ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Radioactive decay in the core.
Gravitational flexing, aka tidal heating, both surface and internal.
Both of these are rarely considered in the debate.
climate hockey stick defeated
- Thread starter way 2 go
- Start date
Gravitational flexing, aka tidal heating, both surface and internal.
Both of these are rarely considered in the debate.
Yeah, I was not clear in my wording. I was thinking of external sources but didn't say that.
Hundreds of species going extinct because Americans and only Americans are not willing to spend trillions of dollars on highly questionable global warming projects, goals, research, and mandates? Can you not see how silly this is?
Looks like something Hollywood might claim came out of the containment building of a hot nuclear reactor. Take my word for it, nobody glows coming out of the containment area of a hot nuclear reactor.I think I'd like a GFP cat . . .
Causes of droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, famines, and so forth are real mysteries to tribal barbarians who know nothing of science or who do not understand how to interpret scientific data.Denial . . .
Oceanic dead zones . . .
Who in their right mind turns to quacks for scientific instruction, whether the graphics are top-quality or not?
Wind turbines: A source of massive amounts of non-biodegrading waste. What happens when wind turbines have to be torn down? The largest parts have to be cut up and shipped to burial sites and buried at least 30' below ground, at huge costs to the consumers of electricity.
Wind turbines will create 43 million tonnes of waste by 2050
February 6, 2020 reveOne of the biggest costs of wind energy actually comes after it’s lifecycle.
Wind turbines are often too big and sturdy to be crushed, recycled or repurposed because they are built to withstand hurricane-force gusts.
Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates the US will remove 8,000 wind turbines in the next four years.
This is because it is decomissioning older turbines, most of which were built a decade ago. In those days installations were less than a fifth of what they are now.
And shipping them to landfill is a logistical challenge because they have to be broken up, shipped and buried in pits at least 30 feet deep.
The University of Cambridge estimates wind turbine blades will generate 43 million tonnes of waste by 2050.
While the majority of wind turbine components can be recycled, particularly steel and copper wires, the fibreglass blades can’t.
Sad fact of life: Creating energy has inescapable side effects that cannot be avoided, and yet fossil fuels are still the least expensive, most effective, and best source of energy yet. There is no alternative energy source that does not have huge drawbacks as well. Batteries from electric energy sources have a limited life span, limited sustainable output compared to fossil fuels, and used batteries remain a hazardous waste for decades.
Electric cars: What will happen to all the dead batteries?
In the next 10 years millions of old electric car batteries will need to be recycled or discarded.
While most EV components are much the same as those of conventional cars, the big difference is the battery. While traditional lead-acid batteries are widely recycled, the same can't be said for the lithium-ion versions used in electric cars.
EV batteries are larger and heavier than those in regular cars and are made up of several hundred individual lithium-ion cells, all of which need dismantling. They contain hazardous materials, and have an inconvenient tendency to explode if disassembled incorrectly.
"Currently, globally, it's very hard to get detailed figures for what percentage of lithium-ion batteries are recycled, but the value everyone quotes is about 5%," says Dr Anderson. "In some parts of the world it's considerably less."
Exxon cannot see. It is a corporation, not a person. What did scientists see who worked at Exxon? The same things that other scientists also saw. How did Exxon scientists interpret the data they were seeing? Like other scientists did or did not do, as always. Just because a scientist works at Exxon does not make him infallible, nor are Exxon scientists unaffected by bias, persuasion, delusion, misinterpretations, and so forth.
The ozone hole has diminished considerably.
A good thing that we responded early enough..... about thirty years ago, to see results like that today.
You can see them too.
Well, unfortunately at this time, the ice is going, melting...... now why could that be? Warming, possibly?
Ah, but one of the benefits of thinking 'clean' is that people stay healthier; it's one of the benefits of trying to clean up our environs.
And we are saving so much of our money! Now that should appeal to you, you seem paranoid about everyone trying to rip you off... No? Our new homes are very easy to keep warm in winter, and again, this reduces greenhouse gases whilst helping our pockets.
I expect that you enjoy good profits in what you do?
And research is continually increasing battery performance while reducing costs.
Commerce, Industry, retail and travel all provide good services to their communities.... don't moan if those workers get decent livelihoods out of their work.
We have been discussing bird-strike deaths caused by wind-turbines, as if high rise buildings in general didn't inflict similar injuries.
So when I saw a team of engineers leaving one of the wind-farm launches I asked about this. They don't get too many problems with gulls because they don't fly straight and fast, but a colony of Northern Divers spend the winter around the area of the London Array and they do fly fast/straight which meant that at night they were hitting the turbines. But after installation all the turbines were fitted with very bright red fixed and flashing lights and these seem to have helped considerably.
Obviously some members are very concerned about bird-strikes on wind generators, and no doubt show equal concern over road-kill and such incidents. It's nice to converse with nature lovers like that.
Are fact-checkers the same people who do peer-review for secular scientific publications? If so, that may explain why fact-checkers found that Al Gore's prediction that the North Pole would be ice-free by the summer of 2013 was "mostly true."
Gore quote on an 'ice-free' Arctic is mostly right
Former Vice President Al Gore has been a vocal advocate for policies to reduce global warming, dedicating much of his po
www.politifact.com
Our ruling
Posts claim Al Gore said in 2009 that the North Pole "will be ice-free in the summer by 2013 because of man-made global warming."
Gore said something similar. Citing researchers during a 2009 climate change conference, Gore said there was a 75% chance that ice in the Arctic could be gone during at least some summer months within five to seven years. Reports indicate that he misrepresented the details of the research.
The post is accurate but needs additional information. We rate it Mostly True.
So it's hot this year in some places? Big whoop. 40 years ago the misguided secularists were raising alarms about global cooling and they produced the data from hundreds of years to back up their claims. Not much has changed since then, except that they flipped the narrative and now claim hundreds of years of data shows the earth is warming. Alarmists need to calm down, stop worrying, even trust God to keep earth habitable until He returns to judge the wicked.Well, your perception as to how it was around your house really doesn't do much to contradict the fact that the last three summers were hotter than any previous ones.
Yes, you do, but using your perceptions of things around your place, doesn't even qualify as data. It would qualify as "outlier", though.
Sorry, it's not data.
(tries to change subject)
Nice try.
Closing faster than predicted.
(Waytogo is shocked! to learn that warmer seas produce more precipitation)
"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."
link
Yep. Warmer seas, more water in the air, more precipitation, and the ice sheet in the center of the continent grows. Notice the extreme losses at the edge. This is the big worry now, since that means ice shelves, some as large as states, can break off and drift north to melt.
So that means that even as the ice cap grows, Antarctica has a net loss of ice?
Yep:
Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Up, Nearly Matches Greenland Loss
Antarctica showing ice loss between 1996 and 2005 Antarctic ice loss between 1996 and 2006, overlaid on a Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) mosaic image of Antarctica. The colors indicate the speed of the ice loss. Purple/red is fast. Green is slow. Image credit: NASA
› Larger view PASADENA, Calif. - Ice loss in Antarctica increased by 75 percent in the last 10 years due to a speed-up in the flow of its glaciers and is now nearly as great as that observed in Greenland, according to a new, comprehensive study by NASA and university scientists.
In a first-of-its-kind study, an international team led by Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and the University of California, Irvine, estimated changes in Antarctica's ice mass between 1996 and 2006 and mapped patterns of ice loss on a glacier-by-glacier basis. They detected a sharp jump in Antarctica's ice loss, from enough ice to raise global sea level by 0.3 millimeters (.01 inches) a year in 1996, to 0.5 millimeters (.02 inches) a year in 2006.
The same thing is going on in Greenland. There's more precipitation, even as the coastline is melting faster and faster.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ster-than-scientists-previously-thought-study
The extra snowfall is helping to slow the rise in sea level, but Greenland is now a major net loser of ice, and Antarctica is not far behind. As your source points, out, the balance is shifting toward melting on the ice caps, too.
Genesis 8:22
While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
Michael Mann's hockey stick proved to be broken.1100 to 1300ad and was warmer & 1600 -1700 was cooler but that does not fit your narrative
which brings us full circle , the hockey stick graph is a lie
data that doesn't fit your narrative is everywhere
along with the failed predictions & The hockey stick graph lie
40 years from now
James Hansen was a climatologist speculator. He made a living studying data and producing speculations about the data. That does not mean he was right.
James Hansen - Wikipedia
The first NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) global temperature analysis was published in 1981. Hansen and his co-author analyzed the surface air temperature at meteorological stations focusing on the years from 1880 to 1985. Temperatures for stations closer together than 1000 kilometers were shown to be highly correlated, especially in the mid-latitudes, providing a way to combine the station data to provide accurate long-term variations. They concluded that global mean temperatures can be determined even though meteorological stations are typically in the Northern hemisphere and confined to continental regions. Warming in the past century was found to be 0.5-0.7 °C, with warming similar in both hemispheres.[24] When the analysis was updated in 1988, the four warmest years on record were all in the 1980s. The two warmest years were 1981 and 1987.[25] During a senate meeting on June 23, 1988, Hansen reported that he was ninety-nine percent certain the earth was warmer then than it had ever been measured to be, there was a clear cause and effect relationship with the greenhouse effect and lastly that due to global warming, the likelihood of freak weather was steadily increasing.[26]
Hansen's paper was published in 1981 and purported to be his interpretations of data dating back decades or even centuries.
Before 1970 the scientific consensus was that the earth was cooling, even though there were some who feared the earth was warming. All fears of man-made climate changes are speculations without real substance.
Global cooling - Wikipedia
Concern pre-1970s[edit]
In 1923, there was concern about a new ice age and Captain Donald Baxter MacMillan sailed toward the Arctic sponsored by the National Geographical Society to look for evidence of advancing glaciers.[11][12]In 1926, a Berlin astronomer was predicting global cooling but that it was "ages away".[13]
Concerns that a new ice age was approaching was revived in the 1950s.[14] During the Cold War, there were concerns by Harry Wexler that setting off atom bombs could be hastening a new ice age from a nuclear winter scenario.[15]
J. Murray Mitchell showed as early as 1963 a multidecadal cooling since about 1940.[1] At a conference on climate change held in Boulder, Colorado in 1965, evidence supporting Milankovitch cycles triggered speculation on how the calculated small changes in sunlight might somehow trigger ice ages. In 1966, Cesare Emiliani predicted that "a new glaciation will begin within a few thousand years." In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Paul R. Ehrlich wrote "The greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide... [this] is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants... At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump."[3]
Who is ExxonMobil, a secular God to some? Whoever he is, he is a moron if he thinks humans are going to destroy the earth before God does.
Hockey stick hokey.
What evidence is there for the hockey stick?
<p>Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000...
skepticalscience.com
Climate Myth...
Hockey stick is broken“In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the chart and finally debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from "collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects" -- substantially affecting the temperature index.” (John McLaughlin)
Clearly, the 'global warming' spoken of in Rev. 16 is God-made, not man-made.
Revelation 16
King James Version
1 And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.
2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.
3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.
4 And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.
5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.
8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.
God says He will destroy heaven and earth. You say He won't. That makes you a liar.
1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
Revelation 21:1
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Global warming is something that the fearful and unbelieving believe will destroy the planet and humankind if not addressed with trillions of dollars very soon. Those secularists who have bought into that lie prove they don't understand the Bible.
Ocasio-Cortez: ‘World will end in 12 years’ if climate change not addressed
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Monday said she thinks that there is an urgency needed in addressing man-made climate change, warning that it will “destroy the planet” in…
thehill.com
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Monday said she thinks that there is an urgency needed in addressing man-made climate change, warning that it will "destroy the planet" in a dozen years if humans do not address the issue, no matter the cost.
Let's assume secular scientists have been right about the Ice Age. If the earth was once an icebox like people think then global warming turned out to be a very good thing for those of us living today. Let God handle the weather, especially since men can do very little but talk while not being able to change anything.