Tech | January 16, 2011 | 376 comments

Climate 2010: the graph that should be on the front page of every newspaper

source: http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2011/world/peter-gleick-2010-hottest-year-on-record-th...

Image
JanforGore
Climate change is worsening, fast.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Dr. Peter Gleick is president of the Pacific Institute, an internationally recognized water expert and a MacArthur Fellow.

The National Climate Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has just announced that for the entire planet, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005. And the period 2001 to 2010 is the hottest decade on record for the globe. The actual data are here.

This graph and this information should be on the front page of every newspaper in the world. Every Congressional representative should see it.


And the hottest 10 years on record in order?

2010
2005
1998
2003
2002
2009
2006
2007
2004
2001

How often do you have to get hit on the head before you say “ouch.” Or before you even say “stop hitting me on the head”? For climate deniers, probably forever. We can expect them to talk about how cold the winter is, here or there.But for the rest of us, enough should be enough. The planet has a fever and it’s getting worse.

Peter Gleick
___________________


But by all means, let's just keep burying our heads in the sand.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Tech,   Green,   Current Tonight,   10 more
  2. tags:
    Politics,  Environment,  Economy,  Climate Change,  26 more
  3.     
    |

376 comments // Climate 2010: the graph that should be on the front page of every newspaper

  • Cees_Timmerman
  • LeakedResearch
  • tommic
    • 0
      tommic  

    • Everyone should stop commenting back to any post written by Ice Kat and Congoboy to anyhting regarding climate change, we should make like they don't even exist. Non acknowledgement of their drival is the best offense against such offensive persons. Kill them with the quiet treatment voting down every post they write. the time as come to complete intolorance for assholes.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • -1
      IceKat  
    • tommic:

      At least IceKat knows the difference between London and Brisbane.

      What am I talking about? Watch this space, and if you're reading this Jan, I was quick to take screenshots before you deleted the post :)

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • IceKat:

      And? Will you get extra brownie points from your employers? The article on the flooding in Brisbane had that as the picture. Perhaps you should write to them. I realized it and reposted the article. So what? Your doing this just shows your pettiness and why you are really here ( to follow me your "assigned" target) and are not serious about this topic. And you actually took screenshots too? LOL, wow, talk about desperation. You are no better than the RW twats that attack Al Gore. Now everyone knows it. So thanks for this post and proving the point of what I just posted. You outted yourself.

      Oh, and don't look forward to anymore replies from me on this. Your actions are simply too pathetic at this point.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • -1
      IceKat  
    • Image
    • JanforGore:

      You realised it after I had corrected you, you hadn't a clue what you were posting! Luckily I have screenshots of the entire page.
      And you expect people to take you seriously?

      For anyone else, this was Jan's comment on the photo she used in a now deleted post:

      "Oh, and on edit before I too get attacked for using a "scaremongering" picture, that is a picture of Brisbane after the recent flooding"

      Well, you didn't get attacked for using a scaremongering photo, although that's what it is, (unless London has flooded and I never got to hear about it) you got attacked for being too quick to post propaganda without understanding what you were posting.

      Answer me this, why would anyone want to use a Photo-shopped photo of a flooded London in an article unless it was to attempt to scare people?

    • 1 year ago
  • projectmayhem
  • projectmayhem
    • +1
      projectmayhem  
    • JanforGore:

      so youll admit to using a photoshopped photo in one of your threads, claim it was an accident and that it doesnt matter...completely oblivious as to how this applies to your graphs on global warming..

      maybe you should re evaluate your life and how you think and get information jan.

    • 1 year ago
  • projectmayhem
  • projectmayhem
  • tommic
    • -1
      tommic  
    • projectmayhem:

      Climate deniers have zero credibilty now. The United States military is acting upon it now, the CIA and their intell acknowledges it now, NOAA has much more information leading to credidibility now. The deniers are now grasping at staws. Veterans know you cannot wait for 100% certainty. For if you wait until everything is clearly laid out and almost proven you will probably no longer be alive. Veterans know how to deal with ambiguity and still make good decisions as they need to in order to stay alive.

    • 1 year ago
  • Wetdog
    • 0
      Wetdog  
    • tommic:

      Veterans also know that American service people are being killed and wounded over oil.

      The last three wars the US has become engaged in have oil as a root cause.

      That is reason enough for me to say that trading blood for oil is a very bad trade.

    • 1 year ago
  • tommic
    • -1
      tommic  
    • projectmayhem:

      I have read more and written more based on countless hours of reseach on climate c\hange, you have zero credibility ZERO. I know more about climate change and have written 10.000 word reports on the causes and effects. You chose not to read them they were here on current a year ago. You and you asshole friends who deny the truth are guilty of crimes against humanity for your stupidity, and nothing will change your ignorance, for you have not the desire to learn only recite. I don't argue with fools for from afar no one can tell who the fool is. Thats probably over your head comprehension wise

    • 1 year ago
  • projectmayhem
  • projectmayhem
  • telcod
    • +1
      telcod  

    • No body reads the paper anymore. Very few people can even read. Maybe subliminal shots on dancing with the idol, stars, whatever. Or put the message on the backs of cereal boxes.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • 0
      Gravity_Man  
    • telcod:

      Our newspaper here has been overtaken by railroad board of directors members. They control the vertical, and the horizontal. Everybody with a working brain knows it. They use it as a tool to promote what they want promoted and stomp out opposing ideas.

      Mine.

      I told area hospitals how to save their bacon in an editorial that was refused print. Oh they heard me alright and they came up with an alternate -lesser- plan. They got Medicare to pay them about $10,000.00 per bariatric operation. There was another way, to just quickly whack off 10-15 pounds from hospital patients belly while they were in there being operated on anyway, a mere 1-2 hour long operation, very fast.

      Their way they stay Rich, you stay Bankrupt. hahahaha

      Railroad men. Don't ya just have ta LOVE EM?

    • 1 year ago
  • projectmayhem
  • Gravity_Man
    • 0
      Gravity_Man  
    • projectmayhem:

      Hmm. The Bible says of people like me that we've been through the "smelter of affliction". I have been blessed for it with much insight. As for being a genius I dunno, that's a stretch, but I did take a very difficult IQ Test online back in 2002. The result was they gave me their highest rank of "Philosopher-Thinker" and said I should be running a world corporation.

      Those positions are taken at the moment. Don't ya just LOVE the great job they're doing? hahaha I am however expecting them to improve => ALL ENGINES run better right before they GIVE OUT. It's some kinda Law.

      Thanks for the Kind Remarks. Write me, any time.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • 0
      Gravity_Man  

    • If you are taking meds and your doctor recently increased the dosage you are running low on brain oxygen. Try trusting doctors a tad less and trusting yourself a good deal more.

      Smart people, their brain needs lots more oxygen.

      Those meds cause smart people to off themselves.

      Stay away from polluted posters reeking of sour attitudes.

      They're burning up the meds and the oxygen.

    • 1 year ago
  • projectmayhem
    • 0
      projectmayhem  

    • Jan says that she isn't going to waste her time by responding, yet look at how many comments she has on this thread. Instead of answering IceKats legitimate questions, she says she has better things to do with her time. The only reason she is dodging his questions is because she can't find the answer by googling which is her only source of knowledge.

      Jan I know you are reading this since apparently Current is your life.
      If you can answer IceKats questions I will delete my profile and never make another comment on this website again. To all you people who are going to respond to this and try to answer with your confused thoughts that lack any direction or focus, please don't. This challenge is for Jan. Lets see if your hero can demonstrate why we should be accepting her as an authority on this particular matter.

      This shouldn't take long if you are as knowledgeable as you claim to be on global temperature issues.

      Here are IceKats questions one more time:

      How long is the temperature record compared to the life of the planet?

      Why does satellite data show a different warmest year?

      Does CO2 take a break, or is it just selective in which years it picks to warm? What caused the cooling at the end of last year?

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • projectmayhem:

      http://current.com/users/projectmayhem.htm

      You have had multiple comments pulled from this site in recent weeks due to violations that resulted from abuse, namecalling, harrassment, baiting and vulgarity. In this thread alone you have multiple violations, all addressed at me. And you want me to answer BS questions here after what you did by setting up a website to specifically call me a retard as if you or the trolls you mention here have credibility? Go google it on some denialist website. I owe you nothing.

    • 1 year ago
  • projectmayhem
  • projectmayhem
  • lamborghini
  • projectmayhem
  • lamborghini
  • projectmayhem
  • IceKat
  • projectmayhem
  • Gravity_Man
    • +1
      Gravity_Man  
    • projectmayhem:

      To interrupt a good fellow poster smear campaign in progress by the illustrious projectmayhem but does ANYONE have written-in-stone definitive answers to those questions? I don't think so. I wouldn't answer your questions if I had the answers.

      You ask them with an exceeding amount of abusiveness.

    • 1 year ago
  • Wetdog
  • PigFarmington
    • 0
      PigFarmington  

    • I'm all concern about global warming... but isn't this old news?

      Industrialized countries have created cultures that don't care about other, not do they care about the future.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +4
      JanforGore  
    • Image

    • http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE70F2F020110116

      Less ice means less reflection of sun back into space and more warming.

      "Shrinking ice and snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere is reflecting ever less sunshine back into space in a previously underestimated mechanism that could add to global warming, a study showed.

      Satellite data indicated that Arctic sea ice, glaciers, winter snow and Greenland's ice were bouncing less energy back to space from 1979 to 2008. The dwindling white sunshade exposes ground or water, both of which are darker and absorb more heat.

      The study estimated that ice and snow in the Northern Hemisphere were now reflecting on average 3.3 watts per square meter of solar energy back to the upper atmosphere, a reduction of 0.45 watt per square meter since the late 1970s.

      "The cooling effect is reduced and this is increasing the amount of solar energy that the planet absorbs," Mark Flanner, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan and lead author of the study, told Reuters.

      "This reduction in reflected solar energy through warming is greater than simulated by the current crop of climate models," he said of the findings by a team of U.S.-based researchers and published in the journal Nature Geoscience Sunday.

      "The conclusion is that the cryosphere (areas of ice and snow) is both responding more sensitively to, and also driving, stronger climate change than thought," he said.

      As ever more ground and water is exposed to sunlight, the absorbed heat in turn speeds the melting of snow and ice nearby.

      Arctic sea ice, for instance, has shrunk in recent decades in a trend that the United Nations panel of climate scientists blames mainly on greenhouse gases from mankind's burning of fossil fuels in factories, power plants and cars.

      Many studies project that Arctic sea ice could vanish in summers later this century in a trend that would undermine the hunting cultures of indigenous peoples and threaten polar bears and other animals, as well as adding to global climate change.:
      ______________

      The signs this is excelerating have been coming. The heatwave of 2003 that killed over 35,000 people in Europe was one of the most recent signs along with more intense wildfires in Australia, Russia, heatwaves in Europe now covered in intense cold, and more intense rain and snow events in the U.S and elsewhere in the world. The intensity, length, and pace of these events are getting more severe as we now see in the worst Australian floods in decades spawned by a mega cyclone, the worst floods in Brazil's current history, floods in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, along with sea level rise, drought, failing crops, invasive species, etc. Those who fail to see it only out of a hatred for Al Gore are those we need to ignore. As the Arctic continues to melt at an excelerated pace and fresh melt water mixes with denser salt water, we will see a shifting of currents (Atlantic specifically) and a change in weather patterns that could well amplify any El Nino or La Nina effects. Climate change is about extremes and that is exactly what much of this world is now experiencing. In other words, climate change is here.

      We have to wake up and stop allowing diversions to sidetrack us from truth. There are a plethora of studies and peer reviewed scientific evidence showing the warming of our world and the effects it is now having particularly on poor and developing areas of our world.Those who want to sit and divert talking about the Medieval warming this, and the paleocene warming that, go to it. Right now however, people need solutions and adaptation measures in order to continue to live their lives NOW. That is why disseminating this information is so important.

    • 1 year ago
  • projectmayhem
    • -2
      projectmayhem  
    • JanforGore:

      Jan says that she isn't going to waste her time by responding, yet look at how many comments she has on this thread. Instead of answering IceKats legitimate questions, she says she has better things to do with her time. The only reason she is dodging his questions is because she can't find the answer by googling which is her only source of knowledge.

      Jan I know you are reading this since apparently Current is your life.
      If you can answer IceKats questions I will delete my profile and never make another comment on this website again. To all you people who are going to respond to this and try to answer with your confused thoughts that lack any direction or focus, please don't. This challenge is for Jan. Lets see if your hero can demonstrate why we should be accepting her as an authority on this particular matter.

      This shouldn't take long if you are as knowledgable as you claim to be on global temperature issues.

      Here are IceKats questions one more time:

      How long is the temperature record compared to the life of the planet?

      Why does satellite data show a different warmest year?

      Does CO2 take a break, or is it just selective in which years it picks to warm? What caused the cooling at the end of last year?

    • 1 year ago
  • Wetdog
    • +1
      Wetdog  
    • projectmayhem:

      -------" yet look at how many comments she has on this thread."-------

      This post has shown up in my email inbox at least half a dozen times. I don't appreciate a sore head loser spamming me because no one wants to listen to his stupid rhetorical nonsense.

      Please leave us an entire list of your political views opinions so that I can begin campaigning against anything and everything you are in favor of.

      Where do you stand on gun control?

      Taxes?

      Health Care?

      Etc.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +4
      JanforGore  
    • Image

    • http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Scientific-Guide-to-Global-Warming-Skepticis...

      More good material.

      "The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism

      Scientific skepticism is healthy. In fact, science by its very nature is skeptical. Genuine skepticism means considering the full body of evidence before coming to a conclusion. However, when you take a close look at arguments expressing climate ‘skepticism’, what you often observe is cherry picking of pieces of evidence while rejecting any data that don’t fit the desired picture. This isn’t skepticism. It is ignoring facts and the science.

      The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism looks at both the evidence that human activity is causing global warming and the ways that climate ‘skeptic’ arguments can mislead by presenting only small pieces of the puzzle rather than the full picture.

      The Guide explains the science in brief, plain language without getting too technical. For those who wish to dig deeper into the science, more detailed treatments can be found at the following pages (often presented with varying levels of complexity from Basic to Advanced):

      •Human CO2 emissions is tiny compared to natural emissions
      •Global warming stopped in 1998
      •It's cooling
      •Climate sensitivity is low
      •Climate has changed in the past
      •CO2 lags temperature
      •CO2 doesn't cause much warming
      •The warming trend is due to microsite influences
      •The temperature record is unreliable

      •The hockey stick is broken
      •Global warming is a good thing
      •Climategate shows there's a conspiracy among climate scientists
      •There's no scientific consensus"
      ______________

      Sound familiar?

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
  • Gravity_Man
  • projectmayhem
    • -2
      projectmayhem  
    • JanforGore:

      Jan says that she isn't going to waste her time by responding, yet look at how many comments she has on this thread. Instead of answering IceKats legitimate questions, she says she has better things to do with her time. The only reason she is dodging his questions is because she can't find the answer by googling which is her only source of knowledge.

      Jan I know you are reading this since apparently Current is your life.
      If you can answer IceKats questions I will delete my profile and never make another comment on this website again. To all you people who are going to respond to this and try to answer with your confused thoughts that lack any direction or focus, please don't. This challenge is for Jan. Lets see if your hero can demonstrate why we should be accepting her as an authority on this particular matter.

      This shouldn't take long if you are as knowledgable as you claim to be on global temperature issues.

      Here are IceKats questions one more time:

      How long is the temperature record compared to the life of the planet?

      Why does satellite data show a different warmest year?

      Does CO2 take a break, or is it just selective in which years it picks to warm? What caused the cooling at the end of last year?

    • 1 year ago
  • projectmayhem
    • -2
      projectmayhem  
    • JanforGore:

      Jan says that she isn't going to waste her time by responding, yet look at how many comments she has on this thread. Instead of answering IceKats legitimate questions, she says she has better things to do with her time. The only reason she is dodging his questions is because she can't find the answer by googling which is her only source of knowledge.

      Jan I know you are reading this since apparently Current is your life.
      If you can answer IceKats questions I will delete my profile and never make another comment on this website again. To all you people who are going to respond to this and try to answer with your confused thoughts that lack any direction or focus, please don't. This challenge is for Jan. Lets see if your hero can demonstrate why we should be accepting her as an authority on this particular matter.

      This shouldn't take long if you are as knowledgeable as you claim to be on global temperature issues.

      Here are IceKats questions one more time:

      How long is the temperature record compared to the life of the planet?

      Why does satellite data show a different warmest year?

      Does CO2 take a break, or is it just selective in which years it picks to warm? What caused the cooling at the end of last year?

    • 1 year ago
  • Wetdog
    • +1
      Wetdog  
    • projectmayhem:

      --------" How long is the temperature record compared to the life of the planet?"------

      Why does that matter?

      -----" Why does satellite data show a different warmest year?"------

      So what?

      ------" Does CO2 take a break, or is it just selective in which years it picks to warm? "-----

      I guess the concept of averaging is beyond your realm.

      --------" What caused the cooling at the end of last year?"-----

      Conduction and convection. Cold air from the arctic means that warmer air had to come into the arctic from somewhere.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +3
      JanforGore  

    • I posted this great and informative talk by Dr. Naomi Oreskes in other threads on climate change. I think it also fits here, especially if you have not seen this before. It basically discusses all facets of climate change and the science, as well as climate denial and how it is financed in relation to her book, Merchants of Doubt. It is definitely worth looking at.

    • 1 year ago
  • projectmayhem
    • -2
      projectmayhem  
    • JanforGore:

      Jan says that she isn't going to waste her time by responding, yet look at how many comments she has on this thread. Instead of answering IceKats legitimate questions, she says she has better things to do with her time. The only reason she is dodging his questions is because she can't find the answer by googling which is her only source of knowledge.

      Jan I know you are reading this since apparently Current is your life.
      If you can answer IceKats questions I will delete my profile and never make another comment on this website again. To all you people who are going to respond to this and try to answer with your confused thoughts that lack any direction or focus, please don't. This challenge is for Jan. Lets see if your hero can demonstrate why we should be accepting her as an authority on this particular matter.

      This shouldn't take long if you are as knowledgable as you claim to be on global temperature issues.

      Here are IceKats questions one more time:

      How long is the temperature record compared to the life of the planet?

      Why does satellite data show a different warmest year?

      Does CO2 take a break, or is it just selective in which years it picks to warm? What caused the cooling at the end of last year?

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
  • projectmayhem
    • -2
      projectmayhem  
    • JanforGore:

      Jan says that she isn't going to waste her time by responding, yet look at how many comments she has on this thread. Instead of answering IceKats legitimate questions, she says she has better things to do with her time. The only reason she is dodging his questions is because she can't find the answer by googling which is her only source of knowledge.

      Jan I know you are reading this since apparently Current is your life.
      If you can answer IceKats questions I will delete my profile and never make another comment on this website again. To all you people who are going to respond to this and try to answer with your confused thoughts that lack any direction or focus, please don't. This challenge is for Jan. Lets see if your hero can demonstrate why we should be accepting her as an authority on this particular matter.

      This shouldn't take long if you are as knowledgable as you claim to be on global temperature issues.

      Here are IceKats questions one more time:

      How long is the temperature record compared to the life of the planet?

      Why does satellite data show a different warmest year?

      Does CO2 take a break, or is it just selective in which years it picks to warm? What caused the cooling at the end of last year?

    • 1 year ago
  • lifestudentno83
  • lifestudentno83
  • projectmayhem
  • coolplanet
    • +4
      coolplanet  
    • projectmayhem:

      You've posted this empty attack on Jan several times in this thread.
      I flagged the first one because it's obviously a personal attack on her.
      I come back an hour later and you've posted it several more times.
      You trolls have targeted JanForGore and disrupted civil debates with your arrogant ignorance too many times.
      GROW UP!

    • 1 year ago
  • coolplanet
    • +2
      coolplanet  

    • Deniers don't even know how to debate.
      It's all just a shouting match to them.
      Thanks for ruining yet another important thread projectmayhem.
      You certainly live up to your handle.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
  • coolplanet
  • IceKat
    • -4
      IceKat  
    • coolplanet:

      Thousands of long questions? All I've done is present pertinent scientific information that disagrees with that of the alarmists. My questions were also pertinent and relevant to what you were posting yet you failed to address them. Why?

    • 1 year ago
  • coolplanet
    • +2
      coolplanet  
    • IceKat:

      You keep asking the same questions over & over & over & over.
      Your endless questions have been answered hundreds of times by me and thousands of times by other posters.
      It gives me a headache.

    • 1 year ago
  • projectmayhem
  • IceKat
    • -1
      IceKat  
    • coolplanet:

      You have never answered a single question, much like your scaremonger-in-chief who avoids all my comments because she knows she has nothing to offer except insults and copy and paste snippets from articles which she doesn't even understand.

    • 1 year ago
  • Wetdog
  • IceKat
    • -2
      IceKat  
    • Wetdog:

      It shows the casual viewer that the people posting misinformation don't understand the subject.
      It also shows people that this is not a site that welcomes discussion and therefore should not be taken too seriously.

      Moving on. Some time ago you posted a few links to websites showing your local area. I did look at the websites but never got around to thanking you for taking the time to post the links. So - thank you.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  
    • IceKat:

      No, it means some of us are tired of your harrassment of others here. You don't want discussion you just want to divert people into BS denialist talking point discussions about CO2 not being able to trap heat, when that is grade school science compared to the importance of this as a whole. Don't even try to make people here believe you give two farts in space about anything posted here. For all of your supposed scientific education and possession of knowledge you don't have the answers to any questions? You defer to people you deem less worthy than you here? How nice, and how phony. You already know the answers to your "questions" yet you continue to push and push and push and harass people and command them to answer questions as if you are somehow above them all. You are no better here than the other trolls who come in these threads specifically to disrupt them. Now, you have been told that your questions have been answered many times and that is true. Look in any thread here regarding climate change and you will find the answers to your so called questions. And don't talk about me here saying I don't respond to you because I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't respond to you anymore because through many exchanges prior I saw what you are: nothing more here than a disruptor, and I have better things to do than spend my time here sparring with the likes of posers. And of course, I know you will try to whip off some long screed now in reply. Have fun. I won't be responding to you or any other usual disruptor in this or any other thread.

    • 1 year ago
  • projectmayhem
    • -2
      projectmayhem  
    • JanforGore:

      Jan says that she isn't going to waste her time by responding, yet look at how many comments she has on this thread. Instead of answering IceKats legitimate questions, she says she has better things to do with her time. The only reason she is dodging his questions is because she can't find the answer by googling which is her only source of knowledge.

      Jan I know you are reading this since apparently Current is your life.
      If you can answer IceKats questions I will delete my profile and never make another comment on this website again. To all you people who are going to respond to this and try to answer with your confused thoughts that lack any direction or focus, please don't. This challenge is for Jan. Lets see if your hero can demonstrate why we should be accepting her as an authority on this particular matter.

      This shouldn't take long if you are as knowledgable as you claim to be on global temperature issues.

      Here are IceKats questions one more time:

      How long is the temperature record compared to the life of the planet?

      Why does satellite data show a different warmest year?

      Does CO2 take a break, or is it just selective in which years it picks to warm? What caused the cooling at the end of last year?

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • -1
      IceKat  
    • JanforGore:

      Thanks for your response. I notice it is a criticism of me rather than the information I present, and you label me a troll because I present a counter-argument, or conflicting information. Is that how the world should be run, where one person has a view and everyone else should just accept it without question?
      I do not harass people here, I merely respond to their comments with relevant responses and questions which, despite what you say, still have not been answered.

      What is interesting here is that we're both singing from the same hymn sheet - we both hate lies and deception. Yet you continually post biased propaganda from sources well known to be inaccurate. You post videos which contain little more than unsubstantiated opinion, and you flood a thread with these videos and copied articles. It seems the louder you shout the more people will take notice of you.
      I rarely present my opinion here. The fact is I don't really mind whether we're heading for an ice-age or a barbecue earth, all I'm interested in is what is actually happening, and the reasons for it.
      All I see from you is the accusation that our climate is wrong, and it's us who broke it. You use politically driven sources as your evidence, sources which have been under serious question time and time again. There is never any discussion in your argument. For you everything is settled, it was some time ago and nothing changes, no matter what new research emerges, no matter what new findings are uncovered.

      We still have a long way to go before we begin to fully understand all the forces that drive our climate, to say the science is settled at this stage shows a severe flaw in your way of thinking.
      As I said, I don't mind where our climate is going, and before you grasp that statement to use against me, what I am saying is I don't mind, not I don't care. I would be comfortable hearing real evidence from credible scientists that man has caused a serious disruption to our climate, but with well over two decades of interest in this field, I have yet to see that evidence, and like many people here, I began by believing the CO2 = barbecue theory.
      One more question that you won't answer is this; how will you feel when the people you hold as important to your belief turn around and admit that man's influence on our climate has been grossly over-exaggerated?

      Unlike you, who has actively taken steps to have my comments censored, I fully uphold your right to have an opinion and to be able to speak about it. But when you post opinions and information for which I have opposing evidence I will continue to present that information in the hope that people will, at least, begin to think about what they are being fed on a daily basis. If people reject my information after careful thought, then that's fine by me, I will not label them a troll for having a different view.

      I hope you have a pleasant day.

    • 1 year ago
  • Wetdog
  • Wetdog
  • IceKat
    • -2
      IceKat  
    • Wetdog:

      I agree. But it would be nice if they were to give reasons for their beliefs. Unfortunately, in scientific matters, opinions don't hold much water until they are backed up with results.
      I will make sure I add the word please when asking questions in the future in order to appear less rude.

      Thanks for your comment.
      And please do have a great day.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • +3
      Gravity_Man  
    • IceKat:

      In your perfect world Al Gore would have sat back in his chair and said nothing. Where would you be now had Gore taken that easy road? None of us would be here. The scientists would be hoarding the information [by government edict like they do so much else these past 7+ DECADES] to PROTECT THEIR PAYCHECKS. Probably in records rotting underground marked Classified.

      Gore was a catalyst. He ~or someone like him~ had to shove the stone away from our tomb.

      He put grease on the axles when no one else would. If that makes you angry, upset and jealous how about you go to a shrink and talk it out properly?

      The more times you hit Gore with this hammer the dumber you look.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
  • JanforGore
    • +3
      JanforGore  
    • Gravity_Man:

      You actually hit the nail on the head and in essence revealed why it is always the same people on this site who come in these threads when I post information on climate change and do nothing but disrupt the threads and bitch about my posting and their dismay that I actually back it up with sources as if that is going to shut me up. If I didn't have the name Gore in my screenname, none of them would even give a damn about what I was posting. Look at how many threads on this topic posted by others get nary a reply in comparison to the ones I post here. I think it is fairly obvious regardless of how dumb they play. You know from many prior exchanges here over months and months on this that my support for him is the express reason why I have been ganged up on. And actually, I wear it proudly because it only shows how threatened people are by those who in their mind are set on overturning their applecarts.

      And sure GM, I could go on about the middle and Northern latitudes and wind patterns, shear, etc, and how sea ice extent affects wind patterns and temperatures in different areas of the world which is also affected by ocean currents, and how Co 2 molecules trap heat, infrared rays, radiation factors, albido, positive feedback, and all of those words that make certain ones here think they are just so much smarter, but I prefer not to be so arrogant as they are, and actually, considering how truly nasty they all are and that we all now know how insincere they are, what the _do I owe them? I know what I'm talking about, others know, and I know what others are talking about. Anything else is just diversionary bullocks. You know as well as I do as do others here who have been here any length of time and have seen all of the crap that has come down from the usual suspects here that they are living their real vitriol for Al Gore vicariously here through my screename and this site. And personally, I find that to be pathetic. Now watch the denials and excuses roll in from the usual ones. You will know them right away.They can't help themselves.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • -3
      IceKat  
    • JanforGore:

      "I could go on about the middle and Northern latitudes and wind patterns, shear, etc, and how sea ice extent affects wind patterns and temperatures in different areas of the world which is also affected by ocean currents, and how Co 2 molecules trap heat, infrared rays, radiation factors, albido, positive feedback..."

      Well no you couldn't because you don't even understand these topics. Yes, you can post a mean link or two, you're great at that, but when it comes to explaining or understanding these subjects you take a back seat... a long way back. By the way, albedo is the word you were looking for, not albido ;)

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
  • JanforGore
    • +3
      JanforGore  
    • Gravity_Man:

      Yes and doing nothing here today of any substance. I almost got sucked into their diversionary BS and decided to remove some of my comments. They just aren't worth it. I hope Current finally does something about it. They are keeping others from entering these threads. It is absolutely uncalled for.

    • 1 year ago
  • lamborghini
  • projectmayhem
  • lamborghini
  • projectmayhem
  • projectmayhem
  • projectmayhem
    • -2
      projectmayhem  

    • A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

      Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

      In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.

      It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

      Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

      Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: “If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.”

      The IPCC’s reliance on Hasnain’s 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: “Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis.

      “Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole massif.”

      The New Scientist report was apparently forgotten until 2005 when WWF cited it in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China. The report credited Hasnain’s 1999 interview with the New Scientist. But it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.

      When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was “very high”. The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%.

      The report read: “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.”

      However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower.

    • 1 year ago
  • thedirtman
  • Wetdog
    • +1
      Wetdog  
    • projectmayhem:

      -----" However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous......."--------

      There are perhaps 200 glaciers within 100 miles of where I live and I see them often, some of them I can see by going out my door and looking at Mt. Hood.

      All but one are in retreat and have been for a long time. The one that is not retreating is currently a static icefield.

      I don't think the predictions are ludicrous, and neither do glaciologists.

      It is not hard to determine the extent and time frame of a glacier's retreat----all you do is look at the debris left on the alluvial fan---the marks left on the rocks and the sequential type and extent of the surrounding vegetation

      The glaciers are melting..

    • 1 year ago
  • projectmayhem
    • -4
      projectmayhem  

    • Manipulation of evidence:

      I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

      Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

      The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

      Suppression of evidence:

      Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

      Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

      Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

      We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

      Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

      Next
      time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
      the crap out of him. Very tempted.

      Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

      ……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

      And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

      “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

      “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

    • 1 year ago
  • projectmayhem
    • -5
      projectmayhem  

    • WASHINGTON - A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming - labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.
      Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
      About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.
      In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.
      Here are some choice excerpts from the report:

      * "I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

      * "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."

      * Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

      * "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.

      * "The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

      * "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

      * "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

      * "After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.

      * "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

      * "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.

      * "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.

      * "Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

      * "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

      * "The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

    • 1 year ago
  • thedirtman
  • IceKat
  • thedirtman
  • Wetdog
    • +2
      Wetdog  
    • projectmayhem:

      Here is what Dr. Simpson REALLY had to say about global warming---taken from her obituary in the Washington Post

      -------" As recently as two years ago, her scientific work triggered controversy when she wrote an article expressing skepticism about some of the evidence underlying global-warming discussions. While calling for better data and stricter definitions, she also urged the nation to act on the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will, in this century, become unsustainable. But as a scientist, I remain skeptical."-------

      It is a scientist's job to be skeptical. But that in no way means that she was not squarely on the side of acting to reduce GHG emissions.

      I think this is a fatal omission in all your references to "skeptical" scientists.

      The real words out of her mouth are--------"because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will, in this century, become unsustainable. But as a scientist, I remain skeptical."-----

      Her position was----" While calling for better data and stricter definitions, she also urged the nation to act on the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"--------

      NOT, SIT BACK AND JUST KEEP DOING WHAT WE ARE DOING-------as you are trying to make it out to be.

    • 1 year ago
  • projectmayhem
    • -3
      projectmayhem  

    • First off, it is very important to address the fact that Earth is not the only planet to be experiencing climate change in our solar system currently. In fact, many astronomers have announced that Pluto has been experiencing global warming, and suggested that it is a seasonal event, just like how Earth’s seasons change as the various hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun. We must remember that it is the Sun that determines our seasons, and thusly has a greater impact upon the climate than we could ever even try to achieve. In May of 2006, a report came forward revealing that a massive hurricane-like storm that occurred on Jupiter may be caused by climate change occurring on the planet, which is expected to raise its temperatures by 10 degrees. National Geographic News reported that a simultaneous rising in temperature on both Mars and Earth suggest that climate change is indeed a natural phenomenon as opposed to being man-made. The report further explains how NASA has reported that Mars’ carbon dioxide ice caps have been melting for a few years now. Sound familiar? An astronomical observatory in Russia declared that, “the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun”. They further point out that both Mars and Earth have, throughout their histories, experienced periodic ice ages as climate changes in a continuous fashion. NASA has also been observing massive storms on Saturn, which indicate a climate change occurring on that planet as well. NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has also been recording massive climate changes on Neptune’s largest moon, Triton. Triton, whose surface was once made up of frozen nitrogen, is now turning into gas. The Associated Press has reported that satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight have been recording an increase in the sun’s temperature, meaning that the sun itself is warming up. Even the London Telegraph reported in 2004 that global warming was due to the sun being hotter than it has ever been in the past 1,000 years. They cited this information from research conducted by German and Swiss scientists who claim that it is increasing radiation from the sun that is resulting in our current climate change.

      Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist, who was among the first scientists to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20 years ago, now believes that “increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena”. Allegre said, “There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled." He is convinced that global warming is a natural change and sees the threat of the ‘great dangers’ that it supposedly poses as being bloated and highly exaggerated. Also recently, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the recent ruling by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is man-made, “Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.” And if you are about to ask why no politicians here seem to be saying this, Klaus offered up an answer, “Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice”. Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist, wrote an article in the UK Sunday Times, in which he stated, “When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.” He further stated that, “Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis”. And in reference to how the media is representing those who dissent from the man-made theory he stated, “they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies”, which is exactly what I believed up until I did my research. He also wrote, “Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages”.

    • 1 year ago
  • Gravity_Man
    • +3
      Gravity_Man  
    • projectmayhem:

      Question. How can anyone compare the warming of our planet 3/5 covered by water, or more, with those other planets having no water nor even an atmosphere? Planet Earth is unique in our solar system.

      Using an apples vs oranges argument diminishes your post. If anything I would conclude #1 if dry planets are warming, and as we know #2 our planet has a temperature change lag, then #3 we are due to become a toastem popup.

      Which as I recall was where Jan started so long ago.

    • 1 year ago
  • thedirtman
    • +4
      thedirtman  
    • projectmayhem:

      We must remember that it is the Sun that determines our seasons.

      No, no, no, no, no... it is the inclination of Earth's axis toward the Sun that determines our seasons. The sun's energy does not vary from one season to the next.

      Nothing shows the effects of greenhouse gases better than planetary science. Anyone can predict the temperature of a planet simply by determining how much radiation will be received at the surface of the planet, and by determining how long the radiation will be retained due to greenhouse gas concentrations. For example, consider Mercury and Venus. Mercury receives about 8 times the radiation from the Sun than Venus does. We could assume that Mercury would be hotter.

      We would be wrong if we made that assumption. Venus has an atmosphere that contains quite a bit of carbon dioxide making it hotter than Mercury all over. Even the bright side of Mercury is cooler than the dark side of Venus. It might even be possible to inhabit Mercury. If we built a civilization on rails that near the poles that slowly rotated around the poles to match the sun angle it might be possible to keep the civilization cool enough for human habitation. Some scientists believe there may be water just under the surface of the planet near the poles. We would just need protection from exotic radiation from the sun. We could never dream of inhabiting the surface of Venus.

    • 1 year ago
  • projectmayhem
    • -4
      projectmayhem  

    • I am not saying that it isn’t a good idea to take action to help the environment, but I ask you to consider this: if the majority of scientific data points to the fact that global warming is caused by the Sun, then how will a tax on carbon emissions help to stop it? How does us driving cars cause climate change on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune and Triton? Can Al Gore please fill me in on this? If CO2 increases as a RESULT of temperature increases, then how can we hope to accomplish anything by taxing emissions? That’s like saying we will prevent the process of humans ageing by dying their grey hairs. It’s not grey hair that causes people to age; it’s ageing that causes grey hair. And nothing that you do to your hair will have any affect on how long you live. Especially since ageing is a natural process that cannot be stopped and has always occurred and will always occur. Just like climate change.

      It seems worrisome that politicians are all too eager to grab onto this man-made myth of global warming in order to make us afraid and guilty. Guilty enough to want to change it, and afraid enough to give up our freedoms and undergo massive financial expenses in order to do so. So this lie, being pushed by big money and big governments, is a convenient lie for those who want to exert control and collect money. However, it’s inconvenient for the mass amount of people who are already experiencing the problems of a widening wage-gap and fading middle class.

      If the problems we are being presented are based on lies, then how do we expect to find any true solution to helping the environment? A Global Tax won’t clean up the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez, which is still polluting waters in Alaska nearly 18 years after the spill occurred. A Global Tax won’t stop Shell from making the Niger Delta the most endangered Delta in the whole world. No, we have to first be realistic, mature, and have debate about the problems we are facing, and then, and only then, can we even hope to achieve any sort of solution.

    • 1 year ago
  • thedirtman
    • +4
      thedirtman  
    • projectmayhem:

      "if the majority of scientific data points to the fact that global warming is caused by the Sun, then how will a tax on carbon emissions help to stop it?"

      Simply put, the supposition is made on a faulty premise. There is no scientific data pointing out that global warming is caused by the Sun. As I mentioned earlier, this was true for most data before 1960, but falls apart badly after that date. We should be getting dramatically cooler now because the solar flux has been weak.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • -4
      IceKat  
    • thedirtman:

      "There is no scientific data pointing out that global warming is caused by the Sun."

      Well, none that you have bothered to read. You really need to read more than cherry-picked articles that say what you want to hear. Do some research, find out what others are saying. Does the sun play no part in warming? Then what is the heat source?
      Global temperatures and sea surface temperatures are now falling.

    • 1 year ago
  • thedirtman
    • +2
      thedirtman  
    • IceKat:

      IceKat, I don't read any articles. I'm just posting what I remember from University Physics, Chemistry, and Planetary Science... oh, and Atmospheric Science. I did get a chance to implement climate modelling on my own project.

      Surely, the heat source is the Sun. There is also a concept that is equally important called "heat retention". If heat is retained longer the balance of heat accumulates.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
    • -3
      IceKat  
    • thedirtman:

      Maybe you should keep up with modern science and read about the latest developments concerning climate change. It's an ever-changing field where new discoveries are being made on a regular basis.

    • 1 year ago
  • coolplanet
    • +2
      coolplanet  
    • IceKat:

      Stars cool as they age until they go supernova.
      Our sun has long been ruled out by science as being a significant contributor to global warming.
      Google NASA, not FOX.

    • 1 year ago
  • thedirtman
    • +1
      thedirtman  
    • IceKat:

      Greenhouse gas theory goes back to the early 19th century. Since then we've learned how to identify which bond in the molecule causes the heat absorption and why the molecule is shaped that way. Keeping up with the science of greenhouse gases is like keeping up with the science of gravity. The Laws of Physics don't change much from year to year.

    • 1 year ago
  • IceKat
  • Wetdog
    • +2
      Wetdog  
    • projectmayhem:

      --------"A Global Tax won’t clean up the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez, which is still polluting waters in Alaska nearly 18 years after the spill occurred"--------

      1989----22 years ago. No, but not using oil will prevent another Exxon Valdez from happening.

      ------" A Global Tax won’t stop Shell from making the Niger Delta the most endangered Delta in the whole world."-------

      No. But not using oil will prevent it from happening in other places.

      ----" No, we have to first be realistic, mature, and have debate about the problems we are facing, and then, and only then, can we even hope to achieve any sort of solution."----

      OK. Biofuels can do anything that can be done with petroleum. They are cleaner, they are renewable, and they are sustainable. If we drive our vehicles with ethanol, biodiesel and methane(natural gas and biogas)----we will almost wipe out heavy metal and carcinogenic toxics and we won't have to worry about CO2---it is impossible to raise atmospheric CO2 using biofuels. Natural gas and biogas are the only means that we currently have that can actually lower AGW.

      So, you don't want a carbon tax? Fine. Then get rid of the subsidies long written into the tax code favoring petroleum. Like the oil depletion allowance. Like bargain basement give aways to pump petroleum out of public lands and waters. How much are the subsidies? No one knows exactly----but here is a good estimate. The price of gasoline in Europe has always been higher than the US because gasoline has always had to be imported. How much higher? The price of a gallon of gasoline is roughly $7-$10 depending on location. Get rid of the petroleum subsidies and that is going to be the true price of gasoline. Get rid of the petroleum tax breaks, subsidies and give aways and let the price rise to match the world market---probably in the range of $6-$8 a gallon. Ethanol, biodiesel and methane will look pretty good. No carbon tax needed. And no batteries required.

    • 1 year ago
  • Wetdog
  • Gravity_Man
  • IceKat
1234
1 - 100 of 376
more from Tech:
from the community

top videos