Climate Change: 50 F Above Normal at North Pole (racism, election, elect)

[shanv3]

Originally Posted by Elliott_CA

While parts of the US digs out from ice and snow, and Siberia suffers from temperatures of -40 F or worse, at the North Pole it will be 50 F above normal three days from now. This, following record heat worldwide just a year ago, shows that manmade climate change is happening, the effects are getting worse, and accelerating. Greenland's melting, Antarctica's sea ice shelf is losing 30 feet of thickness per year, coral reefs are dying, record droughts...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...above-normal/?

Looks like lots of Trumps here - who refuse to listen to others or think.

There is no point talking about climate change to those people who use a plastic bag for carrying a snickers.

And talk about how nature evolves in itself sitting in their couch.

[Zymer]

Originally Posted by Pub-911

No, it isn't up for debate at all. The only way that current climate data could exist is with these elevated CO2 levels. There is nothing else that could have caused them. And the source of all this CO2 is humans. There is nowhere else it could have come from.


The last ice age ended nearly 12,000 years ago. What we are seeing over the past 150 years of this interglacial period is a complete divergence from what any natural explanation can account for.

Not true...

Originally Posted by Pub-911

LOL! Explanations for local and regional conditions? Climate science has long known all about these. It also now knows that there is global warming due to dramatically increasing levels of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. And nothing else produces nearly enough CO2 to account for the increase. It's us. Period.

...And not true.

There are many factors and sources that go into gasses in the atmosphere, CO2 is but one gas. And, interestingly enough, CO2 is *necessary* for the respiration cycle of plants, in which they return O2 so that we can breathe.

Originally Posted by Pub-911

It's just as Karl Rove told us -- if you can run up a big enough margin among the stupid people, it won't matter how the smart people vote.

This is true...the only question is which are the stupid people and which are the smart ones.

And while all men may have been created equal, all opinions definitely were not. The opinions that are based on partisan nonsense are worth much, much less than the ones based on serious testing, thought and research. That's where the "debate" over climate change ends up -- worthless nonsense versus the products of actual science.

There is no debate over whether the climate changes, or is changing. It does, and it is...just as it has done for millions of years. I supplied real scientific, graphic data. The graphs tell the story, the true story, of how the climate has been changing and one does not even need a degree or to be 'up' on the scientific lingo to read it. Do you want to argue against the charts and graphs that are "actual science"? Go for it.

[Pub-911]

Originally Posted by Zymer

Do you want to argue against the charts and graphs that are "actual science"? Go for it.

Been there, done that. Claims counter to AGW are these days just worthless slop and babble pandered by an ever-shrinking band of anti-science holdouts.

[ericsvibe]

All of this global warming crap is just a huge money grab, useable petroleum is a limited resource. We have already surpassed peak output. New technology is going to be needed to move the world, and CO2 emissions won't have a thing to do with it. We will reach the day when every once of coal has been burned, every drop of oil pumped. 100 years from now it will all be history. So what if the desert is a little hotter, or the arctic a little warmer, the real impact on our lives today will be miniscule. The Sahara used to be a jungle, weather patterns changed and now it is a desert. Does it matter to us today, no because in our lifetime it has always been a desert. I'm sure to some ancient humans the Sahara today would suck. People adapt. Our future generations will adapt as well. I'm not going to worry about it, there is enough REAL natural disasters to keep me busy. We still have no answer to an asteroid strike, which by the way killed the dinosaurs, and many craters have been found across the earth. Tectonic activity is picking up, and millions of people live in close proximity to volcanoes. Any one of these things could wipe out most of the planet.


The environmental screechers all have one thing in common, they love to complain, but do very little to try to change anything. Coal is bad, oil is bad, nuclear is bad, wind kills too many birds, solar frys birds and countries strip mine to get the materials, eat vegan, crops use too much water, cow farts are bad, the earth is overpopulated, etc....


There is no way to win.


Here are some facts.


According to the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, there are 1.3 trillion barrels of proven oil reserve left in the world's major fields, which at present rates of consumption should last 40 years.


There are an estimated 892 billion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide. This means that there is enough coal to last us around 110 years at current rates of production. In contrast, proven oil and gas reserves are equivalent to around 52 and 54 years at current production levels.


The 440 commercial nuclear reactors in use worldwide are currently helping to minimize our consumption of fossil fuels, but how much bigger can nuclear power get? In an analysis to be published in a future issue of the Proceedings of the IEEE, Derek Abbott, Professor of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the University of Adelaide in Australia, has concluded that nuclear power cannot be globally scaled to supply the world’s energy needs for numerous reasons.



In order to examine the large-scale limits of nuclear power, Abbott estimates that to supply 15 TW with nuclear only, we would need about 15,000 nuclear reactors.


“The dream of a utopia where the world is powered off fission or fusion reactors is simply unattainable. Even a supply of as little as 1 TW stretches resources considerably.”




The answer to our energy needs is solar. If you really want to make a difference, this is where we as a people should be putting our effort. Wind turbines do kill birds, they are massive and require large amounts of materials to construct. They are an eyesore. Elon Musk recently stated that if every home and commercial building in the U.S was covered in solar panels we could generate 90 % of the energy needed to supply the country. Think of that, no additional construction, no need to clear more land. The electric grid will have to be redesigned for this to happen, but that is going to be necessary anyway once the oil runs out.

[Rescue3]

Originally Posted by Pub-911

All it means is that you were caught flat-out lying about the 1970s. I bet it wasn't the first time for that either...

Dude, you aren't worth lying to.

Not only did I live it out in the 70s, I even lived it out in the 60s. Do you recall the plan scientists dreamed up back then to scatter a dark powdery substance all over the world's oceans to retain heat from sunlight in an effort to increase earth's temperatures? Happily, common sense prevailed and the scientists engaged in that generation's hyper-flail didn't get to pollute the world's oceans in the name of climate science.

If you don't remember that little episode, maybe you weren't around back then.

And that would also explain why you are so receptive to this generation's version of scientific hyper-flail.

[Pub-911]

Originally Posted by Rescue3

Dude, you aren't worth lying to.

Then why are you still at it?

And by the way, the oldest boomer is younger than I am. Not by a lot though.

[Zymer]

Originally Posted by Pub-911

Been there, done that. Claims counter to AGW are these days just worthless slop and babble pandered by an ever-shrinking band of anti-science holdouts.

So, basically, you got nothin', because the data doesn't support your objective, so all you're left with is a futile rant calling it "worthless slop and babble". Well, unfortunately, that "worthless slop and babble" is hard data, and data by itself has no agenda, and you can't twist it to make it say what it doesn't.

I have a very good education in science, strongly so ever since elementary school, through various technical schools, and college. I love science, *real* science. I am most definitely *not* "anti-science" as you apparently would like to believe.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Rescue3

Dude, you aren't worth lying to.

Not only did I live it out in the 70s, I even lived it out in the 60s. Do you recall the plan scientists dreamed up back then to scatter a dark powdery substance all over the world's oceans to retain heat from sunlight in an effort to increase earth's temperatures? Happily, common sense prevailed and the scientists engaged in that generation's hyper-flail didn't get to pollute the world's oceans in the name of climate science.

If you don't remember that little episode, maybe you weren't around back then.

And that would also explain why you are so receptive to this generation's version of scientific hyper-flail.

Scientists in the late 60's/early 70's already had predicted the effects of global warming we're now experiencing, and the process by which the temp rise becomes exponential: they predicted increased temps would lead to more wildfires, whose released CO2 would drive the temps even higher, spiraling out of control eventually. We're living this now. These predictions, made in the mid-to-late 60's, is what gave rise to the first Earth Day, in 1970.


Whoever you're talking about, who was concerned with global cooling, must have been a fringe act. The main thrust was all about the effects of man-made air pollutants via industrialization, that scientists had been studying and recording since the 1940's.

[Pub-911]

Originally Posted by Zymer

I have a very good education in science, strongly so ever since elementary school, through various technical schools, and college. I love science, *real* science. I am most definitely *not* "anti-science" as you apparently would like to believe.

Your posted arguments have been "Not true." and "Not true." That's laughable. Here again are a couple of simple facts...

The only way that current climate data could exist is with these elevated CO2 levels. There is nothing else that could have caused them. And the source of all this CO2 is humans. There is nowhere else it could have come from.

The last ice age ended nearly 12,000 years ago. What we are seeing over the past 150 years of this interglacial period is a complete divergence from what any natural explanation can account for.

...maybe you'd like to try out some of your vast scientificness on actually addressing those given a second chance?

[Blitzmark]

How did we exit the last ice age? Cavemen must have imposed CO2 taxes and limited the use of campfires to cook their food.