"NOW Do You Believe in Global Warming?"
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Monday, August 27, 2012 01:07
VIEWED: 17646
PAGE 4 of 13
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
don't blindly buy his bogus proclamation that ' the debate is settled '. It isn't.
What?? You say all the time that the debate is settled, proclaiming that AGW is nothing more than a hoax. Have you changed your views?
It's not personal. It's just war.
Unlike AlGore, I'll keep and open mind. Which is why I said come back in 50 years, then I'll give you an answer. It really may need more like 100 to 500 years, for a more accurate measure, but I'm sure that I REALLY won't care by then. So 50 seems like a fair number.
Let's use the same yardstick for measuring the impact of Islamic terrorism, shall we? After all, more people die every year in this country from peanut allergies than die from terrorist attacks.
So ask me again in 500 years if I'm worried about Muslims, and I'll get back to you then!
Sound fair?
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Oh, I know the word well, and understand it just fine. Others have grokked my meaning as well, though I fully expected you would not.
So I'm not a lap dog for AlGore, and don't blindly buy his bogus proclamation that ' the debate is settled '. It isn't. Doesn't mean I don't still adhere to the facts or the evidence.
You "adhere to the facts or the evidence"? Are you fucking kidding me?
You've provided neither on this topic. What "facts" are you adhering to?
Don't you mean you're adhering to your "claims", not your "facts"?
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
yeah 130 degrees F BELOW ZERO is global warmining.
Quote:
South Pole Station Sets New Record Low: -100.8°F
June 24, 2012
According to the University of Wisconsin, Madison, on June 11, 2012, the South Pole Station measured a new record low temperature.
The mercury dropped to -73.8°C (-100.8°F), breaking the previous minimum temperature record of -73.3°C (-99.9°F) set in 1966.
Must be because of global warming!
http://iceagenow.info/2012/06/south-pole-station-sets-record-low-100-8
%C2%B0f/
South Pole hits minus 100F mark earliest ever in the winter
By Peter Rejcek, Antarctic Sun Editor
Posted April 20, 2012
It’s no secret that the South Pole in Antarctica is one of the coldest places on Earth.
But this year it got really cold faster than ever, breaking a 30-year-old record for the earliest the temperature has dropped below minus 100 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 73.3 degrees Celsius).
The mercury officially bottomed out at minus 100.1F (minus 73.4C) on April 7 (local time), less than three weeks after the one sunset of the year that occurs at the bottom of the world. Previously, the earliest the temperature had broken the minus 100F barrier was on April 8, 1982 (local time), plummeting down to minus 103.4F (minus 75.2C).
“Climatology shows that it isn’t as atypical as one would think,” said South Pole Station senior meteorologist Dale Herschlag.
A screen shot from the South Pole Station weather scroll marking the dip below minus 100F.
Herschlag said that there have been eight instances where the station has reached the minus 100F milestone in the month of April, with another 13 “close calls,” when the temperature was just a degree or two shy of the mark.
On average, the station typically experiences the first minus 100F day by May. The coldest months are June and July, according to Herschlag. The coldest day ever recorded at the South Pole was on June 23, 1982, hitting minus 117F (minus 82.8C). The average annual temperature is about minus 58F (minus 50C). Climate records at the South Pole began in 1957.
“For the most part, the pattern that set up last week was typical for minus 100F readings,” Herschlag explained. “Typically, in order to get that cold, we would need grid easterly winds for a sustained period of 24-48 hours at a minimum.
“This pushes the pool of coldest continental air from the Antarctic plateau into the South Pole,” he added. “We had been predominantly in the upper 80s to around 90 below zero F for almost a week leading up to this event.”
In fact, just last September, another significant record fell when the peak wind speed was clocked at 58 miles per hour (mph), or 50 knots — the strongest ever at the South Pole. The previous record of 55mph (48kts) was set on Aug. 24, 1989. [See previous article — Windy days: Pole storms bring record-breaking gusts in September.]
The minus 100F barrier also marks the time when Polies wintering over get an opportunity to join the exclusive 300 Club. Membership involves sweating it out in a sauna at 200F for as long as possible and then making a quick trip to the geographic South Pole — all while wearing not much more than a pair of boots.
Herschlag said about a dozen of the 50 winter-overs joined the club for the couple of hours while the temperature fluctuated at the membership level.
http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/features/contenthandler.cfm?id=2643
-95 degrees F Coldest Temperature Ever In The Northern Hemisphere
http://www.real-science.com/coldest-temperature-ever-recorded-in-the-n
orthern-hemisphere-forecast-for-wednesday
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, I did. Because AlGore is not only the biggest carnival barker on this subject, he's set himself up to be one of the wealthiest from the promotion of this global scam. And oh yeah, he's one of the biggest HYPOCRITES in the world too, doing exactly what he tells others NOT to do.
Originally posted by Storymark:
Did I bring up Gore? No?
Quote:
Oh, right, Rappy desperately trying to distract. SOP. Boring.
And yet, you keep replying. Huh.
And also...
Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years
Tree ring study gives first accurate climate reading back to 138BC
World has been slowly cooling for 2,000 years
World was warmer in Roman and Medieval times than it is now
Study of semi-fossilised trees in Finland
By Rob Waugh
PUBLISHED: 07:22 EST, 11 July 2012 | UPDATED: 07:22 EST, 11 July 2012
Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought - with measurements dating back to 138BC Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought - and the earth has been slowly COOLING for 2,000 years.
Measurements stretching back to 138BC prove that the Earth is slowly cooling due to changes in the distance between the Earth and the sun.
The finding may force scientists to rethink current theories of the impact of global warming. It is the first time that researchers have been able to accurately measure trends in global temperature over the last two millennia.
Over that time, the world has been getting cooler - and previous estimates, used as the basis for current climate science, are wrong. Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.
‘This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant,’ says Esper, ‘however, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. 'Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia.’
The finding was based on semi-fossilised tree rings found in Finnish lapland. Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC.
In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling.
‘We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low,’ says Esper. ‘Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods.’
The annual growth rings in trees are the most important witnesses over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years as they indicate how warm and cool past climate conditions were.
The density measurements correlate closely with the summer temperatures in this area on the edge of the Nordic taiga; the researchers were thus able to create a temperature reconstruction of unprecedented quality.
The reconstruction provides a high-resolution representation of temperature patterns in the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, but also shows the cold phases that occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age.
In addition to the cold and warm phases, the new climate curve also exhibits a phenomenon that was not expected in this form.
For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Let's use the same yardstick for measuring the impact of Islamic terrorism, shall we? After all, more people die every year in this country from peanut allergies than die from terrorist attacks.
So ask me again in 500 years if I'm worried about Muslims, and I'll get back to you then!
Sound fair?
Don't forget to bring your prayer rug.
And classic non sequitur, with the peanut allergies bit. I guess you're cool with an oppressive religious cult, controlling your every thought, as long as you're still alive, huh?
Better dead than Islam-ed.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Link, rappy?
Quote:
Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought
It seems to me that this study gives us an insight into the temperature record of Finland, NOT the whole world. Think about it rappy: these fossilised pine trees were from one region of Finland; can we be certain that they give us accurate temperature records for Argentina, Japan, Liberia?
It's well known that in Medieval times the temperature was very warm in some parts of the world - namely Northern Europe and North America - but globally temperatures were cooler.
Some further reading: http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
ETA: It's funny, the last time I debated a climate skeptic he was completely dismissive of tree rings as a reliable proxy for temperature. There's no orthodoxy in climate skepticism it seems...
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study
-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html
Hello KPO,
I noticed you quoted some material looking for a source.
I did a search and got a hit that seems fairly close to what you were looking for.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
I believe that polluting less and using renewable energy are items that can be sold on their own merits, using purely selfish motivators.
They could indeed.
*IF*, that is what these debates were actually ABOUT.
And one side, the other, or even sometimes both - most of the time that ain't the case.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:
I recommend "The Age of Stupid," starring Pete Postlethwaite.
"a man living alone in the devasted world of 2055, looking back at archive footage
from 2007 and asking: why didn't we stop climate change when we had the chance?"
In a few years, my grandsons may ask, "Why didn't we stop climate change when we had
the chance?" Will they remember their parents' complete, concrete denial of it?
To those here in adamant denial ... Hey! Wouldn't you like cleaner air, cleaner water?
Or have you never lived in a big city where you can see the smog-air?
Signyn, remind me not to speak to the purposely deaf!!
This is a great idea for a movie. It's movies like this that I've seen in the last 20 years, much of them low-budget late-night Showtime movies by studios like Lionsgate before they became more mainstream. I'm sure a lot of them have somehow shaped some of my recycling habits.
Even though I know that it's just a politically motivated movie in my old and cynical age, I do realize that this will have as profound an impact on the children of today, so it does have that going for it.
The problem O, is that the TECH prices NEVER seem to reach a "sweet-spot". I've been waiting 7 years for solar tech to become cheap like computers or blu-ray or video games. It never happens though, because nobody is buying them....
When Pete Postlethwaite asks "Why didn't we save ourselves when we had the chance?", my answer to that VERY important question is because in a world of 6.6 billion people, only 200,000 people could afford to "save" us.
I suggest MASSIVE federal rebates on solar and wind tech when it comes to non-for-profit and residential usage. In reverse, I also suggest that any "surplus energies" gained by the "grid" by people using these techs not be refunded, but go to pay for the programs to allow more people who would never be able to buy this tech at the price install their own.
Eventually, 80% of Americans would have enough solar power to take care of half of their daily needs with little cost to them, and I think that with the surplus power, the government could break even in a few years. The tech would go way down in price since there would be so many buyers.
In my mind this is the ONLY way for us to save ourselves.
If you don't give people financial incentive today to save the world, especially when it costs more than most Americans can afford to live day to day, they they aren't going to do it on their own.
I'd LOVE to have solar panels installed (and better yet, learn how to install them myself), but I still need 1,200 bucks to shell out on gutters the previous owners scrapped, and a generator for the sump pump if the electric fails. Kind of hard to do on roughly 380 dollars every two weeks after taxes......
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anthony, I would have no problem with what you suggested; I'd love to see it enacted for ALL today's energy producers, actually. I'm assuming "profit" is part of the 80%, given insurance companies are for-profit entities; if not, they wouldn't exist.
The figure, by the way, is 80%; anything above that is to be REBATED to the customers. I'd be quite happy with that being required of energy companies; I have little doubt new alternative-energy companies put at least that much into their costs (tho' not existing oil or gas companies, by far!), but I'd be happier to see any extra put toward further development of VIABLE alternative-energies, which leaves out ethanol, which I think is as poorly-understood as "clean coal" (which isn't) or how the "environment is protected" by fracking.
Are there valid reasons that wouldn't work for energy companies?
And yes, it would be nice if Raptor offered cites for the material he puts up, but nobody's holding their breath for that, are they?
The fact that the argument against climate change is also made only for Finland seems rather meaningless when considering the entire globe; something global might have more meaning.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME