiss not only mid-oceanic-ridge emissions, but all other forms of submarine volcanism altogether, which is a major oversight.
According to one study, Pacific mid-plate seamounts number between 22,000 and 55,000, of which 2,000 are active volcanoes, says Casey. One researcher even dismisses those few, justifying the omission by claiming that mid oceanic ridges discharge less CO2 than is consumed by hydrothermal carbonate systems.
Submarine lakes of liquid carbon dioxide
In point of fact, says Casey, carbon dioxide escapes these hydrothermal vent systems in such quantities that it sometimes accumulates in submarine lakes of liquid carbon dioxide. There is nothing to prevent that superheated carbon dioxide from dissolving into the seawater or otherwise making its way to the surface.
Since seawater in the vicinity of hydrothermal vent systems is saturated with carbon dioxide, and since seawater elsewhere is not saturated with CO2, it stands to reason that this saturation came from the hydrothermal vent system, Casey argues. If the vent system consumed more carbon dioxide than it emitted, the seawater in the vicinity of hydrothermal vent systems would be CO2 depleted.
Because the oceans occupy twice the surface area of land, it would be easy to believe that one the oceans would contain twice the number of volcanoes as exist on land. But the number of submarine volcanoes is far, far higher than that.
3,477,403 submarine volcanoes exist worldwide
As Casey points out, after surveying 201,055 submarine volcanoes, Hillier & Watts estimated that a total of 3,477,403 submarine volcanoes exist worldwide, of which, Casey estimates, 139,096 are active.
Casey’s conclusion? Three Million Volcanoes Can’t be Wrong.
I’m including the four references that I think are most relevant.
Hillier, J. K., & Watts, A. B., 2007, “Global distribution of seamounts from ship- track bathymetry data”, Geophysical. Research. Letters, Vol. 34, L13304, doi:10.1029/2007GL029874
Plimer, I. R., 2001, a short history of planet earth, 250 pp., ISBN13: 978-0-7333-1004- 0
Plimer, I. R., 2009, Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science, 503 pp., ISBN13: 978-1-9214-2114-3
Wishart, I., 2009, Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth about Global Warming, ISBN13: 978-0-9582-4014-7

See entire paper:
http://www.principia-scientific.org/volcanic-carbon-dioxide.html
Thanks to Hans Schreuder for this link
“To those of us who can see through the official mist, the CO2 issue is nothing more than a political ruse, eagerly underwritten by academics who have never thought for themselves and only regurgitate what was written in their textbooks,” says Hans. “No critical thought, no acceptance that the old “masters” might have been wrong, such as Kirchoff, Arrhenius et al.”
Note: In an attempt to make it readable for the layman, I’ve taken great liberties with Casey’s paper, simplifying, simplifying, simplifying. If you think I went too far, you’re welcome to point out your disagreements in the comments section.
I think the original paper – 20 pages long, quite technical, with more than 60 entries in the bibliography – would have made the average reader’s eyes cross very quickly.