# American Doomsday: Climate Change?



## Brian R. VanCise (May 6, 2014)

american-doomsday-white-house-warns-climate-catastrophes-n98011
American Doomsday: White House Warns of Climate Catastrophes - NBC News

Let's discuss!


----------



## Steve (May 6, 2014)

American Doomsday: White House Warns of Climate Catastrophes - NBC News

Not sure if this is what you're referring to, but I don't think your link came through in your post, Brian. 

Regarding the topic, I think that people largely believe what they are inclined to believe.  Whether or not climate change is "human induced" is sort of beside the point for me.  I've heard people from both sides acknowledge that climate change is happening.  It's really just a matter of whether we're affecting it (either to cause it or to speed it up) or not.

The bottom line, though, is if it is a reality and we are going to experience stronger weather patterns, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, mudslides or whatever else, we have to adapt.  If there are things we can do to mitigate or diminish the affect that extreme weather has on society, we should try to do those things.  If there are things we can do to moderate climate change, we should.  And, ultimately, if we can't affect it, we must adapt or die.  Technological evolution is how we ascended to become the dominant species on the planet.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 6, 2014)

It is interesting and definitely we are seeing climate change.

Just the year record snow in Michigan and probably most of the Midwest and East Coast.
Now, the fire season has started early in the Southwest.  Not to mention the uptick in 
Tornadoes, mudslides, etc.  Yes, I am with you Steve we need to learn to adapt.


----------



## billc (May 6, 2014)

Yeah, and if you like your doctor you can keep him...so I'll take their scare mongering with more than a grain of salt...

A Wicked Orthodoxy | National Review Online



> Compared with the likely benefits to both human health and food production from CO2-induced global warming, the possible disadvantages from, say, a slight increase in either the frequency or the intensity of extreme weather events is very small beer. It is, in fact, still uncertain whether there is any impact on extreme-weather events as a result of warming (increased carbon emissions, which have certainly occurred, cannot on their own affect the weather: it is only warming which might). The unusual persistence of heavy rainfall over the U.K. during February, which led to considerable flooding, is believed by the scientists to have been caused by the wayward behavior of the jetstream;* and there is no credible scientific theory that links this behaviour to the fact that the earth&#8217;s surface is some 0.8 degrees Celsius warmer than it was 150 years ago.*





> *
> Moreover, as the latest IPCC report makes clear, careful studies have shown that, while extreme-weather events such as floods, droughts, and tropical storms have always occurred, overall there has been no increase in either their frequency or their severity. That may, of course, be because there has so far been very little global warming indeed: The fear is the possible consequences of what is projected to lie ahead of us. And even in climate science, cause has to precede effect: It is impossible for future warming to affect events in the present.*





> The fact remains that the most careful empirical studies show that, so far at least, there has been no perceptible increase, globally, in either the number or the severity of extreme-weather events. And, as a happy coda, these studies also show that, thanks to scientific and material progress, there has been a massive reduction, worldwide, in deaths from extreme-weather events.


----------



## K-man (May 6, 2014)

It's so good to have Bill to provide a healthy balance.   It would be even better if he quoted credible science!

But having said that, I think, in reality, it is probably too late. If we had started when the evidence was first available it may have been reversible. Now I am not so sure. I think our generation has done the most in history to destroy the future for our children and their children. The only hope I see is that in the next short time those who have demonstrated an ability to rise to the occasion with technology will develop some form of effective and affordable carbon sequestration. Without that the pollution from the developing countries like China and India and the deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia will be the tipping point.

Pessimist? Yep. But what we are copping with climate change now is just the beginning.
:asian:


----------



## billc (May 7, 2014)

More good news...

Sea Level Rises Are an Insignificant Problem to Which We Can Easily Adapt, Says New Report




> Over the last 150 years, average global sea levels have risen by  around 1.8 mm per annum - a continuation of the melting of the ice  sheets which began 17,000 years ago. Satellite measurements (which began  in 1992) put the rate higher - at 3mm per year. But there is no  evidence whatsoever to support the doomsday claims made by Al Gore in  2006 that sea levels will rise by 20 feet by the end of the century, nor  even the more modest prediction by James Hansen that they will rise by 5  metres.
> 
> Such modest rises, argue oceanographer Willem P de Lange and marine  geologist Bob Carter in their report for the Global Warming Policy  Foundation, are far better dealt with by adaptation than by costly,  ineffectual schemes to decarbonise the global economy.
> They say:
> No justification exists for continuing to base sea-level policy and  coastal management regulation upon the outcomes of deterministic or  semi-empirical sea-level modelling. Such modelling remains speculative  rather than predictive. The practice of using a global rate of sea-level  change to manage specific coastal locations worldwide is irrational and  should be abandoned.​ It is irrational not least because it is based on a complete  misunderstanding of the causes and nature of sea-level rises. There are  parts of the world where the sea level is rising, others where it is  falling - and this is dependent as much on what the land is doing  (tectonic change) as on what the sea is doing.





> *The remaining global sea-level rise has been about 20 cm  in the 20th century. Has this led to global disasters? The answer is no.  If the projected rise over the 21st century is double what was seen in  the 20th, is it likely that it will result in global disasters? Again,  the answer is most likely no; human ingenuity, innovation and  engineering, and the proper material and financial resources should  solve local problems if and when they arrive, as they have in the 20th  century.*


----------



## crushing (May 7, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> american-doomsday-white-house-warns-climate-catastrophes-n98011
> American Doomsday: White House Warns of Climate Catastrophes - NBC News
> 
> Let's discuss!


----------



## pgsmith (May 7, 2014)

billc said:


> Compared with the likely benefits to both human health and food production from CO2-induced global warming, the possible disadvantages from, say, a slight increase in either the frequency or the intensity of extreme weather events is very small beer.



Hurricane Sandy, drought cost U.S. 100 billion dollars in 2012 ...

On target as usual!


----------



## billc (May 7, 2014)

Wow, I guess there were never any hurricanes before man started to use fossil fuels...and there were never any droughts...

And there is this about 2012 hurricane season...

Hurricanes & Tropical Storms - Annual 2012 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)



> The number of named storms and storms that reached hurricane strength was above average, while the number of major hurricanes was below average. The 2012 season marked the lowest number of major hurricanes in the basin since 1997, which also had only one. *There were no Category 4 or 5 storms during the season, only the third time this has occurred since 1995. *Hurricane Michael, the only Category 3 hurricane of the season, retained major hurricane strength for 6 hours. One hurricane (Isaac), two tropical storms (Beryl and Debby), and one post-tropical storm with hurricane force winds (Sandy) made landfall during the season. *No major hurricanes struck the U.S. coast, marking the seventh consecutive year without a major hurricane strike.*






> Although there was an extremely high number of tropical storms during the year, the below-average number of major hurricanes kept the seasonal ACE value relatively low compared to more active years.


You were saying...


----------



## Master Dan (May 7, 2014)

K-man said:


> It's so good to have Bill to provide a healthy balance.   It would be even better if he quoted credible science!
> 
> But having said that, I think, in reality, it is probably too late. If we had started when the evidence was first available it may have been reversible. Now I am not so sure. I think our generation has done the most in history to destroy the future for our children and their children. The only hope I see is that in the next short time those who have demonstrated an ability to rise to the occasion with technology will develop some form of effective and affordable carbon sequestration. Without that the pollution from the developing countries like China and India and the deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia will be the tipping point.
> 
> ...


 Thank you but bill is not paid to be credible he belongs to the bubble that says anything is true if you just say it over and over and if it is printed in the media it must be true. I know there is good science to prove we have actually repaired the ozone holes due to changes in many types of emissions that damaged it however when it comes to Carbon the amount we have put in the air due to fossil fuels is going to not change for the next 10-20 years if we were to stop all artificial emissions and countries like China just now industrializing using massive amounts of coal are not going to stop. 50% of our us energy still comes from coal and damage to people in the mining areas on many levels is criminal but the needs of the many for cheap energy seem to out weigh the needs of the few. Regardless of where energy comes from I think the best we could do in the future is finding ways to use 50% less and still maintain our comfort. Thanks for your post


----------



## billc (May 7, 2014)

As has been pointed out in the article I posted...



> Of course, it doesn&#8217;t seem like that. Partly because of sensitivity to the climate-change doctrine, and partly simply as a result of the explosion of global communications, we are far more aware of extreme-weather events around the world than we used to be. And it is perfectly true that many more people are affected by extreme-weather events than ever before. But that is simply because of the great growth in world population: *There are many more people around. It is also true, as the insurance companies like to point out, that there has been a great increase in the damage caused by extreme-weather events. But that is simply because, just as there are more people around, so there is more property around to be damaged.*
> The fact remains that the most careful empirical studies show that, so far at least, *there has been no perceptible increase, globally, in either the number or the severity of extreme-weather events. And, as a happy coda, these studies also show that, thanks to scientific and material progress, there has been a massive reduction, worldwide, in deaths from extreme-weather events.*


----------



## billc (May 7, 2014)

Hmmmm...a list of the worst hurricanes...ever...

Worst Hurricane Ever | List of Biggest Hurricanes in History




> Taking the cake for the deadliest tropical cyclone ever recorded the 1970 Bhola Cyclone hit East Pakistan (Bangladeshtoday) and India's West Bengal on November 12, 1970. While the exact death toll is unknown it is estimated that 300,000-500,000 people perished in the aftermath of this storm, making it one of the deadliest natural disasters recent history.
> 
> This cyclone was not extremely large, reaching strengths equivalent of a Category 3 Hurricane. The killing power of this storm was almost completely attributed to the cyclone's surge which flooded most of the low lying islands in the Ganges Delta, literally wiping villages and crops off the face of the earth.




Hmmmm...300,000-500,000 people actually killed...how many were killed in hurricane Sandy...



> Not happy to just be one of the most destructive Pacific hurricanes to make landfall in Mexico, Hurricane Pauline had to be one of the deadliest too.
> 
> Working it's way up the Mexican coastline Pauline dumped torrential rain falls with 16" of rain in Acapulco alone! The relentless downpour caused disastrous land slides in some of Mexico's poorest villages, killing roughly 250-400 people and leaving a striking 300,000 people homeless.
> 
> Beyond all the lives destroyed Hurricane Pauline caused a massive amount of damage, exceeding $7.5 billion (USD 1997).


 l<​
Hmmmm...



> killing roughly 250-400 people and leaving a striking 300,000 people homeless.





> Beyond all the lives destroyed Hurricane Pauline caused a massive amount of damage, exceeding $7.5 billion


----------



## billc (May 7, 2014)

Hmmm...this hurricane was when...?



> The year was 1900, the place was Galveston Texas. On September 4th a warning was released saying a large tropical storm had just passed Cuba and was headed west across the Gulf of Mexico.
> 
> Even though the US Weather Bureau had warning that a large storm was on its way their policy at the time was to avoid pesky words like "hurricane" or "tornado" to avoid giving people a chance to escape oops, I mean to avoid panic.
> 
> ...



But...But...1900...how much global warming could there have been...I mean, the car wasn't around that long...industrialization wasn't that great...but I guess the man made global warming religion is only forward thinking...that is it only counts if it happened while the people who believe in man made global warming were alive...

I think restating this is a good idea...



> *There are many more people around. It is also true, as the insurance companies like to point out, that there has been a great increase in the damage caused by extreme-weather events. But that is simply because, just as there are more people around, so there is more property around to be damaged.*



Here we go...from wikipedia...the Automobile...



> The year 1886 is regarded the year of birth of the modern automobile - with the Benz Patent-Motorwagen, by German inventor Karl Benz. Motorized wagons soon replaced animal-drafted carriages, especially after automobiles became affordable for many people when the Ford Model T was introduced in 1908.



Wow, 14 years before the hurricane hit Galveston...that man made global warming is pretty quick...but...then...why did it slow down for the last 17 years, 9 months when countries are just dumping green house gases into the atmosphere...?


And the industrial revolution...from wikipedia...



> The Industrial Revolution began in Great Britain and spread to Western Europe and the United States within a few decades. The period of time covered by the Industrial Revolution varies with different historians. Eric Hobsbawm held that it 'broke out' in Britain in the 1780s and was not fully felt until the 1830s or 1840s,[SUP][6][/SUP]while T. S. Ashton held that it occurred roughly between 1760 and 1830.[SUP][7][/SUP]



Hmmmm...in some figures the build up of industry was about 60-140 years...and most of the early years weren't pumping out those green house gases all that much...and yet...by 1900 there was a hurricane in Galveston, Texas...

I guess there had never been hurricanes ever before so it must have really been a shock...


----------



## billc (May 7, 2014)

This must be made up...there was barely any man made global warming for this hurricane...If the industrial revolution even started in 1760 then man made global warming would only have had 20 years to cause this hurricane...right?

Worst Hurricane Ever | List of Biggest Hurricanes in History (Page 8)



> *The Great Hurricane of 1780*
> 
> Holding the record as the deadliest Atlantic hurricane this storm devastated Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Lesser Antilles, Bermuda, and possibly Florida and other States.
> 
> *While the total damages are unknown the death toll was well over 22,000 people, more than any other decade of Atlantic hurricanes.*



In the height of man made global warming extreme weather hysteria...how many people died in Hurricane Sandy again....?

And here is another list of horrible, tragic hurricanes long before man could have caused global warming...

http://www.livescience.com/7568-greatest-hurricanes.html


----------



## billc (May 7, 2014)

For those curious, the loss of life in Hurricane Sandy...43.

The Hurricane of 1780...



> *While the total damages are unknown the death toll was well over 22,000 people, more than any other decade of Atlantic hurricanes.*





> Taking the cake for the deadliest tropical cyclone ever recorded the 1970 Bhola Cyclone hit East Pakistan (Bangladeshtoday) and India's West Bengal on November 12, 1970. While *the exactdeath toll is unknown it is estimated that 300,000-500,000 people* perished in the aftermath of this storm, making it one of the deadliest natural disasters recent history.



So you were saying...

From wikipedia on the Hurricane of 1780, an important point is made...I'll highlight it...



> The *Great Hurricane of 1780*, also known as *Huracán San Calixto*, the *Great Hurricane of the Antilles*, and the *1780 Disaster*,[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] is probably the deadliestAtlantic hurricane on record. Between 20,000 and 22,000 people died when the storm passed through the Lesser Antilles in the Caribbean 10&#8211;16 October.[SUP][3][/SUP] *Specifics on the hurricane's track and strength are unknown since the official Atlantic hurricane database only goes back to 1851.*[SUP][4][/SUP]



The official Atlantic Hurricane database starts in 1851...

Do I need to post about the worst droughts in history as well...?  You know, the ones before man made global warming was...warming things up...up until the 17 year, 9 month hiatus...

Well...it's like trying to eat one potato chip...once you start...the worst droughts...happened in the age of Columbus, at least in Utah...hmmm...was that before man started the industrial revolution?

http://www.zmescience.com/research/tree-rings-drought-west-history-53435/#!KHusN



> - *Consecutive worst-case scenarios*: The most severe drought in the record began in 1492, and four of the five worst droughts all happened during Christopher Columbus&#8217; lifetime.





> &#8220;We&#8217;re conservatively estimating the severity of these droughts that hit before the modern record, and we still see some that are kind of scary if they were to happen again,&#8221; said Bekker, a geography professor at BYU. &#8220;We would really have to change the way we do things here.&#8221;





> *This analysis which goes back more than 500 years tells us that the West was once subjected to drought fluctuations much more severe than anything we&#8217;ve seen in recent history. *If this happened before, then it can certainly happen in the future. The real questions that remain to be answered is when these periods of severe drought might come again in the future, and what signs can scientists look for to forecast their coming.



Say again...



> This analysis which goes back more than 500 years tells us that the West was once subjected to drought fluctuations much more severe than anything we&#8217;ve seen in recent history.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 7, 2014)

Billc it is like you are spamming the thread?  Less is some times more!


----------



## crushing (May 7, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Billc it is like you are spamming the thread?  Less is some times more!



There is a school of _thought _that if you throw enough **** at the wall something is bound to stick.


----------



## K-man (May 7, 2014)

It doesn't require much brain to differentiate between the damage caused by hurricanes and the power and frequency of hurricanes. If a very powerful hurricane goes through an area with sparce population and little infrastructure there will not be huge damage and loss of life. If a less powerful hurricane goes through an area of high population, like Bangladesh then obviously the loss of life will be much higher. 

Despite all the propaganda being peddled by the skeptics, global warming and climate change is here. That has even been confirmed by people Bill has quoted. The only thing that can be argued is whether this is being caused by the actions of man and the burning of fossil fuels and whether anything can be done to reverse it. If your future depended on picking sides which side would you choose?
:asian:


----------



## billc (May 7, 2014)

Sorry, just responding to this...


> Hurricane Sandy, drought cost U.S. 100 billion dollars in 2012 ...
> 
> On target as usual! ​



I post in smaller posts so that it isn't one giant post...and I was trying to show the perspective from a historical point of view.  Much like history, people believe that climate started when they were born and that what we see is all there is or was...I try to stay in the basement these days but sometimes I get drawn out...

I will get my juice box and Teddy Grahams  and go back downstairs...nice thread though...

Oh, and...



> There is a school of _thought _that if you throw enough **** at the wall something is bound to stick.​



Hmmm...try reading the posts over...It's more than throwing things at the wall...

--------------------------------------------



> K-man:
> 
> It doesn't require much brain to differentiate between the damage caused by hurricanes and the power and frequency of hurricanes. If a very powerful hurricane goes through an area with sparce population and little infrastructure there will not be huge damage and loss of life. If a less powerful hurricane goes through an area of high population, like Bangladesh then obviously the loss of life will be much higher.
> 
> Despite all the propaganda being peddled by the skeptics, global warming and climate change is here. That has even been confirmed by people Bill has quoted. The only thing that can be argued is whether this is being caused by the actions of man and the burning of fossil fuels and whether anything can be done to reverse it. If your future depended on picking sides which side would you choose?



Missed the point...hurricanes have always existed and we haven't been keeping records all that long...he pointed out the damage of Hurricane Sandy to show an extreme weather event...allegedly being created in frequency and intensity by man made global warming...that was the point of the Hurricane of 1780 and the other horrible hurricanes... to show that long before any man made global warming...and the point of the droughts that occurred in the time of Christopher Columbus...droughts that made our drought look like child's play...

And you are just repeating what I posted...to repeat what I posted originally and you repeated...



> *There are many more people around. It is also true, as the insurance companies like to point out, that there has been a great increase in the damage caused by extreme-weather events. But that is simply because, just as there are more people around, so there is more property around to be damaged.*
> The fact remains that the most careful empirical studies show that, so far at least, *there has been no perceptible increase, globally, in either the number or the severity of extreme-weather events. And, as a happy coda, these studies also show that, thanks to scientific and material progress, there has been a massive reduction, worldwide, in deaths from extreme-weather events.*



The posts I posted show that from 300-500 thousand deaths...to 43...makes the point...


----------



## granfire (May 8, 2014)

Climate change drives salmon evolution - life - 11 July 2012 - New Scientist


----------



## James Kovacich (May 8, 2014)

billc said:


> More good news...
> 
> Sea Level Rises Are an Insignificant Problem to Which We Can Easily Adapt, Says New Report



Good news we can adapt to the rising sea level. Please tell that to Miami!

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## granfire (May 8, 2014)

James Kovacich said:


> Good news we can adapt to the rising sea level. Please tell that to Miami!
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



Bangladesh and the Maldives....


----------



## billc (May 9, 2014)

You mean the Maldives...that aren't sinking...

Articles: Sinking Islands or Stinking Islands?



> In 2004, Stockholm University professor Nils-Axel Mörner, of Sweden, published a paper in _Global and Planetary Change _(hardly a bastion for global warming deniers) regarding his extensive research of the ocean around the Maldives.  He noted, "In our study of the coastal dynamics and the geomorphology of the shores we were unable to detect any traces of a recent sea level rise.  On the contrary, we found quite clear morphological indications of a recent fall in sea level."
> 
> Dr. Mörner's research indicates that sea level about the Maldives has fallen approximately 11 inches in the past 50 years.  In fact, additional researchindicates that about the time the leaders of Tuvalu created headlines in 2001, the sea-level surrounding the nine atoll islands of their country had recently_fallen_ 2.5 inches.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 10, 2014)

Hey Billc the above post doesn't jive with a recent visit to the Maldives by a journalistic team covering rising sea levels.  It looked based on their information and talking with the locals very grim for the Maldives and the rising sea level there.  Very grim!


----------



## ballen0351 (May 10, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hey Billc the above post doesn't jive with a recent visit to the Maldives by a journalistic team covering rising sea levels.  It looked based on their information and talking with the locals very grim for the Maldives and the rising sea level there.  Very grim!


However, a new study has found that sea levels have since fallen by nearly 2.5in and experts at Tuvalu's Meteorological Service in Funafuti, the islands' administrative centre, said this meant they would survive for another 100 years.
Falling sea level upsets theory of global warming - Telegraph


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (May 10, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> However, a new study has found that sea levels have since fallen by nearly 2.5in and experts at Tuvalu's Meteorological Service in Funafuti, the islands' administrative centre, said this meant they would survive for another 100 years.
> Falling sea level upsets theory of global warming - Telegraph



Did you read the whole article there?  I will summarize it: pretty much, it says water rising, okay we had a short break, now the water is going to rise again and we are in deep ****!


----------



## James Kovacich (May 10, 2014)

Miami won't "ADAPT" to the rising sea!

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (May 10, 2014)

So...if we switch to solar...the manufacture of all the solar cells and batteries is not going to have a negative environmental impact?

When it comes to the OMG WORST WINTER EVAH! Hype....people see what they want to see. I've lived through worse back when the new ice age and acid rain were the doomsday tropes that science was trying to scare us with.

I tire of the non-stop end of days "science"...ever since grade school its been nothing but...meteors are gonna kill us...comet strikes...death of the sun...gama ray death when a nearby star goes pulsar...

http://jcconwell.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/top-10-ways-the-universe-could-kill-us/

Acid rain...ozone depletion (if you really think we "fixed" that...pffffftttt....)...the next pandemic is coming (I remember being scared of dying of Swine flu as a kid)...death...destruction...the end of days!

**** it all. If I'm gonna die I'm gonna die with my boots on. 

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (May 10, 2014)

Those who don't see this latest push by O as being 100% political are rubes.....

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (May 10, 2014)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Did you read the whole article there?  I will summarize it: pretty much, it says water rising, okay we had a short break, now the water is going to rise again and we are in deep ****!


Yep did you read it? It always been rising but no where near as fast as they claim.  

Ice melts thats kinda what happens when we come out of an Ice Age.  Naturally by the way.  


Also sea levels rise and fall naturally  as well



> These low-lying islands are between 2,000 and 3,000 years old. They  only formed because sea levels fell, allowing a build up of sand and  gravel. Now it could go the other way."


----------



## ballen0351 (May 10, 2014)

James Kovacich said:


> Miami won't "ADAPT" to the rising sea!
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



Oh well


----------



## billc (May 10, 2014)

A look at Tuvalu...

Is Tuvalu sinking yet? | Eyes on Browne

And on the Maldives...and he mentions Bangladesh as well

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2009/12/why-the-maldives-arent-sinking/



> I have been on no fewer than six different field expeditions to the Maldives. We worked in the lagoon, we drilled in the sea, we drilled in lakes, we looked at the shore morphology &#8212; many different environments. We have always found the same thing: a total stability for the last 30 years, preceded by a 20cm drop in sea level in the 1970s.
> 
> *We have presented a detailed documentation of the sea level changes in the Maldives over the past 4,000 years. The record of the last 500 years may be of special interest to the situation of your islanders.
> 
> ...



Who is Dr. Morner...

from wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_Mörner#Views_on_sea_level_change



> *Views on sea level change[edit]*
> 
> Mörner disagrees with the view of future rise in sea level caused by global warming.[SUP][5][/SUP] Mörner's self-published 2007 20-page booklet _The Greatest Lie Ever Told_,[SUP][6][/SUP] refers to his belief that observational records of sea levels for the past 300 years that show variations - ups and downs, but no significant trend.[SUP][7][/SUP] This contrasts with the usual view that sea level rise has been occurring at 2&#8211;3 mm/yr over the last century.[SUP][8][/SUP] Mörner asserts that satellite altimetry data indicate a mean rise in the order of 1.0 mm/yr from 1986 to 1996,[SUP][9][/SUP] whereas most studies find a value around 3 mm/yr.




this is a thread from a while ago on Tuvalu...it isn't sinking...they got better measuring tools...



> And about the incredible sinking island nation called Tuvalu...not so much...
> 
> http://www.financialpost.com/story.h...f-c2397d155a32
> 
> ...



Why are these reports of sinking Islands wrong...


> *The IPCC Chapter on Sea Level is one of the more dishonest. It practices two important deceptions. First, it completely fails to mention the fact that many tide gauges are situated close to cities where the land is subsiding because of erection of heavy buildings, or removal of ground water, oil and minerals. It so happens that the island of Hawaii is one of the more heavily populated Pacific islands where the sea level is "rising" because the land is "falling" Another reason for upwards bias is Port Adelaide, Australia, where they decided to increase the water level in the harbour to allow for larger ships,*



More on why Tuvalu isn't sinking...

You mean this Tuvalu...



> http://www.tuvaluislands.com/news/ar...2002-02-01.htm
> 
> 
> *Check the Science*
> ...





> Like most of the "man made," global warming hysteria, it is motivated by politics, and economics, of the scientists and the countries pushing hardest for this theory to be believed...elders Tuvalu for example is an example of a shakedown stunt...
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...inking_is.html
> 
> ...


​


----------



## billc (May 17, 2014)

Yeah, about that glacier in the Antarctic...you were saying...

Antarctic ice shelf collapse will raise sea levels ? in about 1,000 years « Hot Air



> This is not new stuff either. This story has been popping up since 2008. I wrote about it here and here. As noted in 2008, a fairly simple discovery, not mentioned in any of these articles, proffered an explanation of why the ocean water was warming and the ice shelf in question then was melting.
> 
> 
> &#8220;Scientists have just now discovered an active volcano under the Antarctic ice that &#8220;creates melt-water that lubricates the base of the ice sheet and increases the flow towards the sea&#8221;. That could include the Wilkins Ice Sheet as well (the article cited talks about the Larson A and B sheets.





> Ok. Well, let&#8217;s look at a couple of pictures then. The first is from the 2008 post I did on the volcano:
> 
> http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/volcano.jpg
> 
> ...





> Does anyone notice anything interesting?  Yes, that&#8217;s right, the glacier in question, is in the vicinity of the volcano in question.  And I don&#8217;t think anyone would argue that a undersea volcano can&#8217;t heat up the sea in the vicinity to a little higher temperature than it would be normally.  Has it had an effect?  Who knows &#8230; it doesn&#8217;t appear to have been mentioned at all in the study.  But, if you go to the Guardian article you&#8217;ll see an embedded 17 second video that attempts to explain the effect of the warmer water on the glacier.  It shows less dense (and therefore lighter) warm water somehow flowing under much denser and therefore heavier cold water to destabilize the glacier.  The only reasonable explanation for such a flow would be if the heat source were somewhere near the bottom of the ocean, no?  Otherwise its hard to explain how that warm water got below the cold water and stayed there.
> 
> 
> But if you question things like this, you&#8217;re an ignorant nincompoop.  A &#8220;denier&#8221;, which, by the way is akin to being a member of the KKK and a Holocaust denier all in one.  However, I&#8217;m certainly not denying that something is happening in Antarctica.  I am questioning the purported cause though.  It isn&#8217;t at all unimaginable that the side of Antarctica most exposed to warmer South Pacific sea currents and experiencing volcanic activity might see some melting due to causes unrelated to CO2 put in the atmosphere by man.


----------



## K-man (May 17, 2014)

billc said:


> Yeah, about that glacier in the Antarctic...you were saying...
> 
> Antarctic ice shelf collapse will raise sea levels ? in about 1,000 years « Hot Air


Mmm! Maybe not quite accurate reporting.



> In January 2008 the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) scientists, Hugh Corr and David Vaughan, reported that 2,200 years ago a volcano erupted under the Antarctic ice sheet. This was the biggest Antarctic eruption in the last 10,000 years. The volcano is situated in the Hudson Mountains, close to Pine Island Glacier. The eruption spread a layer of volcanic ash (or tephra) over the surface of the ice sheet. This ash was then buried under the snow and ice. Corr and Vaughan were able to map this ash layer using an airborne radar system and calculate the date of the eruption from the depth of burial of the ash. This method uses dates calculated from nearby ice cores. *The presence of the volcano raises the possibility that volcanic activity could have contributed, or may contribute in the future, to increases in the flow of the glacier.*


So where is the *active* volcano?


----------



## billc (May 17, 2014)

This story mentions an active volcano...

Newly-discovered volcano in Antarctica could erupt and add to global warming | Mail Online




> A newly-discovered active volcano could erupt underneath Antarctica, melting the ice from below and compounding the effects of global warming, according to scientists.
> Researchers discovered the volcano underneath the ice after setting up devices to measure tectonic activity across Marie Byrd Land in the west of the continent.
> Scientists had intended to use the seismograph machines to help in their efforts to weight the ice sheet - only to find that a volcano was in fact forming underneath the ice.





> Volcanic activity was discovered around 30 miles from Antarctica's highest volcano, Mount Sidley, and although an eruption would be unlikely to breach the ice - the accompanying heat could have an effect on the landscape.
> 
> Even a sub-glacial eruption would still be able to melt ice, creating huge amounts of water which could flow beneath the ice and towards the sea - hastening the flow of the overlying ice and potentially speed up the rate of ice sheet loss.






> Software that might detect anything unusual beneath the ice surface was deployed, and in January 2010 and March 2011 this recorded two bursts of seismic activity.
> Wh*en the scientists looked into what might have caused this activity they discovered what they believe to be a new volcano, forming around half a mile below the ice.
> Ms Lough added: 'Eruptions at this site are unlikely to penetrate the 1.2 to 2-km-thick overlying ice, but would generate large volumes of melt water that could significantly affect ice stream flow.'
> *



I don't remember seeing this volcano mentioned when they reported on the ice sheet last week...

Why is this a new discovery?



> *Seismologists had set up two crossing lines of seismographs across Marie Byrd Land in 2010 - the first time such instruments able to withstand the cold temperatures year-round had been used.*


See, this is the problem, they don't have access to all the information they need, as per just getting equipment that can deal with the cold of the Antarctic, yet they say the science is settled and tell us melting glaciers are a sign of global warming...when they just discovered a new volcano under the glacier...this is why you can't trust them...

In the reports last week of the ice sheet falling away...did they mention the volcanos at all...?  I don't remember that in any of the reporting...doesn't that make you a little wary of their doom and gloom predictions?


----------



## granfire (May 17, 2014)

John Oliver Does Science Communication Right | I lovely Love Science


----------



## billc (May 17, 2014)

Hmmmm...

Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them



> The paper, Cook et al. (2013) '_Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature_' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.
> 
> To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. *Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW",* apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.





> Dr. Idso, your paper '_Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere&#8217;s seasonal CO2 cycle?_' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".
> 
> *Is this an accurate representation of your paper?*Idso: "*That is not an accurate representation of my paper.* The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. *It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming*."​





> Dr. Scafetta, your paper '_Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900&#8211;2000 global surface warming_' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"
> 
> *Is this an accurate representation of your paper?*Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.
> 
> ...



Here is a look at this from Forbes magazine...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/



> Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors&#8217; claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world&#8217;s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.





> Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the &#8216;consensus&#8217; position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, &#8220;Nope&#8230; it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).&#8221;
> 
> 
> &#8220;I couldn&#8217;t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don&#8217;t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,&#8221; Shaviv added.





> To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking &#8220;no position&#8221; on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.
> Morner, a sea level scientist, told _Popular Technology_ that Cook classifying one of his papers as &#8220;no position&#8221; was &#8220;Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.&#8221;
> Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as &#8220;no position.&#8221;
> 
> ...


----------



## K-man (May 17, 2014)

billc said:


> Hmmmm...
> 
> Popular Technology.net: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
> 
> ...


I think you are as guilty as Cook if it is as they say.

You start with the position you want and work backwards to support your position. That is as bad as any of the people you are criticising.

All I want to know is the truth. What are the real risks of climate change and can we do anything to reduce those risks? You and people like you are doing your very best to hide or obfuscate the truth, mostly for pecuniary reasons.


----------



## billc (May 17, 2014)

> You and people like you are doing your very best to hide or obfuscate the truth, mostly for pecuniary reasons.



First, it isn't my side of the debate that is keeping others from publishing their work, hiding relevant information and destroying other information so the skeptics can't see it, and it isn't my side that is trying to get editors fired for publishing the work of skeptics...



> mostly for pecuniary reasons.



And the billions that the supporters of man made global warming get from their activity...that doesn't count?

K-man,  last week they announce that Antarctic glaciers are calving ice...and announcing it with doom and gloom in their announcement and not once do they mention the volcanoes under the ice...active volcanoes as a possible reason for this...and they blame it all on man made global warming....

And that doesn't seem even slightly dishonest to you...really?

And the information I post...you can check it yourself, read the papers linked to in the articles I cite and make up your own mind....and yet you say I'm the problem?


----------



## billc (May 17, 2014)

a further look at the global warming thugs and the now doubtful 97% "consensus...

Climate McCarthyism: The Scandal Grows



> The Bengtsson scandal comes at the end of an exceedingly bad week for the cause of climate alarmism. In other news, still further scorn has been poured on the methodology of the Cook et al paper on the "97 per cent consensus."
> John Cook is an Australian alarmist who a year ago produced a paper purporting to show that 97 per cent of studies supported the "consensus" on man-made global warming. It was eagerly seized on by the left-wing activists who run President Obama's Twitter account, who gleefully tweeted under the name @barackobama "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous" - with a link to the paper.
> But the paper, in fact, showed nothing of the kind. Recently a researcher named Brandon Shollenberger gained access to some of the data used in Cook's paper and found the statistical methodology to be fatally flawed. However, when he raised these points with Cook's employer the University of Queensland he received a stiff lawyer's letter forbidding him from contacting Cook or even making any mention that he had been sent the letter.
> Given how often the "97 per cent" consensus figure is quoted by politicians and scientists alike to justify the extreme measures being adopted to "combat climate change", you can well understand why the alarmist establishment is so eager to suppress this inconvenient truth.


----------



## granfire (May 17, 2014)

billc said:


> a further look at the global warming thugs and the now doubtful 97% "consensus...
> 
> Climate McCarthyism: The Scandal Grows




and when out of arguments we commence name calling. 

How original.


----------



## K-man (May 17, 2014)

billc said:


> First, it isn't my side of the debate that is keeping others from publishing their work, hiding relevant information and destroying other information so the skeptics can't see it, and it isn't my side that is trying to get editors fired for publishing the work of skeptics...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You see Bill, I don't have a side. I am quite prepared to look at the evidence and make up my mind one way or the other. I would love for you to be right because the future would not face the risk of global warming. But your ranting flies in the face of most evidence. You shamelessly shoot the messenger when you don't have evidence as Gran pointed out. But at least you are honest enough to admit that you have chosen sides, albeit the side of the extreme right.

But when it comes to a position you are all over the shop when it suits you. You agree with articles with conflicting points of view. To discredit the IPCC you paise people who dissent from the IPCC base position even though these guys admit that global temperatures are rising and that human greenhouse emissions are at least partially responsible. Then in the next breath you tell us that we don't have warming at all. 

Whether a scientific journal publishes someone's paper depends on the editorial policy of that paper. If you were to send one of your rants into the 'Democrat Weekly' I would be extremely surprised if they published it. You could jump up and down and complain that they are biased or whatever else but at the end of the day the editorial committee run the show. If they want to publish scientific papers they can self publish or find another organisation that will publish.  If people want to publish extremist nonsense they could do what you are doing and simply join a forum like MT.  

As to volcanoes under the ice in Antarctica, there is a small chance there could be some activity causing ice melt. When we visited Antarctica a few years back a few of our group actually went for a dip at Deception Island where a small vent was warming the surrounding water. That is an active volcano, just it is not erupting at present. There are no known active volcanoes causing glacial ice melt at present so how is it dishonest to not acknowledge something for which there is no evidence of its existence. After all I am pretty sure it wasn't elephants trampling my front lawn. Is it dishonest of me not to state publicly that I might have been visited by a stray pachyderm? So, really, I don't think it even a tiny bit dishonest to ignore the volcanoes erupting under the Antarctic glaciers, unless of course, someone can find one.


----------



## billc (May 18, 2014)

> even though these guys admit that global temperatures are rising



Some, not all, but we are told the debate is over...and if we try to debate we get name called...sort of like what granfire does...

And considering they only deployed seismic equipment capable of withstanding the cold of the Antarctic, what, two years ago...and yet they think they know everything there is to know about what might be happening under the ice...really?  That they can say that volcanic activity isn't causing any melt...

And the climategate emails show there were coordinated attempts to block skeptic papers from getting published...and to get editors fired...and to destroy their data to deny it to skeptics...but we have to "trust" their word about their "science" on the subject of global warming...really?



> But when it comes to a position you are all over the shop when it suits you.



No, I am just not afraid to post things that discuss the issue...I believe that the earth warms, and cools...and the debate is when the earth is going to do which, next.  Some scientists say it is warming because of man...then if we are pumping green house gases into the air in increasing amounts...then why did the warming stop for the last 17 years, 9 months...something their alleged models did not predict...so why should I trust them when they say the earth is warming, when it hasn't, and then the next step...if it stopped warming, how is that possible if man is causing it...we certainly didn't stop putting out greenhouse gases lately...in fact, India, China are putting out even more.

And then the scientists I cite are called fakes, and frauds and shills...but the other side are angels...tell me who isn't being honest here...

I put out the information I find and if some of these guys say global warming is happening...see...the glaciers are melting...I like to show that well...if they say that, why don't they talk about the volcanoes...

I am not the one suppressing critics, or threatening critics and if you disagree...feel free to find your own sources and post those...



> That is an active volcano, just it is not erupting at present.



K-man...it doesn't have to erupt...it can just ooze...ever see the volcanoes in Hawaii...the lava that bubbles and bubbles without exploding...might heat up water a bit...and they don't even know the extent of these things because they can't measure them accurately yet...

And yet...they want to tell us to change our lives on their word...



> If people want to publish extremist nonsense



How do you know it is extremist nonsense...the guys telling you this are the ones who lied to you already...as they collect their grant money, awards, tenure, book deals, lecture fees...

Here you go K-man...volcanoes that ooze lava in Hawaii...would it be a stretch to think that the two volcanos they know about under the Antarctic ice might ooze lava...and that that might heat water...and that might be the cause of any melt of the ice...

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Red-hot-Hawaii-The-Big-Island-s-lava-flows-ooze-1097995.php



> The colors of the impending dawn can't compete with the blazing hues of molten rock as it gloops into the Pacific hissing and spitting. Flowing lava shows up most vividly in the dark, so it's best to make the trek over lava fields to the coast either before dawn or during the day and stay until after the sun sets. Photo: David Jordan/Special To The Post-Intelligencer



You should check out the photos...looks kind of...hot...

Uhhhh...here is a list of volcanos in Antarctica...from wikipedia...that is a lot of volcanos...I wonder how many of them are oozing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_volcanoes_in_Antarctica

from one of the Answer sites...



> *How many active volcanoes are there in antarctica?*
> 
> 
> In: Antarctica, Volcanoes    [Edit categories]
> ...



So, at least two are oozing hot lava into the water under the ice...hmmmm...

Hmmm...there seem to be active volcanos under the arctic ice as well...really? and they never mention this when they allege the glaciers are melting...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140649.htm



> *Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean*
> 
> *Date:*​June 26, 2008
> 
> ...



Really...really...check this out...

Something else they didn't know...because the science on underwater volcanos was..."settled"...as of 2008...



> The evidence of violent eruptions on Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic *defies assumptions* about seafloor pressure and volcanism.



Well, I guess that assumption isn't "settled" anymore...is it...perhaps they can just create a consensus and say that it is anyway...

So tell me again how man made global warming science is "settled..."


----------



## K-man (May 18, 2014)

billc said:


> And considering they only deployed seismic equipment capable of withstanding the cold of the Antarctic, what, two years ago...and yet they think they know everything there is to know about what might be happening under the ice...really? That they can say that volcanic activity isn't causing any melt...


The fact that they haven't found volcanic activity certainly doesn't mean that there is no volcanic activity. However it also doesn't mean there is. So, unlike you who is clutching at straws, I am prepared to wait for evidence. Glaciers are retreating all over the world. Are you suggesting that there are volcanoes under all of them?




billc said:


> And the climategate emails show there were coordinated attempts to block skeptic papers from getting published...and to get editors fired...and to destroy their data to deny it to skeptics...but we have to "trust" their word about their "science" on the subject of global warming...really?


As a friend of mine would say ... GALGOI! (Get a life, get over it) Climategate happened, it was explained, it was years ago. Forget it, it is no longer relevant.



billc said:


> No, I am just not afraid to post things that discuss the issue...I believe that the earth warms, and cools...and the debate is when the earth is going to do which, next. Some scientists say it is warming because of man...then if we are pumping green house gases into the air in increasing amounts...then why did the warming stop for the last 17 years, 9 months...something their alleged models did not predict...so why should I trust them when they say the earth is warming, when it hasn't, and then the next step...if it stopped warming, how is that possible if man is causing it...we certainly didn't stop putting out greenhouse gases lately...in fact, India, China are putting out even more.


You see, many might say that the warming didn't stop back then. You are the most vocal proponent of that theory. Others would say that heat is being stored in the oceans but far from me to claim to be expert.



billc said:


> And then the scientists I cite are called fakes, and frauds and shills...but the other side are angels...tell me who isn't being honest here...


I'm not sure that I have read of anybody you have quoted being called _'fakes, and frauds and shills'_. Certainly some are lacking credibility because of past performance and I might not credit them as reputable, but not fakes, frauds and shills. There are extremists in all fields. Science is no different. I prefer to keep an open mind rather than push the views of people who have taken money to push a position in the past.




billc said:


> I put out the information I find and if some of these guys say global warming is happening...see...the glaciers are melting...I like to show that well...if they say that, why don't they talk about the volcanoes...


Why would people talk about volcanoes unless there was a shred of evidence to suggest it was a factor? 



billc said:


> I am not the one suppressing critics, or threatening critics and if you disagree...feel free to find your own sources and post those...





billc said:


> K-man...it doesn't have to erupt...it can just ooze...ever see the volcanoes in Hawaii...the lava that bubbles and bubbles without exploding...might heat up water a bit...and they don't even know the extent of these things because they can't measure them accurately yet...


The volcano on Hawaii is active, believe me. I have flown over it, seen it and smelled it. If there was one doing that in Antarctica we would know about it. 

Oh, btw, the Hawaiian volcano doesn't just 'ooze', it blows up.



billc said:


> And yet...they want to tell us to change our lives on their word...
> 
> How do you know it is extremist nonsense...the guys telling you this are the ones who lied to you already...as they collect their grant money, awards, tenure, book deals, lecture fees...


No, they don't want us to change our lives on their word. We are relying on their evidence for that.

As to the publication of extremist nonsense ... it was the stuff you are posting I was referring to. 



billc said:


> Here you go K-man...volcanoes that ooze lava in Hawaii...would it be a stretch to think that the two volcanos they know about under the Antarctic ice might ooze lava...and that that might heat water...and that might be the cause of any melt of the ice...
> 
> Red hot Hawaii: The Big Island's lava flows ooze a primordial beauty - seattlepi.com
> 
> You should check out the photos...looks kind of...hot...


They might. Then again they might not. 



billc said:


> Uhhhh...here is a list of volcanos in Antarctica...from wikipedia...that is a lot of volcanos...I wonder how many of them are oozing...
> 
> List of volcanoes in Antarctica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


I'm not sure where you are getting the rubbish about deep water volcanoes from. Hawaii was formed from deep water volcanoes. They have known that for many years. There is a new island forming in the same area. They knew that when I was in Hawaii 20 years ago. I have watched documentaries on underwater volcanic activity for decades. Nothing new there. While the Earth has a molten core and we have shifting continental plates we will have volcanoes coming up in lots of new places. Hardly rocket science!

As to Antarctica ... Mount Erebus is active, that is it has molten lava. Mount Berlin and Deception Island have steam vents.  The Hudson Mountains and Penguin Island may be active. What is that meant to prove?


----------



## billc (May 18, 2014)

How hot is lava...or as Dr. Evil would say..."Magma."

How Hot Is Lava? | LiveScience



> Ice melts at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Chocolate melts at 90 F. But rock? Now we're talking a lot more heat.
> 
> 
> Lava, the melted rock that shoots out of volcanoes, can flow at temperatures of thousands of degrees Fahrenheit.
> ...



Hmmm....ice melts at 32 degrees vs. lava at a minimum 570 degrees...yeah...that won't effect ice in the Antarctic...


----------



## K-man (May 18, 2014)

billc said:


> How hot is lava...or as Dr. Evil would say..."Magma."
> 
> How Hot Is Lava? | LiveScience
> 
> Hmmm....ice melts at 32 degrees vs. lava at a minimum 570 degrees...yeah...that won't effect ice in the Antarctic...


Exactly! If it was there it would certainly affect the ice. Just that no one has found it. There is no evidence that lava is melting glaciers. Where is the evidence for your proposition? In your mind!


----------



## billc (May 18, 2014)

Yeah, it's just crazy to think that lava underneath ice might cause some melting...who have thunk it...


----------



## granfire (May 18, 2014)

billc said:


> Yeah, it's just crazy to think that lava underneath ice might cause some melting...who have thunk it...









ice thickness of between 2000 and 4000 meters....yeah, I can see it where the lava doesn't make a dent....


----------



## granfire (May 19, 2014)

'A less polar pole': Arctic sea ice at record low - U.S. News


----------



## K-man (May 19, 2014)

granfire said:


> 'A less polar pole': Arctic sea ice at record low - U.S. News


Drat! Must be those pesky volcanoes again.


----------



## granfire (May 19, 2014)

K-man said:


> Drat! Must be those pesky volcanoes again.



Polar bear pee


----------



## granfire (May 20, 2014)

Antarctic Rate of Ice Loss Double Previous Estimate | I lovely Love Science


----------



## ballen0351 (May 21, 2014)

granfire said:


> Antarctic Rate of Ice Loss Double Previous Estimate | I ****ing Love Science



Yep and at some point it will all be gone.  BUT then it will all freeze again you know like the last time


----------



## billc (May 21, 2014)

Antarctic Rate of Ice Loss Double Previous Estimate | I ****ing Love Science 



> While the first study is apocalyptic in its implications, little of the  damage is likely to be seen this century &#8211; the worst could be a thousand  years away. The second will raise sea levels by less, but on a shorter  timescale. It can, though, still be ignored by those who, in John  Oliver's words &#8220;cannot be trusted with the future tense.&#8221;



Sooo...let me translate this...since telling people that the worst case is about 1000 years away...uhhhh...we better change the time scale on that or they won't give us money to fix a problem 1000 years in the future...(What were those idiots thinking telling people it will take 1000 years...sure...that's long enough that they won't be able to tell we were full of  **** but too far away to get them to pay us...)

Sooo...now...



> However, the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at Leeds  University has found that ice loss is happening right now, and at twice  the rate estimated using an incomplete version of the same technique.



Whew...fixed that...so now...if you will just give us all the money we want we can continue to study this fake...urrrr...apocalyptic problem...something that we can't fix if we tried...urrrrr...I mean if we just start now with draconian life style changes for you stupid people...​


----------



## granfire (May 21, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Yep and at some point it will all be gone.  BUT then it will all freeze again you know like the last time



eventually we will have died out, somehow the earth will - likely - find a new way to reabsorb Carbon.
Or not and just develop new lifeforms. 
It won't matter, because mankind will be dead and gone.


----------



## billc (May 21, 2014)

And on that...

Antarctic ice shelf melt 'lowest EVER recorded, global warming is NOT eroding it' ? The Register




> Scientists at the British Antarctic Survey say that the melting of  the Pine Island Glacier ice shelf in Antarctica has suddenly slowed  right down in the last few years, confirming earlier research which  suggested that the shelf's melt does not result from human-driven global  warming.
> 
> The Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica and its  associated sea ice shelf is closely watched: this is because unlike most  of the sea ice around the austral continent, its melt rate has seemed  to be accelerating quickly since scientists first began seriously  studying it in the 1990s.
> 
> ...





> Dr Pierre Dutrieux of the BAS adds, bluntly:
> 
> "We found ocean  melting of the glacier was the lowest ever recorded, and less than half  of that observed in 2010. *This enormous, and unexpected, variability  contradicts the widespread view that a simple and steady ocean warming  in the region is eroding the West Antarctic Ice Sheet."*


----------



## granfire (May 23, 2014)

A shocking reason to go green:


----------



## ballen0351 (May 23, 2014)

Lol yeah that's what he's saying


----------



## wimwag (May 23, 2014)

K-man...bill is providing actual sources of information and you're basically just saying "nnnnno!".  Gotta admire you sticking to your guns lmao


----------



## wimwag (May 23, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Yep and at some point it will all be gone.  BUT then it will all freeze again you know like the last time






history repeats itself, and yet nobody lays attention.


----------



## wimwag (May 23, 2014)

granfire said:


> A shocking reason to go green:




So do you oppose the army we used to stop the Nazi war machine as well?

"Whoops, hey, sorry Patton, your 3rd Army is using too much water.  Disband and and let the Nazis throw the Jews in the ovens.  We gotta be green.  Tell McArthur to abandon the Australians and Philipinos to the Japanese for me, k?  Tell him we're preserving water" said Truman.


----------



## granfire (May 23, 2014)

wimwag said:


> So do you oppose the army we used to stop the Nazi war machine as well?
> 
> "Whoops, hey, sorry Patton, your 3rd Army is using too much water.  Disband and and let the Nazis throw the Jews in the ovens.  We gotta be green.  Tell McArthur to abandon the Australians and Philipinos to the Japanese for me, k?  Tell him we're preserving water" said Truman.



LOL, nope.

The idea is to find ways to eliminate the need to resupply, not do away with the armed forces, 
Like minimizing need for water, so less trucks have to roll.

Failure on my part, I did not link the article in which the Army wants to use alternative fuel options, but congress is against it....

If you can find ways to conserve water or make water onsite, you reduce the number of trucks on the road (= less soldiers) 
if you can find ways to conserve fuel or use alternative sources, again, less soldiers needed to drive the convoy. 

That starts with solar power, smart cells to conserve generator use, etc...there is a lot of good stuff out that could be put to good use, too bad, too many people have tunnel vision. 

The Armed Forces always prided themselves of being 'cutting edge'...too bad it's not in the supply category.

Army commits to security through renewable energy | Article | The United States Army

Senate Armed Services Committee Reins In Pentagon On Alternative Fuel Spending


----------



## ballen0351 (May 23, 2014)

granfire said:


> LOL, nope.
> 
> The idea is to find ways to eliminate the need to resupply, not do away with the armed forces,
> Like minimizing need for water, so less trucks have to roll.
> ...



Which has nothing to do with "going Green"  AND an even bigger mistake you posted a Marine poster and are quoting Army articles...............That could get you in big trouble in some places


----------



## granfire (May 23, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Which has nothing to do with "going Green"  AND an even bigger mistake you posted a Marine poster and are quoting Army articles...............That could get you in big trouble in some places



Yeah, Like a man who kills for his country isn't a soldier...

Like it mattered which soldier doesn't get blown up by an IED. Costs the government the same amount to retrain a new one, the families grief him/her just the same. 

But as usual, gentlemen, you miss the point to bicker about minor details. One might think it's on purpose.


----------



## ballen0351 (May 23, 2014)

granfire said:


> Yeah, Like a man who kills for his country isn't a soldier...
> 
> Like it mattered which soldier doesn't get blown up by an IED. Costs the government the same amount to retrain a new one, the families grief him/her just the same.
> 
> But as usual, gentlemen, you miss the point to bicker about minor details. One might think it's on purpose.



It was a Marine vs army Joke You wouldnt get it anyway


----------



## billc (May 23, 2014)

I'm surprised the marines get it...:angel:


----------



## wimwag (May 23, 2014)

billc said:


> I'm surprised the marines get it...:angel:




A marine is either a pessimist or an optimist.  Either way, he's still screwed.


----------



## wimwag (May 23, 2014)

Lmao yes let's reduce the amount of water a soldier drinks.  While we're at it then maybe we can get all the meteorologists to make pleasant 68 degree sunshine days with one scheduled 15 minute rain each week.


----------



## granfire (May 24, 2014)

MT needs one of these...with the amount of BS on here, we could light up Manhattan...
WWF - 20,000 new biogas units to change people?s lives in the Terai Arc


----------



## wimwag (May 25, 2014)

granfire said:


> MT needs one of these...with the amount of BS on here, we could light up Manhattan...
> WWF - 20,000 new biogas units to change people?s lives in the Terai Arc



Granfire Electric Co-op.  Catchy.


----------



## granfire (May 27, 2014)

wimwag said:


> Granfire Electric Co-op.  Catchy.



Shocking, I know...


Like this:
House Directs Pentagon To Ignore Climate Change

oh darn....


----------



## ballen0351 (May 27, 2014)

granfire said:


> Shocking, I know...
> 
> 
> Like this:
> ...


Good the Pentagon need to be focused on military affairs and not concerned with anything else.


----------



## granfire (May 27, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Good the Pentagon need to be focused on military affairs and not concerned with anything else.



Wars have been won and lost due to environmental impact, so the weather is their concern as well.


----------



## ballen0351 (May 27, 2014)

granfire said:


> Wars have been won and lost due to environmental impact, so the weather is their concern as well.



Nope improvise adapt and overcome.  The military has one job that's it.  Leave them out of politics


----------



## granfire (May 27, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Nope improvise adapt and overcome.  The military has one job that's it.  Leave them out of politics



That's Recon, Honey. 
Once you get to be top brass, it's ALL politics.


----------



## ballen0351 (May 27, 2014)

granfire said:


> That's Recon, Honey.
> Once you get to be top brass, it's ALL politics.



Not even close but I don't expect you to understand


----------



## granfire (May 27, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Not even close but I don't expect you to understand



enlighten the little lady.


----------



## ballen0351 (May 27, 2014)

No point you just keep believing what you see on TV


----------



## granfire (May 27, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> No point you just keep believing what you see on TV



Not really. I gave up TV.

Now, if you could give up being condescending, we might get a dialog going....


Oh, what am I thinking.
You are satisfied with getting what you always got.
Tough luck for your kids. Because they won't get what you got. 

The point - besides to see what copy pasta Billie can bring forth to refute my articles (he can't that's why he is silent) is that other than 97% of scientists believe there is something going on with the climate, that people who can hardly be described as tree huggers have been paying attention and are looking for alternatives, and that of course the same old suspects do as they have always done....

When the Armed Forces look for alternatives, I doubt they look at the budget.
But why run around with WWII technology, when better can be had, in a smaller package that goes further?!


----------



## wimwag (May 28, 2014)

granfire said:


> Not really. I gave up TV.
> 
> Now, if you could give up being condescending, we might get a dialog going....
> 
> ...






You're deliberately stupid.  I was an officer, I'll bite.

As a 2Lt, I only played the politics with my superiors.  And it gets played like this: an order is given, if lawful, I pass it down to my NCOs.  I pretend to agree, even if I do not.

If unlawful, I tell my captain hell no and why.



The method for carrying water will not change.  It must be a sealed container if some sort.  Human need for water will likely change, but over several millenia.

The only way to do what you claim must be done is to reduce our military to irresponsibly low numbers.  You're enjoying that 1st Amendment aren't you?  We are not invincible.  It can be lost by reducing troop strength while our enemies increase theirs.  A few well placed nuclear detonations in the stratosphere will knock our power grid out.  Our enemies will fly over the north pole in supersonic transports and arrive shortly after the EMP blast disables all electronics.

Your 1st Amendment rights would be null and void, assuming you survived.


----------



## wimwag (May 28, 2014)

So I'd like to see this"smaller package" that "goes further.". Have you invented something?  Start showing me this new technology of yours.


----------



## ballen0351 (May 28, 2014)

This Invention Will Change The World, Just Watch
This stuff seems pretty cool.  I wonder what it costs


----------



## granfire (May 28, 2014)

wimwag said:


> You're deliberately stupid




You already lost, mate.


----------



## granfire (May 28, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> This Invention Will Change The World, Just Watch
> This stuff seems pretty cool.  I wonder what it costs



Well, I hear they raised over a million so far, of course it will be outrageously expensive for now, but should it work, it will get cheaper.


----------

