IGX

These things are freaky. Big-ass holes in the permafrost, releasing shit-tons of methane. Also a source of gas.

http://siberiantimes.com/science/casest ... of-future/


Things like ice packs and permafrost are integrators over time. The temperature might jitter around over a year or three, but the deep long-term trend will drive their behavior.

Dr. Moore of Greenpeace says

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.

The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.

Dr. Moore of Greenpeace says

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.

The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.

Lewis Medlock wrote:Dr. Moore formerly of Greenpeace says

a friendly amendment for accuracy

While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he "saw the light" . . .

Can't imagine why a respected scientist would leave Greenpeace.


His concern for people (especially poor people) is why he should be stopped at all costs.

I have this book, Hockey Stick Illusion, that I cannot get through in one go and keep putting it down and then picking it up again. It gets into the details of the argument between the authors of Hockey Stick graph, IPCC and the opponents. Very detailed and tedious. It is unlikely to be read by wide audience, while journalists reporting climate change are idiots with a very short attention span, and that is exactly why the truth regarding the matter will never be clarified. I recommend reading it, but with the warning that it can put you to sleep.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topsto ... ar-AAajM5D

Mega-drought and whatnot.

I am on my third spell of reading The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford. Not sensationalist or conspiratorial, but simple recollection of facts surrounding the debate regarding temperature changes around 20th century. Very tedious and technical read, but very revealing if you have a little bit of patience. The whole climate change "science" is a complete joke. So is IPCC. "Independent" in the acronym is a complete mockery: the panel consists completely of climate scientists. Icnidentally, 99% of them directly profit by supporting the science they are supposed to review and debate.

Swamp Fox wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topsto ... ar-AAajM5D

Mega-drought and whatnot.

The drought is overrated. Other states asserting their rights is a major factor, maybe the biggest one.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01 ... our-water/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_river_dispute
Cali has been living on borrowed time since 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_R ... and_issues

Turdacious wrote:

Swamp Fox wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topsto ... ar-AAajM5D

Mega-drought and whatnot.

The drought is overrated.

As a skier who tracks this stuff, the amount of snow California didn't get this year is incredible. Places like Mammoth that usually ski into June likely won't make it through April. Places had to close in December for lack of snow, and then in March for the season.

Cali has had drought periods before and been able to handle it fine; the difference now is that their dependence on instate rainfall has increased.

Neither of Cali's Senators seems to care either.

Warming crisis averted!
Pick up a warm had and mittens before 2020 cause it's gonna get chilly.
From the Daily Mail

The Earth could be headed for a 'mini ice age' researchers have warned.
A new study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles - and says that between 2020 and 2030 solar cycles will cancel each other out.
This, they say, will lead to a phenomenon known as the 'Maunder minimum' - which has previously been known as a mini ice age when it hit between 1646 and 1715, even causing London's River Thames to freeze over...

...Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645, according to the results presented by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

i swore off this thread because most of you are mental defectives, unable to appreciate my contributions, but given how slow things are, i figure a little education will do you some good:

On August 16, 2015 sea ice extent stood at 5.79 million square kilometers (2.24 million square miles). This is 1.35 million square kilometers (521,200 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average, and 1.17 million square kilometers (451,700 square miles) above the level for the same date in 2012, the year of the record low extent.

and this from the NASA website

Data from NASA's Grace satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion metric tons per year.

NASA is pretty smart, but smarter than Sarah Palin?

dead man walking wrote:most of you are mental defectives, unable to appreciate my contributions

Geniuses are usually ahead of their times.

On September 11, 2015, sea ice extent dropped to 4.41 million square kilometers (1.70 million square miles), the fourth lowest minimum in the satellite record. This appears to be the lowest extent of the year....

The minimum extent was reached four days earlier than the 1981 to 2010 average minimum date of September 15. The extent ranked behind 2012 (lowest), 2007 (second lowest), and 2011 (third lowest). Moreover, the nine lowest extents in the satellite era have all occurred in the last nine years.

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

It seems funny that Global Warming coincided so closely with Grant Funding to study it. My theory is that money actually is the cause of it. So far the studies seem to show that nobody has a fricking clue what's going on.

climber511 wrote:So far the studies seem to show that nobody has a fricking clue what's going on.

????

The drought is overrated is the QOTT...by far.

Whether related to overallocation of water resources in the west, persistent regional changes in weather patterns or local lack of snowpack, I can assure you the drought is far far underrated in its devastating effect.

This year is in . . . position to take the title for hottest year on record and it shows no signs of slowing down.

August is the sixth month of the year to set a heat record, according to new data from the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) released on Thursday.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/plan ... cord-19463

An apparent lull in the recent rate of global warming that has been widely accepted as fact is actually an artifact arising from faulty statistical methods, an interdisciplinary team of Stanford scientists says.

...

"We translated the various scientific claims and assertions that have been made about the hiatus and tested to see whether they stand up to rigorous statistical scrutiny," said study lead author Bala Rajaratnam, an assistant professor of statistics and of Earth system science.

The finding calls into question the idea that global warming "stalled" or "paused" during the period between 1998 and 2013.

http://goldrushcam.com/sierrasuntimes/i ... r-happened

dead man walking wrote:i swore off this thread because most of you are mental defectives, unable to appreciate my contributions, but given how slow things are, i figure a little education will do you some good:

If you understood this topic you'd explain it in your own words, pitching it to the appropriate level. You would make the effort to be clear. You would repeat appropriate lessons.

You don't understand the science and won't learn it. So you cite web blogs which are in part written by people who themselves do not work in the field, do not understand the science and worse do not make the policy compelling.

Most of us who might accept the Science do not accept the Policy. We do not accept Collectivism or the fascist underpinnings of "remediation". We do not want to live a world of scarcity which would require us to be peasants, to be serfs.


You're "dying" of cancer but refuse to change your lifestyle and diet to preserve your life. Instead you have been working on this fucking Swan Song that has gone on for pages and pages, but you have the stones to accuse most of us being "mental defectives".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warburg_hypothesis


This is what you need to focus upon. Real fucking science, not this Lysenko horseshit you've been peddling or the Collectivist claptrap that is the real source of your convictions.

Sangoma wrote:I am on my third spell of reading The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford. Not sensationalist or conspiratorial, but simple recollection of facts surrounding the debate regarding temperature changes around 20th century. Very tedious and technical read, but very revealing if you have a little bit of patience. The whole climate change "science" is a complete joke. So is IPCC. "Independent" in the acronym is a complete mockery: the panel consists completely of climate scientists. Icnidentally, 99% of them directly profit by supporting the science they are supposed to review and debate.

I spent some time reading Ferencz Miskolczi's papers. That shit is fucking hard sledding...

Here's the Reader's Digest version.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/ ... kolczi.pdf

Miskolczi has been branded a "denier". So the True Believers won't read what he has to say, but unlike the Believers Dr. Miskolczi puts it all out there.

I have not once, not fucking once, seen a Climate Change Scientist like Mike Mann put his equations on the table. Nope, we have to see the product and it's always been modified.

I'm not convinced that the science is fraudulent. I think that the policy recommendations are total batshit non-sense if not a borderline criminal conspiracy. I learned in Industry ages ago "Never trust round figures". I almost never see round figures except when someone is trying to bullshit me. Hell, when I make estimates I call them "Estimates" and will still try to be accurate. Which means my figures are often not round figures.


Almost all of the "remedies" are round figures and almost always involve giving some Government Agency or Consortium of mega Corporations money. We have to achieve 25 percent of CO2 reductions by 2050.

Why not 32 percent CO2 reductions by 2023 at a cost of five trillion three hundred million US dollars? Nope.

The opacity of the science, the opacity of the solutions and this tendency to treat "deniers" as people worthy of being burned at the stake stink to high heaven.

dead man walking wrote:

An apparent lull in the recent rate of global warming that has been widely accepted as fact is actually an artifact arising from faulty statistical methods, an interdisciplinary team of Stanford scientists says.

...

"We translated the various scientific claims and assertions that have been made about the hiatus and tested to see whether they stand up to rigorous statistical scrutiny," said study lead author Bala Rajaratnam, an assistant professor of statistics and of Earth system science.

The finding calls into question the idea that global warming "stalled" or "paused" during the period between 1998 and 2013.

http://goldrushcam.com/sierrasuntimes/i ... r-happened

Using a novel statistical framework that was developed specifically for studying geophysical processes such as global temperature fluctuations, Rajaratnam and his team of Stanford collaborators have shown that the hiatus never happened.