"With records dating back to 1880, the global temperature across the world's land and ocean surfaces for September 2014 was 0.72°C (1.30°F) higher than the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F), marking the warmest September in the 135-year period of record." Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-06-2014).]
What I like about you Moose, no matter how little rope we give you, you still manage to hang yourself with it.
81 million over 11 years is 7.3 million annually.
"I don't know where you went to school, but..."
$7.3 mil > than $6 mil
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
The "they're only in it for the money" argument is just a red herring. If he can drag out a silly argument he doesn't have to talk science.
My reply to "someone" claiming some are in it for the money to get rich - grow up, guess you don't like it when people make counter points to show that the other side is getting more money.
...and that being said - who is the ONLY person on here that is posting the political cartoons? What was that again about "science"
I have also posted a few link to published paper's - 1 that had direct links to over a thousands papers that was seeming ignored - could it be because you couldn't find a a political blog are cartoon to"deny" the papers (if you even bother to read any of them)? And who keeps posting the same charts and graphs over and over again making them fit 'his' agenda?
You realize the coal industry kills millions of more birds per year than renewables. . .right? So you're whole "think about the birds!" actually flies in your face; wind/solar kill LESS than coal.
You realize the coal industry kills millions of more birds per year than renewables. . .right? So you're whole "think about the birds!" actually flies in your face; wind/solar kill LESS than coal.
Those numbers are based on bullsh*t. Read the latest paper by the author responsible for those numbers:
Finally, while perhaps the most difficult to quantify, climate change is already threatening the survival of millions of birds around the world. Thomas et al. (2004) concluded that climate change was the single greatest long-term threat to birds and other avian wildlife. Looking at the mid-range scenarios in climate change expected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, they projected that 15%to 37% of all species of birds could be extinct by 2050. These numbers, too, can be tentatively quantified into 9.16 deaths per GWh from oil, natural gas, and coal-fired power stations.4
Adding the avian deaths from coal mining, plant operation, acid rain, mercury, and climate change together results in a total of 9.36 fatalities per GWh.
The actual deaths per GWh of coal power generated is 0.2. The author added 9.16 deaths/GWh based on IPCC projects, or in other words, deaths that have not happened yet and may never happen. 98% of that number is fabricated.
I would not believe anything from such a person using that methodology. That is typical of the alarmist "science".
Birds aren't killed by coal plants. They aren't killed by nuclear plants. They do get killed if they land in an oil reservoir or tailings pond.
They do get killed by Wind Turbines by the thousands. They don't get killed by solar panels.
They do get killed if caught in a storm, but their senses send them around storms for the most part.
And yes, there has been no net global warming since 1997. We have yet another below average hurricane season. The Muldaves have not been inundate. Polar bears are thriving. There is still lots of ice north of the Arctic Circle and even more in Antarctica. And look at the jet stream over North America. We're in for a real duezzy of a winter guys.
1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.
2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.
6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.
7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.
8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.
9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” – suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming
10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.
1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.
2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.
6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.
7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.
8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.
9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” – suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming
10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.
We are so lucky to have you here pointing out that 95% of climate science is wrong. If not for you scientists could be leading us down the wrong road. I'm so relieved to find out that they don't know what they are talking about and we can go right on polluting with fossil fuels to our hearts content. It's not like fossil fuels are a finite source. We can go on drilling for oil and mining coal forever. They will never run out. Whatever happens we should never adjust our life style.
"Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history." [Arns85GT]
True (I suppose), but what is the relevance to current global warming?
Has anyone demonstrated that the current pace (or rate; or speed) of natural greenhouse gas emissions--volcanic and other mantle emissions, plus natural biological mechanisms--amounts to anything other than a small fraction (less than 5%) of the current pace of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions?
From all that I have read and viewed: I think not.
And the pace of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is still accelerating.
The greenhouse warming mechanism that is the focus of so much current climate research has nothing to do with the cumulative amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that have cycled into and out of the atmosphere over all of geologic time, or during any previous time interval.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-10-2014).]
I heard this in a TV ad for the movie Interstellar the other day. To paraphrase it "We are not meant to save the planet, we are meant to leave it". No matter what we do, our planet will eventually become uninhabitable. We should be looking for a new home and figuring out how to get there.
... there has been no net global warming since 1997. [emphasis added]
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:
1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by ... [emphasis added]
OK, Arn... Which is it? You can't have it both ways, and until you decide your credibility will remain near zero and we can't have the more important conversations about climate change and what (if anything) we should do about it. In the meantime, you just continue to embarrass yourself.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 11-10-2014).]
The warming pattern post - ice age is well known. It is not anthropogenic in nature. The 20th Century's warming (which is 0.34 degrees per century) is simply part of the ongoing warming since the ice age, however, there has been no net gain since 1997. There is no conflict in the data at all.
Thousands of birds are flying into a new solar "mega-trap" in the middle of California's Mojave Desert, killing the avian lot at a rate of up to one bird every two minutes, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
We are so lucky to have you here pointing out that 95% of climate science is wrong. If not for you scientists could be leading us down the wrong road. I'm so relieved to find out that they don't know what they are talking about and we can go right on polluting with fossil fuels to our hearts content. It's not like fossil fuels are a finite source. We can go on drilling for oil and mining coal forever. They will never run out. Whatever happens we should never adjust our life style.
So if you are so concerned about CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, I understand from Fiero friends that I am not the only one with a v8 Fiero. I understand you are driving a turbo'd v8 monster that daintily sips gas and spews out lots of CO2 etc. Isn't this just a little hypocritical?
I would not feel guilty about having a car with a somewhat "thirsty" V8 gasoline (or similar) engine, for pleasure driving, and not racking up a lot of miles on it.
I would not feel guilty about having a car with a somewhat "thirsty" V8 gasoline (or similar) engine, for pleasure driving, and not racking up a lot of miles on it.
But not as a daily driver.
...well if you were 'actually' really concerned with the environment, you wouldn't be driving one for pleasure either...every little bit helps you know, but is this just another case of do as I say not as I do???
Originally posted by Arns85GT: We have yet another below average hurricane season.
And look at the jet stream over North America. We're in for a real duezzy of a winter guys.
Funny. The current jet stream is being effected by a Super Typoon from the Pacific.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The warming pattern post - ice age is well known. It is not anthropogenic in nature.
Deniers like you love to talk about the ice age. Yet, where do you get evidence of an ice age if there is “no data” like you claim? We hear these false claims again and again about the “hockey stick”. The “hockey stick” only thermometer data on the same graph as the “ice age” data.
What’s funny is the data that shows an ice age is the data that supports the “hockey stick.”
...so what exactly is your point, nice red herring there buddy - or should I be calling it a deflection?
My point was (and is) that there is MORE money going into a AGW institution than going into an anti-AGW one (and I am just referring to just ONE AGW institute). So again, who is getting more money (as was my reply to a previous post)? But perhaps that concept is foreign to you...
edit to include the original quote:
quote
Originally posted by masospaghetti: Some folks have obvious motives, such as oil executives and backwards organizations like the Heartland Institute. Others obviously don't like the political ramifications of global warming and use this as an excuse to dismiss the science.
The difference is that scientists are largely motivated by the science, not profits. You fail to grasp this.
...again - in case you missed it because you are too busy looking for political blogs and cartoons that you can post - I stated MORE money is flowing into the groups of these "scientists are largely motivated by the science, not profits" vs the Heartland Institute as was posted. But like I said, maybe you missed that day in math when they taught that $7.3mil is still greater than $6mil and will always be no matter how you try to justify it.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 11-14-2014).]
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: My point was (and is) that there is MORE money going into a AGW institution than going into an anti-AGW one
First, your "point" was developed off bad data. You thought Suzuki's foundation was getting $81 million compared to Heartland's $6 million per year. You made a huge deal about the "far cry" amount of money they were getting only to find out it was $81 million over 11 years. The math puts them in the same exact income ballpark as Heartland. Now you're doubling down on your original error just because Suzuki's gets slightly more money meanwhile completely trying to ignore the money came from 1666% more doners on average.
Second.. And? They got slightly more money because 30,000 doners chipped in. There's only 1,800 fat cats supporting the Heartland Institute. On average it's $250/donation vs $3,334/donation.
Third: How many people are citing the David Suzuki Foundation as evidence in this thread? Not a single instance!
How many people are citing the Heartland Institute as evidence in this thread? Look no further than the first post. And there's dozens of examples after that.
Your entire "point" is pointless.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 11-14-2014).]
Despite the bickering over money, there are 8.06 million square kilometers (3.11 million square miles) of sea ice around the North Pole. The Northwest Passage is closed for the year. What happened to the anticipated year round shipping through the Arctic Sea? It just didn't happen and it won't.
Antarctic Sea Ice is still very healthy despite fear mongering by the IPCC. No massive melt-off resulting in inundation of low lying islands. The Maldives are thriving. Ask your travel agent.
Let's not take care of the one we have for the hope we find another one."
Our planet is doomed. It won't be here forever, no matter what we do, and will eventually become uninhabitable, with or without our help. It's all part of the natural cycle of things. Maybe we will transcend our humanity, or find another planet to live on, before this happens. Right now Mars is looking pretty good and we should be able to terraform it before our planet becomes useless to us.
Google news just posted a study showing polar bear population down 40% and another study showing ocean warming. I'm not an expert on the subject of climate change and though I believe that there is a very serious problem I don't have specific solutions other than to get started on the need to eventually have a substitute for fossil fuels.
Let's not take care of the one we have for the hope we find another one."
Our planet is doomed. It won't be here forever, no matter what we do, and will eventually become uninhabitable, with or without our help. It's all part of the natural cycle of things. Maybe we will transcend our humanity, or find another planet to live on, before this happens. Right now Mars is looking pretty good and we should be able to terraform it before our planet becomes useless to us.
I think that it would be far more economical in the near future to save this planet instead of investing in a Mars migration. Yes we could be destroyed by an asteroid at any time. I don't have a solution for that scenario.
Google news just posted a study showing polar bear population down 40% and another study showing ocean warming. I'm not an expert on the subject of climate change and though I believe that there is a very serious problem I don't have specific solutions other than to get started on the need to eventually have a substitute for fossil fuels.
Come now dratts. That flys in the face of every other report out there. Are you sure it is not something published by the Onion? The polar bear population is at the highest it has ever been recorded. Both the Arctic and AntArctic ice is beyond anything in recent memory. And now you are going to say that the oceans are warming.
You certainly are not an expert and are driven by the Chicken Little Agenda. The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Oh we are all going to die. Get a life and quit listening to the fear mongers.
Come now dratts. That flys in the face of every other report out there. Are you sure it is not something published by the Onion? The polar bear population is at the highest it has ever been recorded. Both the Arctic and AntArctic ice is beyond anything in recent memory. And now you are going to say that the oceans are warming.
You certainly are not an expert and are driven by the Chicken Little Agenda. The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Oh we are all going to die. Get a life and quit listening to the fear mongers.
I just reported what google news published. I'm always open to hearing more current and accurate news. The climate has so many variables that I believe they are constantly adjusting their programs and taking advantage of ever more powerful computers. I think that they are narrowing in on the actual truth of the situation and that it could sway from side to side at times.
It is absolutely true that the ice pack in the Arctic receded and reached a low point in 2012. It has since been gaining ground every year.
The waters around Alaska have had Pacific water currents keeping them relatively warmer than the rest of the Arctic.
All the while the continent of Antarctica has been and continues to be at record ice and snow depths.
It is also not true that the polar bear population is down 40%. It just ain't so. Their population is booming.
You saw the World Wildlife Fund ad about the polar bear mother and cub swimming and the cub dying en route? Fiction, pure and simple.
Polar bears are documented terrific swimmers swimming in excess of 30 miles in one outing.
The "polar vortex" we are experiencing here in North America is a result of the cold air mass over the pole pushing it southward. The jet stream gets pushed back and forth by air pressure fluctuation. Right now the polar air is winning over the continent.
This promises to be one severe winter. And so the great Global Warming scam stumbles on.
Key Polar Bear Population Plummets in Alaska and Canada
A key polar bear population fell nearly by half in the past decade, marked by a dramatic increase in deaths of young cubs, a new U.S.-Canada study says. Researchers chiefly blame shrinking sea ice from global warming. Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey and Environment Canada tagged and released polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea off Alaska and northwestern Canada from 2001 to 2010. The bear population shrank to about 900 in 2010, down from about 1,600 in 2004.
Study lead author Jeff Bromaghin said only two of 80 polar bear cubs the team tracked between 2004 and 2007 survived. Normally about half of cubs live. He thinks the cubs starved because there was a lack of summer sea ice and they couldn't get to seals. The study is in the journal Ecological Applications.
2 out of 80 bear cubs. Really? Such a small sample and contrary to any other objective count of Polar Bears. What is it that is said: Figures don't lie, but liars figure.
Here is another theory called Dark Winter. At least this one conforms to actual condition. Not sure if it would get as bad as this says it will or not, but at least the global cooling we have experienced for about 12 years fits this one, for now.
Originally posted by MadMark: Here is another theory called Dark Winter. At least this one conforms to actual condition. Not sure if it would get as bad as this says it will or not, but at least the global cooling we have experienced for about 12 years fits this one, for now.
Global cooling the 'actual condition'? That's laughable and crazy.
The world is still warming. Eight months this year are in the top five warmest months ever recorded globally. Four of those months are the warmest ever recorded. Source.
