Global Warming? I don't know what to believe.

[tallsteve]

Help me out. Opening a can of worms here. I don't know what to believe about global warming. Is it real or made up? Some days I think it's real, other days I think it's a farce. I do have a couple of scientist friends who are firm believers but, their political views lie far apart from mine and sometimes it seems it's all political. I value everyone's opinion on this forum and I'm trying to keep an open mind. I did find this video about the Paris agreement interesting but, again, is it accurate? https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/1282017428507777/

[Iceaxe]

The earth is currently warming and that is an undeniable fact. The disagreement is over what is causing the warming and is it cyclic or man caused. Some say the warming is caused by man dumping C02 into the atmosphere. Others insist it's just nature taking it's natural course.

The Paris Climate Agreement is a joke that will harm the US. The reason being is there is no penalty for violating the agreement. Which means the same old thing that always happens. The US will live up to the agreement and just about everyone else will break it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47bNzLj5E_Q

[rockgremlin]

This again?

I think there's gotta be close to a dozen threads about global warming on this forum. A quick surf through the environmental section should pull up a bunch.

[nelsonccc]

My thoughts are that global warming is occurring but is not necessarily solely due to mankind. The earth goes thru warming and cooling cycles and they are well documented and it's hotly debated if there is truly a catastrophic warming period occurring.

CO2 has indeed increased but from a variety of sources and remember CO2 is 3% of the atmosphere and of that 3% only .04% is considered greenhouse gas. One thing I learned recently is that computer models that show Co2 will cause drastic global warming assume that CO2 is that driver. So they are using the output of a model to verify its initial assumption.

The UN global warming report says "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increase in greenhouse gases" and that "no study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man-made causes."

The melting glaciers are often cited as proof that global warming is occuring but neglect the fact that glaciers are constantly changing and there are a recorded 33 periods of glaciers growing and retreating.

Given all that, I personally still think we should be careful and aware of what we do as a society. Even is the theory of global warming is dead wrong we should still have economic and environmental policy that is reasonable. I think that is where all the strife come from. What is reasonable? We shouldn't recklessly do whatever we want, but we also shouldn't enact crazy, Kyoto-esque, restrictions based off faulty analysis.

[Scott P]

I don't know what to believe about global warming. Is it real or made up?

Even in conservative areas in northerly latitudes, such as Alaska people believe in global warming since they can actually see the glaciers melt.

I have lived for 42 years, and even then I'm "old enough" to see many of them melt.

Being from Washington, we used to go to the Paradise Ice Caves. The Paradise Ice Caves are long gone.

Here is how they were in the early 1980's:

http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/-melting-paradise-ice-cave-tracy-knauer.jpg

Here is what they look like (center of photo) now days. The stream bed is where the ice caves used to be:

https://glacierchange.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/paradise-2004.jpg?w=712

Even more dramatic, when I went to Mexico to climb the high volcanoes in 1992, there were big glaciers on them. I went last Christmas (2016) and was shocked to see them mostly gone. Popo has been erupting, so I knew the glaciers would be gone there, but I was shocked to find them nearly gone on Izta. I knew they would be smaller, but to see them completely gone was shocking to me in a way, since I had it burned into my memory about how the mountain looked in 1992.

It is too bad that whether or not people believe in global warming is based on politics or which party you belong to. One thing for sure is that while people say that data can be manipulated, no one can fake having a glacier disappear.

That said, what to do about it will always be argued. As for me, I still use fossil fuels, but offset (with my own money) the carbon footprint X's 2 with rain forest reforestation through the Nature Conservancy (which is a very reputable organization). I don't criticize others for not doing the same though, and seldom mention that I even do it. Even if global warming didn't exist (and there is no way that it does not), I do not see reforestation as something bad and it certainly isn't hurting anything.

It is actually physically and scientifically impossible to add greenhouses gases to the atmosphere without having an effect. That is simply physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics. That said though, how much effect adding gases will have can be argued and is incredibly difficult to predict.

Greenhouse gases aren't actually a bad thing per se. The moon and earth are about equal distances from the sun. The moon's average temperature is around 0F (-18C). The earth would have a similar average temperature if it weren't for greenhouse gases. If there were no greenhouse effect, there would almost certainly be very little life on earth.

Also, the reason the tropical areas and rain forests are so diverse is because the flora and fauna have not been wiped out by ice ages as they have in higher latitudes. From a biodiversity (or a human livability) standpoint, some areas of the earth will certainly benefit from warming. Other areas will not. It is hard to say what exactly would happen if the earth's temperature rose a few degrees very quickly.

On a final not, obviously there are a lot of other factors in play as well. Just because greenhouses gases can cause some warning, doesn't mean that there aren't many, many other factors that come into play as well. Many other natural factors can cause cooling or warming. The climate of the earth has never been stable for that long of a geologic time period. Oscillations, changes in the orbit and ration of the earth, big volcanic eruptions, sun spots, asteroids, continental drift, even life, etc. can (and will) effect the earth's climate.

[phatch]

Regardless about the truth or falseness of global warming, good arguments and reasons exist for us to improve the cleanliness and sustainability of our energy, production and lifestyles.

So while I accept the science behind global warming, I think the things we should do to minimize global warming are smart and important in their own right.

Policies about carbon cap and trade are not what I mean though. Indeed, government is not the best method in general. In the free world, elections and changes in government and policy make it difficult to push through and maintain the longer term efforts that try to transition our economy and lifestyle. Just look at the Trump policies overturning Obama. And the flip again when different leadership takes hold.

So it seems that the better method is for visionaries in the public economy to overthrow the poor tools with newer and better solutions rather than having government dictate it. We're seeing massive disruption in transit. Electric cars, ride share, lower adoption of driver licenses and so on. A corollary of this is less production and purchase of cars in general in the developed world--green in it's own right though risky to economies and employment.

Along the Wasatch Front we're going to add a few million more people by 2050. Even if they all take public/shared transit, that's a water heater and furnace/AC for million(s) more households. That's a lot of emissions and heating/cooling is thought to be the next big hurdle for the Wasatch region to handle as it bypasses vehicle emissions in output in the near future. We don't have to be concerned about Global Warming to make that a critical issue to address in it's own right. I don't think emissions laws could deal with that? 90% efficient furnaces aren't enough. The inversions in winter and high heat in the summer dictate the requirement for something entirely different than what we're doing and that needs to be emissionless. So perhaps ground loop heating and cooling powered by solar and batteries? I don't know, but we can't keep emitting on the Wasatch Front and grow as is likely to happen.

The benefits to Global Warming issues are a benefit of what we really need to be doing anyway.

[rockgremlin]

There is no "solution" to global warming. All we can do is adapt as there is no magic solution that will stabilize the global climate. Way too many factors and moving parts for humans to control. That said, we can minimize our global footprint for sure...which is a good thing and has benefits in their own right as Phatch suggested. Also in agreement with Phatch that politics isn't the answer as politics are subject to change and besides, how are you going to enforce climate policy on a global level? Are you gonna punish China, Russia and North Korea for emitting beyond what we deem is acceptable? Who's gonna volunteer to go punish third world countries for over emitting? There will always be rogue nations that will do whatever they want regardless of environmental policy.

And another thing, why do we uphold this fantasy that we can reverse global warming, somehow bringing global temperatures down to an acceptable level and then maintain it there indefinitely? The earth has undergone a cyclical pattern of warming and cooling ever since this planet was a planet. Why do we think we can maintain the global temperatures within an acceptable, comfortable range like resetting the thermostat in our homes? Do we really think we have that much power over mother nature? Pretty narcissistic IMO.

[ddavis]

Global warming is not made up, and there is no controversy or argument about the different mechanisms that contribute, or to the contribution from the use of fossil fuels. Not among the people who study the science. The scientists who study the area argue over details, but not over the basic behavior or causes. Most of the argument over the science is from people who don't like the results. Policy is a different matter - there is a lot of argument over policy. I think much of the policy argument is worth having.

If you are serious about wanting to know about the science of global warming, I recommend the Coursera course "Global Warming I: The Science and Modeling of Climate Change. It is a challenging course, but it covers a lot of ground, including the carbon cycle, feedback loops, the structure of the atmosphere and how energy from the sun interacts with it. You will have a chance to use some models and work with actual data. The course also covers human impact and potential mitigation. If you really want to go even deeper, take Global Warming II, where you will use Python to build models and apply some of the ideas from the first course. It's taught by David Archer, a professor at the U of Chicago.

I have taken the first course (the second wasn't available at the time, and I'm not a programmer). The chemistry and physics involved were pretty straight-forward. The course was demanding. I had an advantage in that I use algebra fairly often, and I'm used to models. But it's a cross-discipline field, and it requires detailed knowledge from several different areas. That means you have to cover a lot of ground in order to get a good understanding of the science, and (at least in my opinion), that takes work and effort. If you are willing to put in the effort, you will certainly understand a lot more of what you read in the news.

Edited: Oh, and the course is free.

[Brian in SLC]

Deb, its easier just to stick your head in the sand and complain about the liberal elites...

Have you seen the movie Idiocracy?

Ha ha.

Good info, thanks.

[twotimer]

Personally, I think "anthropogenic climate change" is nonsense. I'm pushing 54 years old, and for as long as I can remember, some nutcase or another has been predicting the end of the world. The "Population Bomb", global cooling, mass extinction events, nuclear war, epic deforestation, oceans rising, lack of food and clean water, poison and pollution, asteroid impact...somethings coming around the bend to do us in.

I don't believe most of the crap I hear or read in the media...everything's for sale, baby. Show me, don't tell me...that's my motto. Remember how after Katrina we were supposed to have hurricanes kicking the living snot out of everything? Weren't they supposed to be relocating Miami and New York by now? Predictions of doom and destruction, foiled...made up by con men. There's people out there that will sell you a rock, if you're willing to buy it. A sucker born every minute.

Scott mentioned his eyewitness accounts of glaciers melting. I don't know what to say about that except I have to wonder what these things looked like say, 300 years ago? They say that the warming is starting in the Arctic and working it's way down? I spent the summer of '93 up there, roaming around. The sun shines at 10pm in the summer and hardly makes an appearance in the winter...so I reckon the weather up there can be kinda weird, huh?

I read a book "Colorado Without Mountains" by Harold Hamil, published in 1976, when he was a very old man. It told the story of him growing up in the eastern plains of Colorado around the turn of the century. Ranching and farming is what they did, so the weather played a big role in their lives and he mentioned it a lot. He said it was quite variable...hot summers, cool summers, warm winters, others freezing cold for weeks at a time. Lots of ice for the root cellar, sometimes very little of it (they cut it from ponds, and it had to be at least 3' thick to make it worthwhile) sometimes the South Platte River would flow all summer, other times it would disappear under the sand for a quarter mile at a time.

Most every winter since 2001 I've traveled to the South Pacific. I stay out there for two months. I've been to the Fiji islands, Tahitian, Tuamotus, Marquesas. I don't just plant my butt on a beach chair at some resort...I'm a backpacker and I'll usually only stay on one island for a few days. I've been to some (most, actually) that are practically still in the stone age, where the people are fascinated by the sight of a multi-tool. The oceans haven't "risen"...the piers, docks and villages are still in the same place and are still being used just the same for generations. The Tuamotus are low lying coral atolls, and when I asked about the ocean rising, all I got were bewildered looks.

Also, I remember hearing 20 years ago that here in Colorado, the devastation of the alpine environment was was supposed to be well under way by now because of lack of snow. The poor Marmots and Pikas were going to go extinct. I had friends that lived up there lamenting that...swallowing the liberal fortune tellers by the mouthful.

I say show me don't tell me...but ESPECIALLY, don't tell me bullshit 'cuz it'll just put me back on my heels and force me to apply the chicken little badge. If they could stop exaggerating things, perhaps they could make a case?

[Iceaxe]

Ya know.... all we need is one good volcanic eruption, say the Yellowstone Caldera, or a good old fashion 6 km meter strike and we'll instantly be back in another ice age. Problem solved!

[rockgremlin]

If the Yellowstone Caldera were to catastrophically blow then libs would have something new to bitch about. Suddenly wikileaks and Russian scandals would be less important.

[Brian in SLC]

If the Yellowstone Caldera were to catastrophically blow then libs would have something new to bitch about. Suddenly wikileaks and Russian scandals would be less important.

And...it'd still be blamed on Obama...

Or another example of how the ineffective EPA isn't doing their job.

Same ol', same ol'.

[Iceaxe]

And...it'd still be blamed on Obama....

One the bright side..... it's no longer Obama's problem.

http://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/cartoon.jpg

[Iceaxe]

Global warming is not made up, and there is no controversy or argument about the different mechanisms that contribute, or to the contribution from the use of fossil fuels. Not among the people who study the science. The scientists who study the area argue over details, but not over the basic behavior or causes. Most of the argument over the science is from people who don't like the results. Policy is a different matter - there is a lot of argument over policy. I think much of the policy argument is worth having.

If you are serious about wanting to know about the science of global warming, I recommend the Coursera course "Global Warming I: The Science and Modeling of Climate Change. It is a challenging course, but it covers a lot of ground, including the carbon cycle, feedback loops, the structure of the atmosphere and how energy from the sun interacts with it. You will have a chance to use some models and work with actual data. The course also covers human impact and potential mitigation. If you really want to go even deeper, take Global Warming II, where you will use Python to build models and apply some of the ideas from the first course. It's taught by David Archer, a professor at the U of Chicago.

I have taken the first course (the second wasn't available at the time, and I'm not a programmer). The chemistry and physics involved were pretty straight-forward. The course was demanding. I had an advantage in that I use algebra fairly often, and I'm used to models. But it's a cross-discipline field, and it requires detailed knowledge from several different areas. That means you have to cover a lot of ground in order to get a good understanding of the science, and (at least in my opinion), that takes work and effort. If you are willing to put in the effort, you will certainly understand a lot more of what you read in the news.

Edited: Oh, and the course is free.

As an engineer I work with models all day every day. The problem with models is they are only as good as the data entered. Or as engineers often say "garbage in, garbage out". Now I'm not saying your model or data was garbage as I have no clue, I'm saying models can't always be trusted. I have no clue what model you were using or where your data came from, but the temperatures NASA is now using are being "adjusted", and they are not using the actual numbers obtained as they were before 2000, Just sayin'.

[ddavis]

As an engineer I work with models all day every day. The problem with models is they are only as good as the data entered. Or as engineers often say "garbage in, garbage out". Now I'm not saying your model or data was garbage as I have no clue, I'm saying models can't always be trusted. I have no clue what model you were using or where your data came from, but the temperatures NASA is now using are being "adjusted", and they are not using the actual numbers obtained as they were before 2000, Just sayin'.

Yeah, you're 'just sayin'. If you don't trust the numbers being used, the raw data are available, and the adjustments are all explained. You can check what they did for yourself and see what you think. It's not easy, but it can be done. There was one guy in the session of the course I took who did exactly that. He downloaded the raw data and did his own processing as part of his research project (one of the assignments). Not to mention the fact that these databases are some of the most heavily challenged and reviewed measurements ever generated.

I would be shocked if temperature data taken over such long periods of time (the data extend well before 2000) didn't require adjustment. Anytime instrumentation changes, or there is a change in the measurement method, there is the chance of a bias in the data that needs to be accounted for. One well-known example is the adjustment that had to be made when there was a significant change in the way ships measure ocean temperatures. Another well known example involves measurement stations that start out in rural areas, but end up surrounded by development. The point is that none of the adjustments to the data are arbitrary - they all have reasons, the adjustments are done using widely accepted methods, and the validity has to be established. The adjustments are all called out, so anyone can evaluate, or even do their own.

The guys who use the data aren't stupid. If you know how critical good data is when using models, what makes you think they don't know that too? None of them want to waste their time working with shitty data. I'm not an engineer (they just call me one at work), I'm a chemist, but I generate data over long periods of time (in some cases over decades), and I use that data in models to predict material properties into the future. I have had to deal with adjustments in data sets because of new instruments, different operators, improvements in test methods, improvements in computers and software, and laboratory relocations. I have to take data generated from multiple studies and put them together into one coherent set. Then I have to model that data and predict future behavior. I haven't looked at every single adjustment made to the temperature data, but I know how those adjustments had to happen and be verified. The fact that there have been adjustments does not invalidate the data, and it is misleading to suggest that it does.

So 'just sayin' - saying what? Are you accusing all of those researchers of fraud? That's the implication of 'just sayin'.

[ddavis]

As for the models used in the course, the professor has them in a publicly accessible web site:

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/models.html

They are older models, so they aren't state-of-the art. Each one has a 'Model Description' button, and a 'Source Code' button. I didn't check every single model, but I looked at several of them at the time I was taking the course, and they were all published in peer reviewed journals. One model description was a report to the Air Force (the model that simulates IR emission and absorption in the atmosphere). Those papers and reports will tell you how the models were built, what assumptions were used, what the model emphasizes, and will probably include limitations of the model. Go take a look and see what you think. You can try using them, but it might be hard to figure out how. I not only needed the class discussion, but I had to look at the video introduction for all of the models. And it was still hard. But the effort is worth while, if you want some understanding of the field.

[ddavis]

I may as well add that David Archer also has a text book (Global Warming - Understanding the Forecast) that you can buy, if you don't want to take the Coursera course. There are problems at the end of each chapter, and some of the problems involve using his models. That might be easier than just going in cold.

[ddavis]

remember CO2 is 3% of the atmosphere and of that 3% only .04% is considered greenhouse gas.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean here. If you are saying that only a small fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere is actually a greenhouse gas, then you are wrong. A greenhouse gas is a molecule in the atmosphere that absorbs in the infrared. That's it. All CO2 molecules absorb in the infrared. That is a property of the molecule, so all of the CO2 in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas. The source doesn't matter, volcanoes, wood, fossil fuels, space aliens, whatever, it's all greenhouse gas.

Did you mean something else by your statement?

[ddavis]

Show me, don't tell me...that's my motto.

In my world, 'show me don't tell me' means I want to see your derivations and your math. That supposes I have the background necessary to understand those derivations and the math. And that I have the background to understand the processes involved in developing the principles involved (ie, the scientific method). If I don't have that background, then I have a choice - I can either put in the hard work to get the necessary background, or I have to accept being told by the experts in the field.

What do you mean by 'show, don't tell'?

[Iceaxe]

So 'just sayin' - saying what?

I'm saying people cook the books to match their agenda.

http://rlv.zcache.com/statistics_joke_poster-rfbd40df96a8c4337a9562448e9e75c44_wvk_8byvr_324.jp g

[ddavis]

I'm saying people cook the books to match their agenda.

So you are accusing these guys of falsifying their data. Because you believe that everyone does. Including you? There are direct personal economic impacts to data you generate and the results of models you run. Is that what you do? Cook your books to match your agenda?

To be clear, I have absolutely no evidence of any kind that you falsify data in your work. And my assumption is that you don't. There is not a more serious accusation that you can make against researchers - and yours is a blanket accusation without any specifics, without a shred of evidence. Your only basis is to claim 'everyone does it'. Well, as far as data from the hard sciences is concerned - bullshit. Falsifying data does happen, but it is very rare, and in the few cases I have heard about, there's only one person involved, and he has to hold on to his raw data so no one else can see it. As soon as the fake data gets out, it gets discovered. It's hard to fake physical data, and it's nearly impossible when there are literally hundreds of people who access, review and use it.

NASA is not the only organization generating global temperature data. There are several countries and universities all over the globe generating their own data. Are you seriously suggesting that all of those organizations and people (numbering in the thousands) are 'cooking their books'? And they are doing it in such a way that they are getting results consistent with each other? Really?

[ddavis]

http://rlv.zcache.com/statistics_joke_poster-rfbd40df96a8c4337a9562448e9e75c44_wvk_8byvr_324.jp g

And I guess I'll respond to your graphic too, at least to point out that statistics=/=data. The data you are claiming is faked is just data. No statistics involved. Statistics don't get involved until the data are analyzed. But you weren't attacking the analysis, you were attacking the data.

[twotimer]

In my world, 'show me don't tell me' means I want to see your derivations and your math. That supposes I have the background necessary to understand those derivations and the math. And that I have the background to understand the processes involved in developing the principles involved (ie, the scientific method).
What do you mean by 'show, don't tell'?With all due respect Ms. Davis, you're obviously quite smart and I'm not trying to troll you in any way, but perhaps you could slow down a bit and re-read my post.

I don't have the ability to bust out any math, equations, data or input processes. My view of the world is similar to that Dylan song "You don't need a weatherman to tell you which way the wind blows".

In other words, all this scientific data doesn't mean squat to me when every summer and winter for my entire life there has been little variation from what is perceived by me to be normal weather. You know how they say "Weather is local"?...the last two summers here in Denver haven't had a day go over 100 degrees, whereas back in the drought years it got quite toasty a few times. There's plenty of snow in the mountains...no shortage of water around here.

It's hard to believe that the "science is settled" when you simply don't see or feel it. Also, it has become clear to many that what you hear and read in regards to this may come with an agenda...considering the unfulfilled predictions of catastrophe one way or another.

This thread asked a question that no one here can answer, so what's posted here is straight up opinion...different takes on reality, right?

I'm not even going to try to match wits with you on this, and quite frankly I feel sorry for anybody else who does. You're operating from a place that invites argument...I'm just looking out the window.

[ddavis]

With all due respect Ms. Davis, you're obviously quite smart and I'm not trying to troll you in any way, but perhaps you could slow down a bit and re-read my post.

It wouldn't be the first time put my foot in my mouth because I didn't read something carefully enough. However in this case, my question to you was an honest one. I didn't understand what you were trying to get at, in part because what you said means something different to me. That's why I asked. And if I understand what you are saying here, you are very skeptical because you don't see anything going on in your backyard (to paraphrase a bit).

I'm not entirely sure how to respond here. I suspect that nearly anything I say will come across as a lecture, and I am not interested in doing that. So I will just link to a report I found:

http://cwcb.state.co.us/environment/climate-change/Documents/COClimateReportOnePager.pdf

This is just the executive summary; there's a link to the full report in the summary. I haven't read the report, but it looks like Colorado water managers are looking for what to expect due to warming. It seems kind of interesting.

[Sombeech]

This again?

I think there's gotta be close to a dozen threads about global warming on this forum. A quick surf through the environmental section should pull up a bunch.

To be fair, we should create a new thread every time the terminology changes, from Global Warming, to Global Cooling, to Climate Change. We would hate to lump all of the different hypothesis over the years into 1 thread, that would be unfair to the settled scientists.

[twotimer]

http://cwcb.state.co.us/environment/climate-change/Documents/COClimateReportOnePager.pdf

This is just the executive summary; there's a link to the full report in the summary. I haven't read the report, but it looks like Colorado water managers are looking for what to expect due to warming. It seems kind of interesting.This is exactly what I'm talking about...this report makes predictions for the year 2050, and right now, as well as recent years, we've epic snow in the mountains. Everything above 6500' is buried. Fifteen years ago they were insisting that we'd be all dried up by now.

Are you familiar with the National Geographic article "The Drying of the West"? Now THAT is interesting. Check it out.

When I first started hiking in southern Utah is the late 80s, it was "assumed" as I read, that during the time of the Anasazi, it was much wetter, allowing them to thrive until the drought hit.

Turns out that it was considerably DRYER than it is now! The tree rings tell the story. When that drought hit, it must have been a whopper. The Escalante River is hardly much of a flow now...I can imagine that's why so few lived along it back then. The largest concentration of Anasazi in Glen Canyon were up on Cummings Mesa, just west of Navajo Mountain...they stuck close to the big rivers. They also built dams...I've seen the remnants of them up on that mesa and in tributaries of Bowdie Canyon.

Anyway, if the Colorado River starts flowing like it's historical average, then the lower basin states (at least) are in real trouble. It's been flowing above average for more than 100 years.

I'm not disputing that the earth may (or is) warming..."anthropogenic" is the key word that puts me on my heels about it.

[ddavis]

This is exactly what I'm talking about...this report makes predictions for the year 2050, and right now, as well as recent years, we've epic snow in the mountains.


Then we both need to read more carefully. From the summary I linked to: "In Colorado, temperatures have increased by approximately 2ºF between 1977 and 2006. Increasing temperatures are affecting the state’s water resources." "Between 1978 and 2004, the spring pulse (the onset of stream flows from melting snow) in Colorado has shifted earlier by two weeks. Several studies suggest that shifts in timing and intensity of stream flows are related to warming spring temperatures."

Of course the report focuses on the future, because that's the information water managers need to figure out what to plan for. But there is also information on current impacts. The changes may be smaller than you can feel, but they are big enough to measure.

[kiwi_outdoors]

two subjects come out of this.

First - the earth is more dynamic than I was led to believe as a child 50 years ago. In Alaska, the treeline is marching north over what used to be tundra as climate does change.

Second - looks like folks will be arguing for at least another decade about mankind's impact, or lack thereof, on climate change.

Third - climate change won't matter because we will likely have killed off everything we eat first.

[rockgremlin]

I think at this stage the fact that the earth is warming is irrefutable. If you don't believe it you might be in denial.

That said, I like to carry the discussion forward to address what the source of that warming is, and what (If anything) we can do about it.

[ddavis]

That said, I like to carry the discussion forward to address what the source of that warming is, and what (If anything) we can do about it.

I can't help much with policy or mitigation (although I might be able to provide some links), but maybe I can with the other. What do you want to know?

[hank moon]

http://thebulletin.org/sites/default/files/Final%202017%20Clock%20Statement.pdf

Excerpt:

To: Leaders and citizens of the world
Re: It is 30 seconds closer to midnight
Date: January 26, 2017

Over the course of 2016, the global security landscape darkened as the international community failed to come effectively to grips with humanity’s most pressing existential threats, nuclear weapons and climate change.

The United States and Russia—which together possess more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons—remained at odds in a variety of theaters, from Syria to Ukraine to the borders of NATO; both countries continued wide-ranging modernizations of their nuclear forces, and serious arms control negotiations were nowhere to be seen. North Korea conducted its fourth and fifth underground nuclear tests and gave every indication it would continue to develop nuclear weapons delivery capabilities. Threats of nuclear warfare hung in the background as Pakistan and India faced each other warily across the Line of Control in Kashmir after militants attacked two Indian army bases.

The climate change outlook was somewhat less dismal—but only somewhat. In the wake of the landmark Paris climate accord, the nations of the world have taken some actions to combat climate change, and global carbon dioxide emissions were essentially flat in 2016, compared to the previous year. Still, they have not yet started to decrease; the world continues to warm. Keeping future temperatures at less-than-catastrophic levels requires reductions in greenhouse gas emissions far beyond those agreed to in Paris—yet little appetite for additional cuts was in evidence at the November climate conference in Marrakech.

This already-threatening world situation was the backdrop for a rise in strident nationalism worldwide in 2016, including in a US presidential campaign during which the eventual victor, Donald Trump, made disturbing comments about the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons and expressed disbelief in the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board takes a broad and international view of existential threats to humanity, focusing on long-term trends. Because of that perspective, the statements of a single person—particularly one not yet in office—have not historically influenced the board’s decision on the setting of the Doomsday Clock.

But wavering public confidence in the democratic institutions required to deal with major world threats do affect the board’s decisions. And this year, events surrounding the US presidential campaign—including cyber offensives and deception campaigns apparently directed by the Russian government and aimed at disrupting the US election—have brought American democracy and Russian intentions into question and thereby made the world more dangerous than was the case a year ago.

For these reasons, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has decided to move the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock 30 seconds closer to catastrophe. It is now two minutes and 30 seconds to midnight.

[rockgremlin]

"...carbon dioxide emissions were essentially flat in 2016..."

"...the world continues to warm."

Correlation does not imply causation.

[hank moon]

"...carbon dioxide emissions were essentially flat in 2016..."


"...the world continues to warm."


Correlation does not imply causation.


For me, the question of causation is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that it is happening, and is exacerbated by carbon emissions. There are essentially 3 approaches to dealing with this (and nearly any situation):

A - Escape from the situation
B - Change the situation
C - Accept the situation (i.e. take no action)

For most of the world, A is not physically possible (although many engage in denial); C ranges from difficult to impossible, which leaves us with B. This is the question we should all be focusing on. Even those who get hung up in the causation question can acknowledge that it’s happening and that it demands an urgent response.

With a snake in your bed, do you first argue about how it got there?

[oldno7]

D- the situation is only in your mind, carry on, have a beer and relax:haha:


but hey--if you can change the situation, send some warming to my snowpacked driveway, i'd be grateful.

[rockgremlin]

For me, the question of causation is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that it is happening, and is exacerbated by carbon emissions. There are essentially 3 approaches to dealing with this (and nearly any situation):

A - Escape from the situation
B - Change the situation
C - Accept the situation (i.e. take no action)

For most of the world, A is not physically possible (although many engage in denial); C ranges from difficult to impossible, which leaves us with B. This is the question we should all be focusing on. Even those who get hung up in the causation question can acknowledge that it’s happening and that it demands an urgent response.

With a snake in your bed, do you first argue about how it got there?

Hmmm...I came here to argue with you and ended up liking your post instead. Went from 'Murican to Canadian in 16 seconds. :haha:

[oldno7]

- In the 1970’s scientists were predicting a new ice age, and had 60 theories to explain it.: Ukiah Daily Journal 0 November 20, 1974 - "The cooling trend heralds the start of another ice age, of a duration that could last from 200 years to several millenia...Sixty theories have been advanced, he said, to explain the global cooling period."


For those who actually experienced the non-mythological cooling scare during the 1960s and 1970s (that has since been made to disappear from graphs), the consequences of the -0.5° Northern Hemispheric cooling (especially) were frequently discussed in scientific publications. There were geoengineering strategies proposed by scientists to melt Arctic sea ice. Droughts and floods and extreme weather anomalies/variability were blamed on the ongoing global cooling. Glaciers were advancing, even surging at accelerated rates during this period. Sea ice growth and severe Arctic cooling meant that the oceans were much less navigable. Crop growth and food production slowed as the Earth cooled, which was of great concern to world governments. Severe winters in the 1960s and 1970s led many climatologists to assume that the Earth was returning to an 1800s-like Little Ice Age climate. Observations of mammals migrating to warmer climates during the 1960s and 1970s due to the colder temperatures were reported in scientific papers.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/09/13/83-consensus-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/

[oldno7]

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.sfohXaqD.dpbs

285 scientific papers, espousing global cooling from the 60's 70's 80's.

[rockgremlin]

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.sfohXaqD.dpbs

285 scientific papers, espousing global cooling from the 60's 70's 80's.

I've always been curious how the stalwart global warming sympathizers explain this phenomenon.

Likewise, how to explain the warming events the earth went through back in pre-industrial times when NOBODY was burning fossil fuels.

[oldno7]

I've always been curious how the stalwart global warming sympathizers explain this phenomenon.

Likewise, how to explain the warming events the earth went through back in pre-industrial times when NOBODY was burning fossil fuels.

It's easy to explain if there is no $$$ involved.

the EPA does not have scientists doing science. they have political operatives with degrees in sciences doing propaganda.

[Iceaxe]

NCAA cooked the books on climate change.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/07/federal-scientist-cooked-climate-change-books-ahead-obama-presentation-whistle-blower-charges.html

[rockgremlin]

NCAA cooked the books on climate change.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/07/federal-scientist-cooked-climate-change-books-ahead-obama-presentation-whistle-blower-charges.html

LOL...I think you mean NOAA. The only thing the NCAA cooks up is the supposed academic achievements of star players from prestigious universities...<cough, cough> UNC - Rashad McCants <cough,cough>....ugh sorry about that. Nasty flu going around.

Anyways, it's garbage like this that makes me second guess the GW theory. And by the way, it IS still considered a THEORY by everybody in the scientific community, even though the media likes to throw that term around as an accepted fact.

[Scott P]

Even in conservative states that have glaciers, especially in Alaska, people believe in Global Warming because they can actually see it.


And by the way, it IS still considered a THEORY by everybody in the scientific community

Not so. It is actually scientifically impossible to add greenhouse gases into any atmosphere and to not cause warming. Otherwise the earth would have the same temperature as the Moon since both are approximate equal distances from the sun. The average temperature on the moon is about 0F, which is about the same as the North Pole.

Greenhouse gases aren't really a bad thing in themselves as without them, day time temperatures would be around 224F and night-time temperatures would be around -298F. This is not a theory.

Very few scientists would argue that warming isn't occurring or that it wouldn't occur with more greenhouse gases. What they tend to argue about is how much effect extra greenhouse gases would add since burning hydrocarbons only adds a small percentage to the atmosphere. The small percentage scientist that say that it won't effect temperatures that much claim that the difference is negligible since greenhouse gases only make a very small percentage of the atmosphere.

[qedcook]

Even in conservative states that have glaciers, especially in Alaska, people believe in Global Warming because they can actually see it.

Scott, you keep mentioning northern hemisphere examples. Just out of curiosity, do you have southern hemisphere examples? Because I heard the glaciers are increasing in the southern hemisphere...

[tallsteve]

As the original poster, now you know why I'm confused and still am.

85862

[Scott P]

Because I heard the glaciers are increasing in the southern hemisphere...

Glaciers are shrinking in almost all areas that have temperatures rising above freezing, including in the Southern Hemisphere.

What you may be thinking of is Antarctic sea ice, rather that glaciers. Antarctic sea ice has increased in recent years. Some areas on the Antarctic Ice Sheet have also increased, but temperatures there never reach freezing.

It is true that if the ice caps melted, the sea level would rise about 216 feet, but there is actually no chance of this anytime soon. At the South Pole, for example, the temperature has never risen above 10F since records have been taken. It would have to warm 22 degrees to just to reach freezing, which almost certainly isn't going to happen, at least not for a very, very long time.

Many people over-exaggerate the danger in this regard. Unless something incredibly catastrophic happens, there is no chance of the ice sheets completely melting or even coming close to that. They may shrink some, but they will not be melting away anytime soon. It would take a huge catastrophic event to do that and we probably wouldn't survive it anyway.

Sea level could rise a few feet, which would not be good for many areas, but it won't rise 216 feet.

[rockgremlin]

Say what you will, but I still contend that anthropogenic global warming is a theory. Otherwise, why did the earth cool during the 1970's, when the media warned of an impending ice age?

And why has the earth undergone numerous episodes of warming prior to the industrial revolution, when fossil fuels were not being used on a massive scale?

How did the last ice age end? Warming, right? Were cave men burning coal?

[hank moon]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[rockgremlin]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


I read this. It brings up very compelling evidence. Most of it irrefutable.

But Earth's warming since the industrial revolution isn't an uninterrupted straight line upwards. There have been dips where the climate has cooled (1970's), and 2016 was basically flat. So therein lie my doubts:

If GW is attributed to humans, why is it not a straight line up? Why the dips? Why the cooling in the 70's?

Why wasn't 2016 the warmest year ever, since there were more fossil fuel consumers in 2016 than any other time in history?

[twotimer]

I feel a bit sorry for those of you that have future concerns that have to (or want to) worry about this. I never had any kids, the the entire universe, as far as I'm concerned, will exist for the next 30-40 years, if I'm lucky. From now until then I'll keep living like Caligula...thick steaks and climate controlled comfort. After I check out...good luck to Mother Earth and all it's inhabitants.

I would imagine that it's people like me that gum up the works for those beating the drum about doing something drastic in regards to us pesky humans and all the havoc wreak. Rather ironic, isn't it?...those that are pumping out zero replacement humans are the problem.

Anyway...when I can start painting entire exteriors here in Denver between December and February, then perhaps I'll entertain some concern.

[twotimer]

I read this. It brings up very compelling evidence. Most of it irrefutable.

But Earth's warming since the industrial revolution isn't an uninterrupted straight line upwards. There have been dips where the climate has cooled (1970's), and 2016 was basically flat. So therein lie my doubts:

If GW is attributed to humans, why is it not a straight line up? Why the dips? Why the cooling in the 70's?

Why wasn't 2016 the warmest year ever, since there were more fossil fuel consumers in 2016 than any other time in history?Yeah, and it's rather strange that global warming seems to wander around the planet.

[ddavis]

Why wasn't 2016 the warmest year ever, since there were more fossil fuel consumers in 2016 than any other time in history?

2016 was the hottest year ever. It's the third record breaking year in a row:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2016-was-the-hottest-year-on-record/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/File/2016gistempupdateblack.gif

[Scott P]

Say what you will, but I still contend that anthropogenic global warming is a theory. Otherwise, why did the earth cool during the 1970's, when the media warned of an impending ice age?

And why has the earth undergone numerous episodes of warming prior to the industrial revolution, when fossil fuels were not being used on a massive scale?

How did the last ice age end? Warming, right? Were cave men burning coal?

As far as I know, no one has ever said that all climate changes are caused by humans. There are lots of factors that cause the climate to change. Just some of them are greenhouse gases, sunspots, solar iridescence, volcanoes, vegetation, fires, continental drift, tilt of the axis, etc. In fact, billions of years from now the earth will get cooked and absorbed by the sun, unless you believe divine intervention will stop it.

It is well known that the earth has been warmer in the past and long before humans existed. In fact, even though the continents have moved it is also known that dinosaurs existed below the Antarctic Circle, which if they still existed, they couldn't live today.

In the course of the Earth's history, we are actually still in an ice age right now.

So, without any human intervention, the climate has been changing for billions of years. Just because something exists without humans doesn't mean that humans can't effect it. A volcano is a tiny little speck on a globe, but a volcanic eruption does cause the climate to change. If so, why wouldn't humans be able to change it?

[Slot Machine]

If we had better science programs in our country, then we could all interpret the data easily.

But wait! The data on this topic is really, REALLY easy to interpret. Global increases in temperature over the past 50 years are directly tied to atmospheric CO2 levels, which are directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels. I feel sorry for those that don't have the brainpower to put those three puzzle pieces together.

That authorless article from a mediocre news outlet is meaningless. If it were really groundbreaking, somebody with a sense of journalistic pride would attach their name to the top.

So, the debate isn't if the phenomenon is caused by man. (Your brain is broken if you think that is debatable.) The debate today is, what should be done about it, if anything?

85864

85865

"The great thing about science is that it is true weather or not you believe in it." -Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Iceaxe]

LOL...I think you mean NOAA. The only thing the NCAA cooks up is the supposed academic achievements of star players from prestigious universities...<cough, cough> UNC - Rashad McCants <cough,cough>....

Damn you spell check. :flipa:

FWIW - I did originally type NOAA into my phone.



Very few scientists would argue that warming isn't occurring or that it wouldn't occur with more greenhouse gases. What they tend to argue about is how much effect extra greenhouse gases would add since burning hydrocarbons only adds a small percentage to the atmosphere.

^^^THIS^^^

The real question is would trading in the gas guzzling bad ass Corvette for a strawberry douche powered Toyota Prius really make a difference to global warming.

:popcorn:

[rockgremlin]

So I have DDavis telling me 2016 is the hottest on record, ever....then Scott is telling me we're still in an ice age.

Not to mention...given 20 minutes and Google, I could pull up a bunch of articles simultaneously proving and disproving anthropogenic GW.

And Scott -- doesn't the term "anthropogenic" specifically mean "human caused?"

Confused yet?


To further muddy the waters, I give you the Global Warming Hiatus -- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000417/pdf

So the Earth didn't warm at a slower rate for the last 13 years -- it just "redistributed" the heat better? What the hell are we supposed to believe? Just sounds like convenient rebranding to me.

[rockgremlin]

85865




Yale University disagrees with you: http://e360.yale.edu/digest/carbon_emissions_decline_decoupled_economy


Is Yale University a good enough source?

[twotimer]

Boy, this one sure gets people all gnarled out! It's occurred to me that those that doubt it are calm and those that advocate it are angry and insulting...not all, of course, but it sure doesn't bode well for a persuasive argument.

For the sake of peace, I personally declare and BELIEVE that global warming is indeed happening. There...now I'm pierced, tattooed, dreadlocked and fit in with the nodding comrades!

http://www.bogley.com/forum/image/jpeg;base64,/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wCEAAkGBxISEhASEhIVFhUVFRUVFRYVFQ8XFRUVFRUWGBUVFR cYHSggGBolHRUVITEhJSktLi4uFx8zODMtNygtLisBCgoKDg0O GhAQGC0gHx0tLS0tLSsrKystLS0tLS0tKystLS0tLS0tLS0tLS 0rLS0tLS0rLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tN//AABEIAMUA/wMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAcAAABBQEBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQIDBAUGBwj/xAA/EAACAQMCAgcEBgkFAQEBAAABAgMABBEFEiExBhMiQVFhcTKBsd EUVHKRoaIHFiNCUoKSweEVFyQzYrJTRP/EABkBAAMBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAwIEBf/EACYRAAICAQUBAAIBBQAAAAAAAAABAhEDEiExQVETBDJhIiNCo bH/2gAMAwEAAhEDEQA/AOnk9pvU/Gih bep NGa8ps6qClFJRSChaKSiix0LSE0E1FPKFGScCgNI95AOJIrOvN bijxlhx8K8 6W6xO0xRSyr5cj5isS70 cRb9zHHa/lPeKqoWuSiilzues2vSGCRgiv2j3Vqhq8VjtmMsGGI3IGBHl7V eq6I7mMbuWOBPM0SjQSjF8GtRmmB6N1TJUONGajL0wyimh0TUl ND0E0xUKTTSaQmkzTHQuaaaM0hNMBDSUpNNzQKgJpppTSE0woS mmlNJQMaaaacTTDQAKOI9RXsFeQLzHqK9frowdkch5pIeLep NApkh7Tep NJurjaLkmaUVFuo3UqAlzSE1HvpC1FDHSPgEnuriNX1Rrh rhnAKnJXHE4Pd41s9J9ZWCM8yzDAAxn1rz3TghlWeOYhwwJV B58RW4w2solp3Os1y4h2jeihlAHA8v81U0u7gSMrKxI7RXhnKn g6/cQag1 56wtIyrj3cvHA51FN0azJEolyk0eYpADhiO0yeRpuq3Ddy/pHWUKyCKOFSxQsiMeBIY52nu5Vs6lrz221GeMMBjq1BbBGObLy q5DaxwHacBdqkschctxVyRxXj39xqr9Hh60xsgSU5lBbawnAGT skHI 6p/RNlPi63Hwaw8vaVyFxk52gJ658e4VqwysB2pCcYz2eWeQ9fKsm GGNRFwGFiE2P45ZGwrN44NaqwhRKS57JK5HMnbulYefdnurEp2 ajhrkqayZSjbZWGAThBlvw4CvMH126Q/90oIPEE/2r0yWXKsiEDYELeGXGcD/AMgYye815VqiyNK5cYOT3ADGe6un8Z2qZD8lUtj0Hoj0w68rFL wk7j3N/muzV68Y6JpG1zEHSRm3AqUPAEd5HhXsamtZYpPYhButybNJmm5 oBqKNjqaTSk02tUAGkoJpuaKEKabRmkpgBpppTTTQMKaaU0006 AF5j1FexV44vMeor2IV0YeyOXo8slbtN6n40mabKe03qfjTd1c tFx 6l3VHmjNGkB 6qep6isKM7d3IeJpb27WJC7kADxrzHW9Za famVA8 Bx31pQsaaXJBqN5NcyNIvHiceXlVFpwTtnQqf4wMMPPzp3Vz2/aHLv7x766Xoy8N xhnXDbSQRjj6HxqtpK icm5PwyLBpIJousYvA5ALcSNpPH313NvZGNXt14mFheWh/ji/fQeflUK6TJYQyQ3Fv9ItGJIdeMkYPfip7CBmih jyCRoSXt5PFDzgk8D3VzZZai KDjyb4gR1BPaU4x4NBccMH7L1z8Nqfo nkjtxXUkBJ5lDvTB/CtDTdYVmMZAjwfZbIKEnLIfLIBBq/e22UlQELudZ4z3LKCCfcSPxrkjNwdM7UtRx1tMAiBjy6uM QW4YDP3Cr2n3okUxk43Qz4JOMysxBB8 Aqtf6WD1jtlVJJK94LHJXHeN3EEVzd40uSsSMfXh766YKMjnyO cejVfUSwREz1m0Rsy83C9zDvI48a3LTo9byRgSrvf8AeYkg58B iuCtLueFiT2SeGe8enhWtZX0wORJkd/E5qtaSFykd1pujW9v/ANUaqT38z95q DXDXOsSgK24kZ5jiAfA1NadIpGIyQPhS1WEoUdrmjNVbO4DDII PpVkGtUTsWkNFNp0AE0lBpK1QC0lBNJmlQCGmmlpKKGJSGlNNN OgBOY9RXsQrx1OY9RXsVXxKrI5ujyeU9pvU/Gm5pZfab1PxptQov0LmjNJSMcAnwooRyPT687KRLzPHHCuCltp IWDju/DyNaXSm/V52YOWGcY5Ywe41tdGrRLrsBixI5HmPWtXoW/A5JS2Kmi6ykzLHIApbhnhg1015 jsqRNayBG5hWyAD4gjlVG7/AEYSb90Mg2 DZBB8sVcfTtYgUBZlkUfukg8PDjXPOcW/6JFIY5f5Kxf1t1C0wl5AJI W8Du9RwPvqoFikLXGmzmN2OXiJ7JJ55WrA6YSRjq720KqeBYDK n1FYWqafayHrrKTY3PAJAz6d1OK9Vf8NO1wWrjVZmZROhjlzgM ACretaF3rLQx7ZHz5KD GaqdHvpEkU/WgEoFVSeZZzwp vaG5JaSXHZHYHJalLQ50y JPS5Ga3SfPAbj4k86ig15IyxYe1yPfWLdwbAQDnzrPzx410xwQ a2OSf5GRPc27u5WTtA/fTYJNq WRnzycfCqtuwPIcadMDxXzzT09GFNvcum7SMuu4 PlVOe APPOfAYqO5jy2T4Cq5ZR51qMEKUmeidCNQR0K7u14GusBryPow wEqZOBmvWo Qp0YsdmkpaSnQ7CiijFFAIRSU40UUMbikp9NNFGhhpCKeaYaKA E5j1FewivHl5j1FewiqYyWbo8llPab1PxpoolPab1PxpAanRUd TZOR9DS5pG5GhrYVnmOr6OhkzkDdxIHdUmldGrgOHtJO33DOD7 zVLVdHme5cIV7TcMMPhXU6B0U1W2dTC6jIz7SkDPPINTyS0rke lylwdBa32rooDWsb4794B NZ9/0svUJWSwbPk2R ArSngvYx29TgDd67Y H41jz3GoZ4SW0vmCF/vXJBJvdL/Z2VS2ZWXpzBICs0bITwwy5Fc9f2ETt1lq4QnuB4Ve1R52BE1vD/WufdWCmkOx3RDYBzJYYHvrqjFLjY5pylw9zas9UuEVLdRhmfcz nGGCjIH4Veu kHWqSQQTzz4/KjofYdfN1Ty7uyxOwHGAOW6s/pfpclq7GM5QjGG4kDPdUdMJT0vk6ISlGFmbOgbJqnDZ5JzUcGp MPaANbNomRnHOrS1QObVGe5VitVXjTHYZLVPevjI8KrJbsylh3 c6F6zL8RHNKDxHGqkkHhVmOZFIGMnvyKuBYznHDPEA PlVE9ItNmfp82xh5Yr1rRdQSWNdrAkAbgCMg15BcNniK1 hDsL2LaeDZDDxGDW dyb2PWaKKKBiUtFFA0JRRRQMSmk0pNNJoGFNagmkJoAE5j1Fex V44h4j1FeyVuBLL0ePSt2m 0fjSBqrTXA3v9o/GlE4rForuWgacDVUTinLMKLQqZ5f0lBS fb2SDkEc/Wui0BdUu1KdZIsZ5s2VGPXma6g3EFu0ly8KyNtxxA4efGkfU72 8jBAS0tuTSEjJX/wA5rkzZG3SRfFHtmXedEdNhH/Ku 3 8AwyT6DJrKOmaYTiGK6lPdtEgB95xWmNbs4GEVnbpNITjrZe8 JZu6qWrdKJB2Xn7XelsigDyLnn7qxDX6y700RnTFTtdVDbD KZusfHktUOrV87MyAc5pRthXzVORqkmvQq4ZrQueZaZ2Ziffwp/ vx3E3/IJWEeyi8FHqBVlGRzynE09Eu2ilD26tKV4PIx2x7e8KKsdL9eS YRoI/2j8sEEYqtqEUlwQsRCWoxl1I4jv5VRltUF7bhDlCnYPoDSWOLl bB5WlUTJtiXmWNETOcZOcDHM/ga0nlk2I 5cGYxYx4d9UdHIhuZN/wC6WH3nGfxqS6YrFOv/AOcyuPQ1ZreiK3RLa2bSuoJxukaL0IGR7jV3TdPKkrk7ShYjHE FWw491MjmCfSNvc8EyepIz/etS8nzIeryMSyD3OoYj76lNlIJcmNJowZ9pJ4jIbhzB4 7BBoksEjKqUJOSCST3cDw/Grgm2tCG5FtjH HAOPwNZl5qKhlO4kqpA482LHi3urUW2ZmvBn kq24hsYBx5lWwf7U/SbQpLG6PxGGBxzBx86gOpqBgZ5EcOeO/3k8aWx1VFJLcPAY7hjA/AVXcges2lwHUMD5H1HOpa886HdJB17RNnbK3Z8mr0DdWjS3H0h NM3Um6gY/NIWpm6kLUDQ8mmE00tTSwooLH5ppNMZ6bvoGmSKeI9RXs1eJo/Eeo Ne2VuJLIeDTxne/H95viaAh8afM/bf7TfE0oavObO9JCBD408IfGlDU8NRqZqkQXQwjEgMAM7TxBx3 Gon0Ga6VbjULhLeHA2R5A7PcFTkKutcKgLuMqvaI8QOOKxho97 q8hnICRclLZCKvcFHfWZP8AkT2JprvRYBiON7hh34OD7zgVRk6 dWqD9nYqvhxUH8BWsnQexgP8AybxWI5qGVR86kePRF4fsSfEnP 41mLh42K30znH6cwScJLbA8tpqrcWFjd8YXEcnhyz7q27zo9ps 4PUyKrd2xh8DXM6j0MmjOYmDjuwcNXVBw62Oeet/yQpDd2DbsZjJ444o3r4VpTzpdCGWAqksR4RkgZz3Csy11m4tz1 c6sycirj4Grd1ZWs6dbFlD37O4 a/Ktv1k4 EXSixc4uBGVJ4Sr4HxGOYqsrBy4PsyxKA3d1ijv 6liupY ws6MvgxP4g8qqXt0jghQVfPEKRsJ8RW0JvfY1dPuIhEOsOGCoh B7ykmfhUt30iRS5jTLMScnkOGPhXM7TnjT5DwwaXzTds2pNIfL cs5JLHi24 vKoAe1SxLU08O1t3ca3stjLbZXl8agNWHUHOKh21REpGlot0kc kb/vKwr1EXZOD3HjXjWK9A6G6wJF6lz2gOyfEeFRyprc3haumdKbu mfTam6oU0wCuf6HZ8yI3tNN9UptxTGthR9GL5kbX9RnUae1oKi ayFP6sTxsQ6jTTqFI1iKjNjR9WZ bHx6iNy o NfQlfOqWA3L6j419FCr4Z6rObLFrk8ImHbf7TfE0Clmbtv9pvi aaDXEdikPFPFNUU8Cg1YqxhiFb2SQD6Z41V13pBd3bNbWSMkCH YBGMZxw4sOQqyUyCPdWhcdJYrCJbW2hMkgQFscgTzLHvNTm2uE NKzlrb9HFy/amkRM rN76bL jAkn/AJHD7P8AmqWrdNtQkO0djyRT8azeu1dhuHX7fGrQjl5ckjM5RW 1WaVz jWVOKTofUEfiKoyabqVpxViw8juH3Gq/ uanGe0ZeH8SE/2qWPpvcD/sRW9xU1VLJ6mR/t NCnpNuGy6h/L/AGNQOLRjvhlMTeHHH3Gr69LLaQYmgP3KR86ZK2muM9lfLDA1pW uUZddMyp43YE7428wBmq2lWm4szch8avS2lox2xMdx5YJqRlEY CAjA8 ZpyltSFCO9so3Efa4CmGEVNPJ3iopG4cKascpIrKu1s1LO4fl3 d1IRmq /a1bSslqI38fOmluGKsOwKnxzVUCqIy2BrR0GQrMhXuIqosWa2O jFpumQeHE 6sZJLSEE7PS1bNBNRiQUm8VwHpJ7D91NJpM00tSHYpNMJoL0zc KAsGao2alY0w1mxWLE3aX1Hxr30V8/xntL6j419ACuz8Xs4/yejwKf23 03xNItRXDHe/2m/8Ao0gc1yNl0Xken76pKTTuNFmy8rCqksfVRu2SWk3Fm HGlTNQ6ipLBSDtK59fSp5Hui FWznhAojLqTuzxJ7z5VNaa9PEu1ZD5A8vuqrePs3r58B4VQnB2 qe81eMbW5LJGnsdjbdLZm4NFGw7zxBoutbt39u2Q/01ywmIwBzNRMSWNL5ivY17pLGTlb7fMH5Vntp9uuSF 8mq6Zp8h5VtRa7Fs iJpAvsAD0GKryAniasgUk3HhVESkrKvIVXJqyy5GPCq5BHE1WO 5zyQkkmBx51UzmklfJo2VVKidkmyjqqcuMUoPGk2BctYxXTdGr QZ3DmM59DXKiTBFb haiEkUE 1wNc RMrBqzrurNHVmn76UPXMdlETA1GYzU kL0BRWYGoixq4xFQvikJxKxc0hlNTHFROBWRUMWXtL6j419Eiv neNRuX1Hxr6IFdn4nZy5 j54uJO3J9pviacrVVuD 0k 23/wBGnq1cV7nTFltWpwaoI6VgadmrLKvVq8jgSFZ7i6xkYRFClsZ 9ms5/ZPpVGxXT1SKS56x5jI3ZXJUYPZ4eZpaVLkrB1wZNzGkjs0UM7A kkHb NRpfQp2JBIuO4qcg99bup9M7nrBDFEIeIAG3L4PLgeVO1XoNcz yNI0oO4A5YYbl4CrJpfvsErf68nOG6jJ3K44cgeBqURl8beOfA 5qxL jy4H76elY9/0eu7Yg7G8mjOfhVkoS/WRzOc1 yNhdJmIzsYD41RuEePJaNgPEg4qC16TXcJwXJ8pAT8a0U6bM3C WIEf T/Y0LHNfyL7Royf9RHj FJDeKx5/fXQKlndeyAG8OTVg63ohh7S5K/CqJLgk8jJ7qBlUsOXjwxWJLMTUsd64UpnIPceP3VVFUhCicp6i SJM8hmrq2rfwmk0k4cV1UsfDhUcmZxdFceLUrOSliI7qiKVv3c fA8KxXXGSa3CeoxPHRGvOpDIQQRUBNPQ1RqyfZ6B0c1HrYwre0 ta5rznTL4xMGFd3bXAdVccjXDki0zrxZLVE7VG1NL86YZakWsk NMJqPrKaz0rFYOajZqYXqN3pNibJUbtL6j419GCvmyOTtL9ofE V9Jiuz8Ps5c/RhnodYZJ ix5PE 1zPvo/U w qx/m dbtYuu600TxW8CCS5m3FEYkIkaYDzzMASEXcBgcWJAHeR1fOHi I6n6J qNj9WT83zpT0Tsfqyfm dN0aa8WS5W7MbRoImjnVOqVtysZVKmRiAmF7RI9ryzT7DpTZzJ NIk67IQGkZg6BUIJWTtgboyASHGVODgnFHzj4h6n6IeiViRg2y Y/m dMj6HWCrtFrEF3BsYPtA5B51qJfxGQwiRDKFDmMOpcITgMVzkL 51yeo9LTZWsr3Ei9e08y2scwETyJ1/VxkovEqu4doDJQAniTT0R8DXL02n6I2Jl6420Zk/jIO7781cfRoDzjH3t86l03UI503xNuXJGdrjiOeNwGR51W07VD JPeQMu0wNFtOc745Ywwblw7QkX Whwi kGuXpDN0Vs29qAH aT50lv0Uso87LdRnzf8AuabqPSKMWNxe27LKEjlaPGSryR7lCc OJy428KkvukVvbvFFO JX6sbUSVwplcRoXKA9WrOdoZ8Anv4GjTHwWp jJ iNg/t2sTeq5qkf0d6Uf/wCCD muormtf6TmC5t4VQMm6L6U5z xS4cw2/L955fcFRieYppJBY1P0eaUCCLGEEciFOfjVmTobp7Da1rGR4EE j40vSe7kVrGKJirT3caEjGerjSSeUcfFYSv81L0dupJZtQdmzG tx1MK8MKsUUYkPnmQyc/CnQil/t1pP1CD k/Olb9HmlHibGD k/OuorA0LX sj3zsiF7y5tosZG/qp5Y4wMk5YrESfQ8qAK6fo90ocRYwj0U/OrH6l6f8AVY/zfOtO61SGNZXeVFWIAyEsOxkAjcOYJBGBzORiuf1zp1bwWrzgl JDuWCK5SWB5nG0DakgDlMupJA5ZrLinyhqTXDLR6Dab9Ti 4/Oom/R7pR52MJ/lPzrc0zUY7hN8TblzjOHAyAM43AZHHnWfrWsukiW1sgkuXXfhi RHDFnb10xHHbnICjixBAwASGopcILbKP 3Wk/UIP6f80f7daT9Qg/p/zWjpC3kZmN5PbyIFRkaOKSEqe31ocM7DaAEwc/xZqGLphYtHLL16pHGVDPIskS9sboypkA3qw4qy5B7qYir/ALdaT9Qg/p/zVuDodYINqWsajwAbHxpnQ3pMl9BHIMB2QO6KHwgYnapYjBbGM 4PPNauq6glvDLNITsjUscDJOOSqO9icADvJFJpPkdlA9E7L6sn 5vnSfqjY/Vk/N86OierS3MLGeNY545ZIpo1O4RsrZQbu/MbRtnv3VU0HWsW0t1dS4R7ifq937sQmaKBFAGWLBFIAySXpaI D1P0tfqjY/Vk/N86P1Qsfq0f5vnVqy162ljjlSVdrydUu7KN1oyDEVcBlfsnskA 8KtWt9FKZBHIjmNijhGVtjjmjYPZbyNLRHxBqfplfqdYfVY/wA3zpD0N0/6rH b51afpDaidbYzL1rNsCjccPt39WzAbVfbx2kgkd1ZF9qd5Dc24 eW12TXHVJbKkhnMXa/bCUuMkAb2HV4AyMnGSfOHiFqfpdHQzT f0WP7m db1FFaUUuEDbYVyMsz2uoXU0ltPKk8NukMkMZl29V1u FwDmPtPu3HCndz4V11FMRyfSUXNxbQg2jlWnQz2yyQGVrddzbG LMI8lxGGXcRtLDJrD1HSL901jrIBJJdQWwjWNkEaorOr2wdiDl VYsXIGd5IA4CvSKKAOPTo9LBJYzxxpLMJJfpjghC/0hR1jgtxKK6RgJkkIqgcqudMUl/4LxwyTJFdLJKkXV7yqwzBCA7KCBI0Z59wPdXSUUAV7GR2RWkTq 3IyU3BtvgCw4E4xnHDOcE865XpFpty17iBWEd5brBcTKQOoWCR 2LA897pPIikcjg9xrsqKAOKXo7Kt19GSMDTzLHeZBACyRBQtqq DiFMkcU2eXBx31Th064W9vHa2mmd7gSW7u0Aso1ESJHI5DdYzI ARtIODxUDcWr0GigCC9mZI5HVDIyozBFwGcgEhFycAk8OPjXFw dBppobj6VezrJd/tJ44vo4jSUoqqqt1fWMsYVFHax2POu7ooA46xN3NLpT3EDK8Ju UuDgbBKItiyoe N 1j7WK1OhttJHBKJEKsbu9fB5lXupWRvQqVI8q3aKAMDVNTvYZZ All9IjYDqWikhRlfAys4lYYXdxDJnhzGRxyH0We2i0oJCblreS WSUI0aA3E0UoMpLkYTfNITjJG4EA4rtqKAPP4NIlSLUUu47iVp ryKdZbYLuDCGBkeLJyqxSwlRuHILnOTU12t81tZNPBJMY71JJE UWwnaCMSGF5ED9WJBJ1LEI2OGRjkO6ooArafLI8atLH1TnJMe5 XKDJwGYcN2MZxkA5AJHE82Fure8vnSzaf6Q0JilEluiIscQTqp S7b1AfrGyqt/wBh7 FdbRQB5nLYXVza6wT2p5LuOJ1iAGbe36jfDEJuD9kzDtYD7jnG cDSlsrh7DUY4LWWMywyBTO8Zu7iZ0Ks77WKoNu1VBPDAG1FUA9 1iigDO0S5eRMtbtAowsaSFOsKgAZZUJCDwG4nHPHKsfpHpdxeX EUQd4LeDZOZVELNLOH/ZoqyBl2ptLEsvtFMezXU0UAcjp lzWV7uUzXEV2oE0jmMtFcQphJH2hQEeMBOA4GNPGsrTbK4ht9C d7WaQW0DiWFOrMiXLRIsUhV2UHAM65zwMgJ8R6HRQB57qfR29d YWRQks oG6nKshFqhtXgRlJHbdFEZ4AguPDjVy50O4tZLr/ToUVZbBYoyGReruLfr qLKfbLdag3f Dmu2qnqumpcJsfcOIZWR3SRGHJkdSCp5 oJByCRQBxemWUi3mlwtEIYoorqdINyySb1WOJp7iQcDITcvy3c SzFiThel6N6bGvW3HUuk08kjSNOsPX43nYhZCf2aqAFXPBcZ45 qXR9BWB3kaaaeV1VDLOyFwikkIoRVVRkk8FyTzzgVrUAFFFFAB RRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRR RQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQB/9k=

[rockgremlin]

Boy, this one sure gets people all gnarled out! It's occurred to me that those that doubt it are calm and those that advocate it are angry and insulting...not all, of course, but it sure doesn't bode well for a persuasive argument.

For the sake of peace, I personally declare and BELIEVE that global warming is indeed happening. There...now I'm pierced, tattooed, dreadlocked and fit in with the nodding comrades!

http://www.bogley.com/forum/image/jpeg;base64,/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wCEAAkGBxISEhASEhIVFhUVFRUVFRYVFQ8XFRUVFRUWGBUVFR cYHSggGBolHRUVITEhJSktLi4uFx8zODMtNygtLisBCgoKDg0O GhAQGC0gHx0tLS0tLSsrKystLS0tLS0tKystLS0tLS0tLS0tLS 0rLS0tLS0rLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tN//AABEIAMUA/wMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAcAAABBQEBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQIDBAUGBwj/xAA/EAACAQMCAgcEBgkFAQEBAAABAgMABBEFEiExBhMiQVFhcTKBsd EUVHKRoaIHFiNCUoKSweEVFyQzYrJTRP/EABkBAAMBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAwIEBf/EACYRAAICAQUBAAIBBQAAAAAAAAABAhEDEiExQVETBDJhIiNCo bH/2gAMAwEAAhEDEQA/AOnk9pvU/Gih bep NGa8ps6qClFJRSChaKSiix0LSE0E1FPKFGScCgNI95AOJIrOvN bijxlhx8K8 6W6xO0xRSyr5cj5isS70 cRb9zHHa/lPeKqoWuSiilzues2vSGCRgiv2j3Vqhq8VjtmMsGGI3IGBHl7V eq6I7mMbuWOBPM0SjQSjF8GtRmmB6N1TJUONGajL0wyimh0TUl ND0E0xUKTTSaQmkzTHQuaaaM0hNMBDSUpNNzQKgJpppTSE0woS mmlNJQMaaaacTTDQAKOI9RXsFeQLzHqK9frowdkch5pIeLep NApkh7Tep NJurjaLkmaUVFuo3UqAlzSE1HvpC1FDHSPgEnuriNX1Rrh rhnAKnJXHE4Pd41s9J9ZWCM8yzDAAxn1rz3TghlWeOYhwwJV B58RW4w2solp3Os1y4h2jeihlAHA8v81U0u7gSMrKxI7RXhnKn g6/cQag1 56wtIyrj3cvHA51FN0azJEolyk0eYpADhiO0yeRpuq3Ddy/pHWUKyCKOFSxQsiMeBIY52nu5Vs6lrz221GeMMBjq1BbBGObLy q5DaxwHacBdqkschctxVyRxXj39xqr9Hh60xsgSU5lBbawnAGT skHI 6p/RNlPi63Hwaw8vaVyFxk52gJ658e4VqwysB2pCcYz2eWeQ9fKsm GGNRFwGFiE2P45ZGwrN44NaqwhRKS57JK5HMnbulYefdnurEp2 ajhrkqayZSjbZWGAThBlvw4CvMH126Q/90oIPEE/2r0yWXKsiEDYELeGXGcD/AMgYye815VqiyNK5cYOT3ADGe6un8Z2qZD8lUtj0Hoj0w68rFL wk7j3N/muzV68Y6JpG1zEHSRm3AqUPAEd5HhXsamtZYpPYhButybNJmm5 oBqKNjqaTSk02tUAGkoJpuaKEKabRmkpgBpppTTTQMKaaU0006 AF5j1FexV44vMeor2IV0YeyOXo8slbtN6n40mabKe03qfjTd1c tFx 6l3VHmjNGkB 6qep6isKM7d3IeJpb27WJC7kADxrzHW9Za famVA8 Bx31pQsaaXJBqN5NcyNIvHiceXlVFpwTtnQqf4wMMPPzp3Vz2/aHLv7x766Xoy8N xhnXDbSQRjj6HxqtpK icm5PwyLBpIJousYvA5ALcSNpPH313NvZGNXt14mFheWh/ji/fQeflUK6TJYQyQ3Fv9ItGJIdeMkYPfip7CBmih jyCRoSXt5PFDzgk8D3VzZZai KDjyb4gR1BPaU4x4NBccMH7L1z8Nqfo nkjtxXUkBJ5lDvTB/CtDTdYVmMZAjwfZbIKEnLIfLIBBq/e22UlQELudZ4z3LKCCfcSPxrkjNwdM7UtRx1tMAiBjy6uM QW4YDP3Cr2n3okUxk43Qz4JOMysxBB8 Aqtf6WD1jtlVJJK94LHJXHeN3EEVzd40uSsSMfXh766YKMjnyO cejVfUSwREz1m0Rsy83C9zDvI48a3LTo9byRgSrvf8AeYkg58B iuCtLueFiT2SeGe8enhWtZX0wORJkd/E5qtaSFykd1pujW9v/ANUaqT38z95q DXDXOsSgK24kZ5jiAfA1NadIpGIyQPhS1WEoUdrmjNVbO4DDII PpVkGtUTsWkNFNp0AE0lBpK1QC0lBNJmlQCGmmlpKKGJSGlNNN OgBOY9RXsQrx1OY9RXsVXxKrI5ujyeU9pvU/Gm5pZfab1PxptQov0LmjNJSMcAnwooRyPT687KRLzPHHCuCltp IWDju/DyNaXSm/V52YOWGcY5Ywe41tdGrRLrsBixI5HmPWtXoW/A5JS2Kmi6ykzLHIApbhnhg1015 jsqRNayBG5hWyAD4gjlVG7/AEYSb90Mg2 DZBB8sVcfTtYgUBZlkUfukg8PDjXPOcW/6JFIY5f5Kxf1t1C0wl5AJI W8Du9RwPvqoFikLXGmzmN2OXiJ7JJ55WrA6YSRjq720KqeBYDK n1FYWqafayHrrKTY3PAJAz6d1OK9Vf8NO1wWrjVZmZROhjlzgM ACretaF3rLQx7ZHz5KD GaqdHvpEkU/WgEoFVSeZZzwp vaG5JaSXHZHYHJalLQ50y JPS5Ga3SfPAbj4k86ig15IyxYe1yPfWLdwbAQDnzrPzx410xwQ a2OSf5GRPc27u5WTtA/fTYJNq WRnzycfCqtuwPIcadMDxXzzT09GFNvcum7SMuu4 PlVOe APPOfAYqO5jy2T4Cq5ZR51qMEKUmeidCNQR0K7u14GusBryPow wEqZOBmvWo Qp0YsdmkpaSnQ7CiijFFAIRSU40UUMbikp9NNFGhhpCKeaYaKA E5j1FewivHl5j1FewiqYyWbo8llPab1PxpoolPab1PxpAanRUd TZOR9DS5pG5GhrYVnmOr6OhkzkDdxIHdUmldGrgOHtJO33DOD7 zVLVdHme5cIV7TcMMPhXU6B0U1W2dTC6jIz7SkDPPINTyS0rke lylwdBa32rooDWsb4794B NZ9/0svUJWSwbPk2R ArSngvYx29TgDd67Y H41jz3GoZ4SW0vmCF/vXJBJvdL/Z2VS2ZWXpzBICs0bITwwy5Fc9f2ETt1lq4QnuB4Ve1R52BE1vD/WufdWCmkOx3RDYBzJYYHvrqjFLjY5pylw9zas9UuEVLdRhmfcz nGGCjIH4Veu kHWqSQQTzz4/KjofYdfN1Ty7uyxOwHGAOW6s/pfpclq7GM5QjGG4kDPdUdMJT0vk6ISlGFmbOgbJqnDZ5JzUcGp MPaANbNomRnHOrS1QObVGe5VitVXjTHYZLVPevjI8KrJbsylh3 c6F6zL8RHNKDxHGqkkHhVmOZFIGMnvyKuBYznHDPEA PlVE9ItNmfp82xh5Yr1rRdQSWNdrAkAbgCMg15BcNniK1 hDsL2LaeDZDDxGDW dyb2PWaKKKBiUtFFA0JRRRQMSmk0pNNJoGFNagmkJoAE5j1Fex V44h4j1FeyVuBLL0ePSt2m 0fjSBqrTXA3v9o/GlE4rForuWgacDVUTinLMKLQqZ5f0lBS fb2SDkEc/Wui0BdUu1KdZIsZ5s2VGPXma6g3EFu0ly8KyNtxxA4efGkfU72 8jBAS0tuTSEjJX/wA5rkzZG3SRfFHtmXedEdNhH/Ku 3 8AwyT6DJrKOmaYTiGK6lPdtEgB95xWmNbs4GEVnbpNITjrZe8 JZu6qWrdKJB2Xn7XelsigDyLnn7qxDX6y700RnTFTtdVDbD KZusfHktUOrV87MyAc5pRthXzVORqkmvQq4ZrQueZaZ2Ziffwp/ vx3E3/IJWEeyi8FHqBVlGRzynE09Eu2ilD26tKV4PIx2x7e8KKsdL9eS YRoI/2j8sEEYqtqEUlwQsRCWoxl1I4jv5VRltUF7bhDlCnYPoDSWOLl bB5WlUTJtiXmWNETOcZOcDHM/ga0nlk2I 5cGYxYx4d9UdHIhuZN/wC6WH3nGfxqS6YrFOv/AOcyuPQ1ZreiK3RLa2bSuoJxukaL0IGR7jV3TdPKkrk7ShYjHE FWw491MjmCfSNvc8EyepIz/etS8nzIeryMSyD3OoYj76lNlIJcmNJowZ9pJ4jIbhzB4 7BBoksEjKqUJOSCST3cDw/Grgm2tCG5FtjH HAOPwNZl5qKhlO4kqpA482LHi3urUW2ZmvBn kq24hsYBx5lWwf7U/SbQpLG6PxGGBxzBx86gOpqBgZ5EcOeO/3k8aWx1VFJLcPAY7hjA/AVXcges2lwHUMD5H1HOpa886HdJB17RNnbK3Z8mr0DdWjS3H0h NM3Um6gY/NIWpm6kLUDQ8mmE00tTSwooLH5ppNMZ6bvoGmSKeI9RXs1eJo/Eeo Ne2VuJLIeDTxne/H95viaAh8afM/bf7TfE0oavObO9JCBD408IfGlDU8NRqZqkQXQwjEgMAM7TxBx3 Gon0Ga6VbjULhLeHA2R5A7PcFTkKutcKgLuMqvaI8QOOKxho97 q8hnICRclLZCKvcFHfWZP8AkT2JprvRYBiON7hh34OD7zgVRk6 dWqD9nYqvhxUH8BWsnQexgP8AybxWI5qGVR86kePRF4fsSfEnP 41mLh42K30znH6cwScJLbA8tpqrcWFjd8YXEcnhyz7q27zo9ps 4PUyKrd2xh8DXM6j0MmjOYmDjuwcNXVBw62Oeet/yQpDd2DbsZjJ444o3r4VpTzpdCGWAqksR4RkgZz3Csy11m4tz1 c6sycirj4Grd1ZWs6dbFlD37O4 a/Ktv1k4 EXSixc4uBGVJ4Sr4HxGOYqsrBy4PsyxKA3d1ijv 6liupY ws6MvgxP4g8qqXt0jghQVfPEKRsJ8RW0JvfY1dPuIhEOsOGCoh B7ykmfhUt30iRS5jTLMScnkOGPhXM7TnjT5DwwaXzTds2pNIfL cs5JLHi24 vKoAe1SxLU08O1t3ca3stjLbZXl8agNWHUHOKh21REpGlot0kc kb/vKwr1EXZOD3HjXjWK9A6G6wJF6lz2gOyfEeFRyprc3haumdKbu mfTam6oU0wCuf6HZ8yI3tNN9UptxTGthR9GL5kbX9RnUae1oKi ayFP6sTxsQ6jTTqFI1iKjNjR9WZ bHx6iNy o NfQlfOqWA3L6j419FCr4Z6rObLFrk8ImHbf7TfE0Clmbtv9pvi aaDXEdikPFPFNUU8Cg1YqxhiFb2SQD6Z41V13pBd3bNbWSMkCH YBGMZxw4sOQqyUyCPdWhcdJYrCJbW2hMkgQFscgTzLHvNTm2uE NKzlrb9HFy/amkRM rN76bL jAkn/AJHD7P8AmqWrdNtQkO0djyRT8azeu1dhuHX7fGrQjl5ckjM5RW 1WaVz jWVOKTofUEfiKoyabqVpxViw8juH3Gq/ uanGe0ZeH8SE/2qWPpvcD/sRW9xU1VLJ6mR/t NCnpNuGy6h/L/AGNQOLRjvhlMTeHHH3Gr69LLaQYmgP3KR86ZK2muM9lfLDA1pW uUZddMyp43YE7428wBmq2lWm4szch8avS2lox2xMdx5YJqRlEY CAjA8 ZpyltSFCO9so3Efa4CmGEVNPJ3iopG4cKascpIrKu1s1LO4fl3 d1IRmq /a1bSslqI38fOmluGKsOwKnxzVUCqIy2BrR0GQrMhXuIqosWa2O jFpumQeHE 6sZJLSEE7PS1bNBNRiQUm8VwHpJ7D91NJpM00tSHYpNMJoL0zc KAsGao2alY0w1mxWLE3aX1Hxr30V8/xntL6j419ACuz8Xs4/yejwKf23 03xNItRXDHe/2m/8Ao0gc1yNl0Xken76pKTTuNFmy8rCqksfVRu2SWk3Fm HGlTNQ6ipLBSDtK59fSp5Hui FWznhAojLqTuzxJ7z5VNaa9PEu1ZD5A8vuqrePs3r58B4VQnB2 qe81eMbW5LJGnsdjbdLZm4NFGw7zxBoutbt39u2Q/01ywmIwBzNRMSWNL5ivY17pLGTlb7fMH5Vntp9uuSF 8mq6Zp8h5VtRa7Fs iJpAvsAD0GKryAniasgUk3HhVESkrKvIVXJqyy5GPCq5BHE1WO 5zyQkkmBx51UzmklfJo2VVKidkmyjqqcuMUoPGk2BctYxXTdGr QZ3DmM59DXKiTBFb haiEkUE 1wNc RMrBqzrurNHVmn76UPXMdlETA1GYzUkL0BRWYGoixq4xFQvikJ xKxc0hlNTHFROBWRUMWXtL6j419EivneNRuX1Hxr6IFdn4nZy5 j54uJO3J9pviacrVVuD 0k 23/wBGnq1cV7nTFltWpwaoI6VgadmrLKvVq8jgSFZ7i6xkYRFClsZ 9ms5/ZPpVGxXT1SKS56x5jI3ZXJUYPZ4eZpaVLkrB1wZNzGkjs0UM7A kkHb NRpfQp2JBIuO4qcg99bup9M7nrBDFEIeIAG3L4PLgeVO1XoNcz yNI0oO4A5YYbl4CrJpfvsErf68nOG6jJ3K44cgeBqURl8beOfA 5qxL jy4H76elY9/0eu7Yg7G8mjOfhVkoS/WRzOc1 yNhdJmIzsYD41RuEePJaNgPEg4qC16TXcJwXJ8pAT8a0U6bM3C WIEf T/Y0LHNfyL7Royf9RHj FJDeKx5/fXQKlndeyAG8OTVg63ohh7S5K/CqJLgk8jJ7qBlUsOXjwxWJLMTUsd64UpnIPceP3VVFUhCicp6i SJM8hmrq2rfwmk0k4cV1UsfDhUcmZxdFceLUrOSliI7qiKVv3c fA8KxXXGSa3CeoxPHRGvOpDIQQRUBNPQ1RqyfZ6B0c1HrYwre0 ta5rznTL4xMGFd3bXAdVccjXDki0zrxZLVE7VG1NL86YZakWsk NMJqPrKaz0rFYOajZqYXqN3pNibJUbtL6j419GCvmyOTtL9ofE V9Jiuz8Ps5c/RhnodYZJ ix5PE 1zPvo/U w qx/m dbtYuu600TxW8CCS5m3FEYkIkaYDzzMASEXcBgcWJAHeR1fOHi I6n6J qNj9WT83zpT0Tsfqyfm dN0aa8WS5W7MbRoImjnVOqVtysZVKmRiAmF7RI9ryzT7DpTZzJ NIk67IQGkZg6BUIJWTtgboyASHGVODgnFHzj4h6n6IeiViRg2y Y/m dMj6HWCrtFrEF3BsYPtA5B51qJfxGQwiRDKFDmMOpcITgMVzkL 51yeo9LTZWsr3Ei9e08y2scwETyJ1/VxkovEqu4doDJQAniTT0R8DXL02n6I2Jl6420Zk/jIO7781cfRoDzjH3t86l03UI503xNuXJGdrjiOeNwGR51W07VD JPeQMu0wNFtOc745Ywwblw7QkX Whwi kGuXpDN0Vs29qAH aT50lv0Uso87LdRnzf8AuabqPSKMWNxe27LKEjlaPGSryR7lCc OJy428KkvukVvbvFFO JX6sbUSVwplcRoXKA9WrOdoZ8Anv4GjTHwWp jJ iNg/t2sTeq5qkf0d6Uf/wCCD muormtf6TmC5t4VQMm6L6U5z xS4cw2/L955fcFRieYppJBY1P0eaUCCLGEEciFOfjVmTobp7Da1rGR4EE j40vSe7kVrGKJirT3caEjGerjSSeUcfFYSv81L0dupJZtQdmzG tx1MK8MKsUUYkPnmQyc/CnQil/t1pP1CD k/Olb9HmlHibGD k/OuorA0LX sj3zsiF7y5tosZG/qp5Y4wMk5YrESfQ8qAK6fo90ocRYwj0U/OrH6l6f8AVY/zfOtO61SGNZXeVFWIAyEsOxkAjcOYJBGBzORiuf1zp1bwWrzgl JDuWCK5SWB5nG0DakgDlMupJA5ZrLinyhqTXDLR6Dab9Ti 4/Oom/R7pR52MJ/lPzrc0zUY7hN8TblzjOHAyAM43AZHHnWfrWsukiW1sgkuXXfhi RHDFnb10xHHbnICjixBAwASGopcILbKP 3Wk/UIP6f80f7daT9Qg/p/zWjpC3kZmN5PbyIFRkaOKSEqe31ocM7DaAEwc/xZqGLphYtHLL16pHGVDPIskS9sboypkA3qw4qy5B7qYir/ALdaT9Qg/p/zVuDodYINqWsajwAbHxpnQ3pMl9BHIMB2QO6KHwgYnapYjBbGM 4PPNauq6glvDLNITsjUscDJOOSqO9icADvJFJpPkdlA9E7L6sn 5vnSfqjY/Vk/N86OierS3MLGeNY545ZIpo1O4RsrZQbu/MbRtnv3VU0HWsW0t1dS4R7ifq937sQmaKBFAGWLBFIAySXpaI D1P0tfqjY/Vk/N86P1Qsfq0f5vnVqy162ljjlSVdrydUu7KN1oyDEVcBlfsnskA 8KtWt9FKZBHIjmNijhGVtjjmjYPZbyNLRHxBqfplfqdYfVY/wA3zpD0N0/6rH b51afpDaidbYzL1rNsCjccPt39WzAbVfbx2kgkd1ZF9qd5Dc24 eW12TXHVJbKkhnMXa/bCUuMkAb2HV4AyMnGSfOHiFqfpdHQzT f0WP7m db1FFaUUuEDbYVyMsz2uoXU0ltPKk8NukMkMZl29V1u FwDmPtPu3HCndz4V11FMRyfSUXNxbQg2jlWnQz2yyQGVrddzbG LMI8lxGGXcRtLDJrD1HSL901jrIBJJdQWwjWNkEaorOr2wdiDl VYsXIGd5IA4CvSKKAOPTo9LBJYzxxpLMJJfpjghC/0hR1jgtxKK6RgJkkIqgcqudMUl/4LxwyTJFdLJKkXV7yqwzBCA7KCBI0Z59wPdXSUUAV7GR2RWkTq 3IyU3BtvgCw4E4xnHDOcE865XpFpty17iBWEd5brBcTKQOoWCR 2LA897pPIikcjg9xrsqKAOKXo7Kt19GSMDTzLHeZBACyRBQtqq DiFMkcU2eXBx31Th064W9vHa2mmd7gSW7u0Aso1ESJHI5DdYzI ARtIODxUDcWr0GigCC9mZI5HVDIyozBFwGcgEhFycAk8OPjXFw dBppobj6VezrJd/tJ44vo4jSUoqqqt1fWMsYVFHax2POu7ooA46xN3NLpT3EDK8Ju UuDgbBKItiyoe N 1j7WK1OhttJHBKJEKsbu9fB5lXupWRvQqVI8q3aKAMDVNTvYZZ All9IjYDqWikhRlfAys4lYYXdxDJnhzGRxyH0We2i0oJCblreS WSUI0aA3E0UoMpLkYTfNITjJG4EA4rtqKAPP4NIlSLUUu47iVp ryKdZbYLuDCGBkeLJyqxSwlRuHILnOTU12t81tZNPBJMY71JJE UWwnaCMSGF5ED9WJBJ1LEI2OGRjkO6ooArafLI8atLH1TnJMe5 XKDJwGYcN2MZxkA5AJHE82Fure8vnSzaf6Q0JilEluiIscQTqp S7b1AfrGyqt/wBh7 FdbRQB5nLYXVza6wT2p5LuOJ1iAGbe36jfDEJuD9kzDtYD7jnG cDSlsrh7DUY4LWWMywyBTO8Zu7iZ0Ks77WKoNu1VBPDAG1FUA9 1iigDO0S5eRMtbtAowsaSFOsKgAZZUJCDwG4nHPHKsfpHpdxeX EUQd4LeDZOZVELNLOH/ZoqyBl2ptLEsvtFMezXU0UAcjp lzWV7uUzXEV2oE0jmMtFcQphJH2hQEeMBOA4GNPGsrTbK4ht9C d7WaQW0DiWFOrMiXLRIsUhV2UHAM65zwMgJ8R6HRQB57qfR29d YWRQks oG6nKshFqhtXgRlJHbdFEZ4AguPDjVy50O4tZLr/ToUVZbBYoyGReruLfr qLKfbLdag3f Dmu2qnqumpcJsfcOIZWR3SRGHJkdSCp5 oJByCRQBxemWUi3mlwtEIYoorqdINyySb1WOJp7iQcDITcvy3c SzFiThel6N6bGvW3HUuk08kjSNOsPX43nYhZCf2aqAFXPBcZ45 qXR9BWB3kaaaeV1VDLOyFwikkIoRVVRkk8FyTzzgVrUAFFFFAB RRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRR RQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQB/9k=


LOL...It's a hot button topic that's for certain. People get so incensed about it, and I still wonder why? I can appreciate both sides of the debate.I like to say that I align more closely with an objective approach, and most of what Scott P says really resonates with me.

My stance on GW has gone through a progression that can be illustrated with the following rudimentary list:

1. (High School) ---> GW is a hoax.
2. (Early college years) ---> GW is a scam.
3. (Approaching college graduation) ---> OK, maybe there's something to this.
4. (Circa 2006) ---> So it's real, but is it necessarily our fault?
5. (Circa 2012) ---> Wait, they switched it to "Climate Change" now? Hmmmm, sounds convenient.
6. (Circa 2016) ---> Warming slowed down eh? Howcome this isn't front page news?
7. Now ---> Warming? Is there anything we can possibly do to reverse it? If not, then why freak out about it....???

[Scott P]

So I have DDavis telling me 2016 is the hottest on record, ever....then Scott is telling me we're still in an ice age.

Both are correct. The emphasis is on "recorded". Unless of course the dinosaurs were a whole lot smarter than we thought they were.

Although it is known that the Earth was warmer (or colder) in the past, there are no recorded weather readings beyond the past few hundred years. For example, no one could tell you what the exact daily temperature every single day in the year one million years ago, but we can tell what the climate was like from fossil records and other indicators.

There are many ways to do this. Ice cores in Antarctica go back about 1.5 million years. Ice has trapped air bubbles and dust particles. If you wanted to know what the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were, say one million years ago, you would pull a syringed air sample out of a bubble in the ice that corresponds to that age. The air trapped in the ice one million years ago is still the same air that you pull out with a syringe.

Of course, 1.5 million years is really a blink of an eye in geologic terms. Besides ice core samples, there are several other ways to construct climate records. Without going into too much detail, some of the methods are ocean sediment (sediments have been deposited at the bottom of the ocean for millions of years), calcium carbonate deposits, evidence of tree pollen (no tree pollen = too cold or too dry for trees, at least since the existence of trees), etc.

Of course, sometimes it's really easy to tell what the climate was in certain point at time. For example, here is a photo I took of huge petrified logs in the middle of the desert in Utah:

http://www.summitpost.org/images/medium/846643.JPG

Since the log is in the Chinle Formation is from the late Triassic, we can come to the conclusion that the climate in the late Triassic at this location is different from what it is now.

It is also known from the fossil record that mass extinctions occurred at the end of the Permian due to high carbon dioxide levels in the ocean. A lot of species (estimated at 95%) disappeared in the fossil record, and it is also known that few fish survived since the fossil record in the late Triassic is very uniform, which indicates that few fish species survived the extinction. That said though, some other species thrived, such as the trees of which remains are visible in the photo. Obviously, none of this was caused by humans.

So, there are ways of putting together past climate conditions even though there was no one there recording conditions.

Of course, if anyone here believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, disregard this entire post. :haha:


Boy, this one sure gets people all gnarled out! It's occurred to me that those that doubt it are calm and those that advocate it are angry and insulting...not all, of course, but it sure doesn't bode well for a persuasive argument.

Who are you referring to? No one in this conversation has been angry or insulting. :ne_nau:

[stefan]

So the Earth didn't warm at a slower rate for the last 13 years -- it just "redistributed" the heat better? .

just keep in mind, this is about heat retention, which occurs both in the atmosphere and in the ocean (water has a much greater heat capacity) and there is a dynamic heat exchange between the oceans and the atmosphere. during different times the ocean could absorb more heat or give off more heat which could cause an otherwise long-term upward trend to fluctuate in its rate of increase over time (there is evidence for this).



5. (Circa 2012) ---> Wait, they switched it to "Climate Change" now? Hmmmm, sounds convenient.


the term climate change was proposed by republican pollster and wordsmith frank luntz during the bush administration which adopted it to replace global warming. (he's also the one responsible for other greatest hits like death tax, job creators, death panels, gov't takeover of health care, etc.) some view climate change as a more apt way of describing it for a variety of reasons.

[twotimer]

Who are you referring to? No one in this conversation has been angry or insulting. :ne_nau:Oh...that was a couple talking heads I saw on TV last night, or was it today? Last week? 15 years ago? 1979?. I can't remember...

[Slot Machine]

Yale University disagrees with you: http://e360.yale.edu/digest/carbon_emissions_decline_decoupled_economy
Is Yale University a good enough source?

My data (NASA's data) shows CO2 accumulation over time.

Yale's data shows emissions over time.

They are two totally different data sets that don't disagree with one another. Both data sets are likely correct. I'm sorry you did not know the difference.

[Slot Machine]

The real question is would trading in the gas guzzling bad ass Corvette for a strawberry douche powered Toyota Prius really make a difference to global warming.

I don't think the Prius would help at all, because of how humans do things.

We are like ants at a picnic, climbing all over an apple pie. We reproduce and eat as fast as we can, as long as the pie is there. It's like a chemical reaction, and the pie is the rate limiting factor.

If I buy a Prius, my neighbor will have an extra kid and buy an extra Corvette. It is not necessarily what I want to happen, but what will actually happen. If I don't eat the pie another ant will.

[rockgremlin]

My data (NASA's data) shows CO2 accumulation over time.

Yale's data shows emissions over time.

But if emissions have been flat over the last three years, how can CO2 continue to accumulate? Are the natural carbon sinks not absorbing CO2 quickly enough? What's going on here?


They are two totally different data sets that don't disagree with one another. Both data sets are likely correct. I'm sorry you did not know the difference.

Uh, thanks for the heartfelt apology. I think.

I would contend that they aren't totally different. One set describes the amount of CO2 that is being released annually (Yale), the other the rate that the released CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere...one affects the other, right?

[twotimer]

I don't think the Prius would help at all, because of how humans do things.

We are like ants at a picnic, climbing all over an apple pie. We reproduce and eat as fast as we can, as long as the pie is there. It's like a chemical reaction, and the pie is the rate limiting factor.

If I buy a Prius, my neighbor will have an extra kid and buy an extra Corvette. It is not necessarily what I want to happen, but what will actually happen. If I don't eat the pie another ant will.BINGO! This is why I don't worry about it...it's like that movie where the guy is screaming for everyone to calm down while the riot swirls all around him. It's futile.

[Iceaxe]

If I buy a Prius, my neighbor will have an extra kid and buy an extra Corvette. It is not necessarily what I want to happen, but what will actually happen. If I don't eat the pie another ant will.

Silly pony.... no one gets to have another kid along with another Corvette..... that is without doubt an either or type deal. The only thing another kid will get you is a 'mom' car with extra seating.




If I don't eat the pie another ant will.

Are you sure you're not a Republican?

:roflol:

[Slot Machine]

But if emissions have been flat over the last three years, how can CO2 continue to accumulate? Are the natural carbon sinks not absorbing CO2 quickly enough? What's going on here?

I would contend that they aren't totally different. One set describes the amount of CO2 that is being released annually (Yale), the other the rate that the released CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere...one affects the other, right?

The two data sets ARE totally different. One is rate (Yale), the other is quantity (NASA). You were trying to disprove the quantity data with rate data, which does not make sense. You must use quantity data to disprove quantity data.


Silly pony.... no one gets to have another kid along with another Corvette..... that is without doubt an either or type deal. The only thing another kid will get you is a 'mom' car with extra seating.

:lol8::haha::lol8::haha: True dat.



Are you sure you're not a Republican?

No need to call names! :lol8:

It is funny, I had a long, draw out argument with a good friend about 10 years ago about this topic. I thought we could save the world. But then I realized that all fossil fuels are going to get burned no matter what.

Does that make me a realist?

[jman]

But if emissions have been flat over the last three years, how can CO2 continue to accumulate? Are the natural carbon sinks not absorbing CO2 quickly enough? What's going on here?


So we all know that burning fossil fuels creates CO2. Vegetation or anything that uses photosynthesis turns this CO2 into glucose (sugar/energy for the plant) followed by the releasing of Oxygen into the air that we breathe (although we technically breath approx 77% nitrogen, 12% oxygen, and 1% argon).

With the seasons throughout the year, one could say that the Earth "breathes". The world's CO2 levels significantly drop in the spring (as vegetation grows) and exhales in the fall (as the leaves fall off).

What is happening with these burning of fossils fuels is that we are releasing excess CO2 which nature can't and doesn't keep up with. Therefore that CO2 remains in the atmosphere expounding the greenhouse effect.

The planet Venus is quite hot, but not due to its proximity to the sun. The clouds on Venus and its atmosphere is nearly all CO2. Most of the solar rays, or "insolation", doesn't even hit the surface because it is reflected back into space due to Venus's atmosphere.

The worry is that Earth will become like Venus if CO2 increases and isn't controlled.

The worry with climate change/global warming is that these greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) are enhancing global warming (greenhouse effect).

Warming the earth by a few degrees has significant repercussions. And my personal belief is that, yes, us humans are expediting this process due to fossil fuel burning.

The result of global warming are: polar thawing (Greenland, Antarctica), polar ice sea melting, changes in global surface temperatures, more extreme weather, sea-level rise, and loss of habitat.


On a side-note but still relevant, at work there is this large infographic about the temperature inversion in Utah and what pollution source gets added in. Guess what the largest source of this pollutant is (and at 56%) - cars! So it's not the one-offs like stericycle or refineries that are contributing to it. Ironically they are only at 11%.

So I call BS to people who say that them switching to a Prius, for example, is not going to change the world.

With that logic, it is exactly that, a self-fulfilling prophecy. It won't because THEY refuse to change.

But those who are willing to change, willing to adopt cleaner and more earth responsible practices are slowly but steadily changing policy and minds. This is how the world will change. Even China who was horrific with emissions is starting to realize and crack down on these emission controls and has started to become more environmentally conscious. And it's slowly showing that.

Back to my point and relevance of the smog inversion problem in Salt Lake City. So, us common folk, are responsible for more than half of the pollution in the air, yet we point the finger at legislators and say "Fix It!!!!". The irony! *WE* are doing this damage to ourselves, and yet, a bunch of us refuse to change or fix our own habits and lament with the phrase "me switching to a cleaner vehicle will solve nothing".

It's a frustrating cycle as you can see. But thankfully younger generations are growing up to be more earth responsible and more environmentally conscious and not follow the examples of the older generations. We don't need to get crazy or excessive but we are becoming more aware of our human-caused problems.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Iceaxe]

It is funny, I had a long, draw out argument with a good friend about 10 years ago about this topic. I thought we could save the world. But then I realized that all fossil fuels are going to get burned no matter what.

Does that make me a realist?

It makes you pragmatic. You know who else is pragmatic? Donald Trump! I get ya now, a conservative in liberal clothing.

ROFLMAO

[twotimer]

Warming the earth by a few degrees has significant repercussions. And my personal belief is that, yes, us humans are expediting this process due to fossil fuel burning.


But those who are willing to change, willing to adopt cleaner and more earth responsible practices are slowly but steadily changing policy and minds.I'm serious as I ask this...I'm not trying to troll ya. Have you personally banned campfires? Can you enjoy one when someone else fires one up?

[jman]

I'm serious as I ask this...I'm not trying to troll ya. Have you personally banned campfires? Can you enjoy one when someone else fires one up?


Truthfully, yes I can. I mean it's fire. It's hot. It's feels great. Although I try to avoid the ones that are similar to your pic. :P

Is it hypocritical, sure. But just because I enjoy it, does it make it all or nothing, and therefore I shouldn't try to change?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[twotimer]

Truthfully, yes I can. I mean it's fire. It's hot. It's feels great. Although I try to avoid the ones that are similar to your pic. :P

Is it hypocritical, sure. But just because I enjoy it, does it make it all or nothing, and therefore I shouldn't try to change?



Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkWell, you know what they say...every little bit counts, right?

In the middle of May every year, I attend a week long gathering in Moab with mountain biking friends (go to Adventure Trekkers.com to join us) and one of the gals turned 50 so her husband arranged for all the guys to give her a "Chippendales" routine. We have a party with drums and a big fire every night. A sweat lodge, too...clothing optional.

Anyway, most everyone there is liberal...very liberal. Yet they all show up and enjoy the burning of whole trees anyway. It's like the Comedy Central Roasts...all these Jewish, liberal comedians giving themselves a pass from the PC stuff to indulge in gluttony and debauchery that normally is off limits. Check out the last one, the roast of Rob Lowe.

Ants eating the pie! Even if it's just an occasional indulgence.

I asked about the fire because I've actually backpacked with people that forbid them. Not many, but they exist.

[Slot Machine]

@jman (http://www.bogley.com/forum/member.php?u=333), your post above is excellent. I'd like to expand on the big (biggest?) picture- the overall outcome.


So I call BS to people who say that them switching to a Prius, for example, is not going to change the world.

With that logic, it is exactly that, a self-fulfilling prophecy. It won't because THEY refuse to change.

With the Prius, you can change CO2 levels emitted from Salt Lake, but not the world. The fuel you don't burn here will get burned somewhere else. I do agree that everyone in Salt Lake should do their best, pollution wise. The red burn days are helpful, I think we all agree.

A willingness to change will not affect the long-term worldwide outcome. For example, I'm not a gluttonous ant that is eating as much pie as I possibly can. My wife and I are aware of what we burn. Our carbon footprint is a fraction of what it was 3 years ago (because we downsized). But try as I might to conserve, entropy will still win a battle of this scale. My neighbor will burn what I do not, which is neither good nor bad, it simply is what it is.

The real way to reduce carbon emissions would be to reduce the worldwide birth rate significantly, and not create extra neighbors in the first place.

[rockgremlin]

:blahblah: So much talk. So now what?

No way in hell is the entire planet gonna stop burning fossil fuels anytime soon...or at all. So we're just doomed then? San Diego and Miami will drop into the ocean and we'll start farming Greenland? What's the doomsday liberal scenario?

And nobody has told me why the earth cooled in the 1970's. Everyone is conveniently dodging that question.

[hank moon]

And nobody has told me why the earth cooled in the 1970's. Everyone is conveniently dodging that question.

Fake blood from Kennedy assassination burst holding tanks and evaporated.

Fake rocket fuel from model water rocket in fake moon shot sprayed over Earth and evaporated.

Road sign lobby triumph (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law).

U-pick!

[Slot Machine]

No way in hell is the entire planet gonna stop burning fossil fuels anytime soon...or at all. So we're just doomed then? San Diego and Miami will drop into the ocean and we'll start farming Greenland? What's the doomsday liberal scenario?

Why not use the Google machine and find out what is actually gonna happen? http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

I'm still amazed that this is a political topic. It is like saying that the earth being round is a liberal agenda.


And nobody has told me why the earth cooled in the 1970's. Everyone is conveniently dodging that question.

Yeah, that sucks that nobody is taking the time to Google crap that you can Google yourself. STOP DODGING RG'S SIMPLE GOOGLE QUESTIONS EVERYONE! SO RUDE!

It looks like El Nina might be the cause of the fluctuation that you are obsessing over (a routine fluctuation).

85873

What really matters is the average increase in temperature over the past 50 years. An increase of 0.7-0.8 degrees C is a HUGE change over that span of time!

RG, PLEASE take a moment and check out this site (http://www.google.com). It is awesome! :haha:

[tallsteve]

Ok so, what is the solution to GW then if it is indeed man made or exacerbated by man burning fossil fuels? My carbon footprint is already pretty low and I have a hard time even listening to the Al Gore's of the world who's carbon footprint is 1,000 times greater than mine (or more!). I don't hear a lot of reasonable solutions. I have a couple of pretty smart scientist friends who have been constantly complaining on social media lately about our local inversion and the Utah State governments lack of doing anything about it. When I ask what solutions they have to solve the problem, all I get is crickets or the standard, "Well, the government should figure it out" or, the oldy but goody comment, "Governor Herbert is only concerned about big business and doesn't care". What are the solutions?

[Slot Machine]

Ok so, what is the solution to GW then if it is indeed man made or exacerbated by man burning fossil fuels? My carbon footprint is already pretty low and I have a hard time even listening to the Al Gore's of the world who's carbon footprint is 1,000 times greater than mine (or more!). I don't hear a lot of reasonable solutions. I have a couple of pretty smart scientist friends who have been constantly complaining on social media lately about our local inversion and the Utah State governments lack of doing anything about it. When I ask what solutions they have to solve the problem, all I get is crickets or the standard, "Well, the government should figure it out" or, the oldy but goody comment, "Governor Herbert is only concerned about big business and doesn't care". What are the solutions?

The world is round. GW is caused by humans. There is no if.

What can you do?

1. Don't have any more kids.
2. Live only in the space that you need.
3. Drive a smaller and more efficient vehicle.
4. Live closer to work.
5. Recycle.
6. Eat a vegan diet. If you eat meat, avoid beef. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet
7. Don't burn coal or truck tires in your fireplace. :haha:

We used to live in 4,000 sq feet, now we live in 1,100. We did not downsize specifically to decrease our footprint, but it has decreased our use of energy substantially. I eat a vegan diet, but was unaware of the footprint of meat until last year. On the negative side, I drive a awesome SUV that gets 15 mpg, and have no interest in giving that up. I'll give myself a 'B' on the green report card.

What can government do? *throwing out a few obvious ideas*

1. Create policies that move us away from coal/oil, and toward natural gas.
2. Create policies that encourage the development and use of alternative energy.
3. Create policies for cleaner burning cars.

And... ?

[Iceaxe]

GW is caused by humans. There is no if.

Wow! You start right off with a statement that is impossible to prove and is actually the heart of the debate.

There is actually lots of 'if'. Not to mention numerous variations of 'if'.

Wasn't it just a few posts ago where you were admonishing folks for mixing facts with bullshit to try and sway the ignorant?

[rockgremlin]

Wow! You start right off with a statement that is impossible to prove and is actually the heart of the debate.

There is actually lots of 'if'. Not to mention numerous variations of 'if'.

Wasn't it just a few posts ago where you were admonishing folks for mixing facts with bullshit to try and sway the ignorant?

^^^THIS^^^

It seems to me that when it comes to GW, you latch onto only the points that bolster your position. If you disagree, you immediately label them as absurd and cast them aside without a second sniff. In the process, you condescend to anyone else who disagrees.

It's tough to have an objective discussion when your emotions are running the show.

[stefan]

And nobody has told me why the earth cooled in the 1970's. Everyone is conveniently dodging that question.

the timing of the temperature dip/plateau during the 40s through the 70s coincides very well with the pacific decadal oscillation switching into the cool phase and then back into the warm phase. it switches again into the cool phase in 1998 when the next so called pause occurred. it then switched back to warm phase in early 2013 when temps rose rapidly again. note that during this so-called "pause" in the surface temperature data, the ocean temperatures have been consistently rising. the ocean and atmosphere are a connected system and both need to be considered when looking for heat. if the PDO's cool phase is a signal of when the ocean can take in more heat, you can imagine surface temperatures flattening or dipping as additional heat retained would be going into the ocean.

[jman]

Scientists do know that while a volcanic eruption displaces a lot of CO2 in the air, the year or two that follows, the Earth goes into a cooling effect due to the contaminants in the air that reflect insolation (solar energy) back into space.

The last major eruption that had serious atmospheric repercussions which happened in 1992 - Mount Pinatubo (Philippines). And "major" eruption is classified as a 6 and above on the VEI (Volcanic Explosivity Index).

Global temps after the eruption for 3 years (!!!) was nearly 1 degree F cooler. Also, there was a significant drop in the ozone with the release of aerosols from the eruption.

Pinatubo was the last major eruption that put more particulate into the atmosphere since Krakatoa (1880s).

These smaller eruptions since Pinatubo, while significant, are not a major contributor to global CO2 levels increasing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tallsteve]

What can you do?

1. Don't have any more kids.
2. Live only in the space that you need.
3. Drive a smaller and more efficient vehicle.
4. Live closer to work.
5. Recycle.
6. Eat a vegan diet. If you eat meat, avoid beef. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet
7. Don't burn coal or truck tires in your fireplace. :haha:

What can government do? *throwing out a few obvious ideas*

1. Create policies that move us away from coal/oil, and toward natural gas.
2. Create policies that encourage the development and use of alternative energy.
3. Create policies for cleaner burning cars.

And... ?

1. I'm 57 and my wife is 55 so, yeah, we're done. I'd be dead set against US government mandated kid count control, however.
2. My home is modest now.
3. We only own 2 vehicles between the 2 of us and neither is a gas guzzler. I consolidate errand running now and am pretty much a home-body but, I do drive up the canyon near my home often.
4. My office is 2.5 miles from my home now and my wife's office is about 5 miles away. Can't get much closer.
5. When it's presented to me but, I don't sweat over it. I could do better here.
6. Interesting. I've never thought about it as a way to reduce carbon footprint. I eat very, very little beef now. I like turkey, chicken and fish.
7. I only have a gas fireplace which I don't use very often and I can't recall the last time I started a fire of any kind.

I'd probably give myself a B or B- as well.

[Slot Machine]

Wow! You start right off with a statement that is impossible to prove and is actually the heart of the debate.

There is actually lots of 'if'. Not to mention numerous variations of 'if'.

Amongst expert scientists there is no debate. All facts point to one conclusion (a really obvious conclusion).

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Are there black helicopters circling your house or something?

[Slot Machine]

It seems to me that when it comes to GW, you latch onto only the points that bolster your position. If you disagree, you immediately label them as absurd and cast them aside without a second sniff. In the process, you condescend to anyone else who disagrees.

It's tough to have an objective discussion when your emotions are running the show.

I have no vested interest in any position on this topic. All of the data points to one obvious conclusion. It is like saying I'm getting emotional about proving the world is round. I don't care that it is round. All of the evidence speaks to the fact that it is round. You are asking questions about it being round, I'm giving you data about it being round.

Actually, if I were to get emotional and have a personal position, I'd pretend the GW data and conclusions are false. I want to burn gasoline as bad as anyone. That stuff is awesome.

Wow! @jman (http://www.bogley.com/forum/member.php?u=333) and @stefan (http://www.bogley.com/forum/member.php?u=271) are loaded with pertinent info. ^Nice posts^. *impressed*

[Slot Machine]

I'd be dead set against US government mandated kid count control, however.

Why? Not arguing, or saying you are wrong. The US does not need such a mandate, with the exception of Provo (HA!). Really, I'm just curious.

I think that the world has about 4-5 billion too many people, and when oil runs out, the surplus will fight to the death. Luckily for us, we won't be here to see it.

[tallsteve]

Why? Not arguing, or saying you are wrong. The US does not need such a mandate, with the exception of Provo (HA!). Really, I'm just curious.

I think that the world has about 4-5 billion too many people, and when oil runs out, the surplus will fight to the death. Luckily for us, we won't be here to see it.

Religious reasons.

[Iceaxe]

Amongst expert scientists there is no debate. All facts point to one conclusion (a really obvious conclusion).

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Are there black helicopters circling your house or something?

You are wrong and you are again spinning facts and bullshit together to try and support your agenda.... Global warming might be a fact, that is something many will agree with, but that was not your original statement. Your original statement was..........


GW is caused by humans. There is no if.

So.... while global warming might be a fact, exactly how much if any is attributed to human is still very much in debate by most expert scientists.

And don't try and bullshit us that you don't have a dog in this fight. Reading your posts anyone can see you're the guy giving Al Gore a hand job, not that there is anything wrong with that....

:kickit:

[twotimer]

So I have DDavis telling me 2016 is the hottest on record, ever....then Scott is telling me we're still in an ice age.

Well, if both of them are right then we're REALLY screwed!

[rockgremlin]

There are continual comparisons between GW and the earth being round. But that's an apples and oranges comparison. One need only hike atop a large mountain and see the curvature to prove the rotundity of the earth. GW is different. The amount of observations and calculations that go into global climate data is massive, and changing all the time.

That said, I'm going to refer back to what I said waaay back on page 1: The earth is warming, no doubt. But the degree to which man is affecting that is up for debate...that is NOT debatable. There's no humanly way that we can claim "well if we had never burned fossil fuels the earth would be x degrees cooler."

So, GW is real. But what are we gonna do about it? It's nice that people don't have kids and ride bikes to work, but this is a global issue...which means that everybody the world over has to contribute to the solution. Good luck trying to convince the world's 7 billion people to convert to veganism, live in solar power yurts, and get around via bicycles and rickshaws.

In other words, it's nice that us white folks here in America can "decrease our carbon footprint," but honestly, in the grand scheme of things it's really only just allowing us to sleep better at night.

[jman]

In other words, it's nice that us white folks here in America can "decrease our carbon footprint," but honestly, in the grand scheme of things it's really only just allowing us to sleep better at night.

Are you implying "why bother then" or am I just inferring that?

And actually the world is waking up and becoming more conscious of these things.

Europe and Australia is on board when it comes emission controls and pollution. China is starting to change their ways. I'm not sure about Russia, Africa or South America, but us folks in America aren't the only ones who are caring about this issue.

And sure it may take decades to change, but it will happen. The traditions of your fathers are dying at a rapid pace and the younger generations are stepping up to the plate.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Slot Machine]

You are wrong and you are again spinning facts and bullshit together to try and support your agenda.... Global warming might be a fact, that is something many will agree with, but that was not your original statement. Your original statement was..........

What is my agenda? Studying data and coming to logical conclusions? If so, guilty as charged.


.... while global warming might be a fact, exactly how much if any is attributed to human is still very much in debate by most expert scientists.

How about some hard data form the IPCC (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/27/global-warming-ipcc-report-humans)? The IPCC shows that the earth would be cooler than it was in 1950, had we left the planet alone. So, we are responsible for MORE than 100% of the global warming observed since 1950. How is that for quantity? Is the IPCC not legit enough for you?

If you have data to refute this, now is your chance to shine. :kickit:

85874


don't try and bullshit us that you don't have a dog in this fight. Reading your posts anyone can see you're the guy giving Al Gore a hand job, not that there is anything wrong with that....

I could care less about the political side of this. This is about thwarting ignorance to me.

This is fun. I could dunk over you naysayers with science all. day. long.

http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/51b5f6feeab8eacb64000022/lebron-jason-terry-dunk-gif.gif

[Slot Machine]

There are continual comparisons between GW and the earth being round. But that's an apples and oranges comparison. One need only hike atop a large mountain and see the curvature to prove the rotundity of the earth. GW is different. The amount of observations and calculations that go into global climate data is massive, and changing all the time.

Hundreds of years ago, claiming the earth was round was a serious topic of debate. Now those debates seem silly. After 10 years of looking at quality GW data, it seems silly (at least to me) to continue debating today. It is apples/apples to me.

However, I see how it is apples/oranges to you. I encourage you to keep looking at data. (not being snarky for a change)


So, GW is real. But what are we gonna do about it? It's nice that people don't have kids and ride bikes to work, but this is a global issue...which means that everybody the world over has to contribute to the solution. Good luck trying to convince the world's 7 billion people to convert to veganism, live in solar power yurts, and get around via bicycles and rickshaws.

In other words, it's nice that us white folks here in America can "decrease our carbon footprint," but honestly, in the grand scheme of things it's really only just allowing us to sleep better at night.

I agree with you on this^. We can do better, but it won't be good enough to make a substantial difference. The situation seems hopeless to me.

[rockgremlin]

Yea!! Me and Mr. Machine found some common ground!!

For the record, I reiterate that I don't refute that GW exists, just the degree of man's complicity in it.

I think the key to overcoming carbon emissions and hence GW lies in technology. Once we engineer a solar cell with the capability to efficiently produce as much energy as fossil fuels then that will be the turning point. Once solar makes fossil fuels obsolete we're golden. We're not there yet. But I believe possibly my children might live to see it happen. And that's what helps me sleep better at night. Well, that and eucalyptus/spearmint pillow mist. :)

[Slot Machine]

Yea!! Me and Mr. Machine found some common ground!!
:2thumbs:


Fot the record, I reiterate that I don't refute that GW exists, just the degree of man's complicity in it.

Dig into the IPCC data above. The chart I posted paints a clear picture. 100% our fault.

Summarized-

"Put it all together, and the IPCC is 95 percent confident that humans have caused most of the observed global surface warming over the past 60 years. Their best estimate is that humans have caused 100 percent of that global warming."


I think the key to overcoming carbon emissions and hence GW lies in technology. Once we engineer a solar cell with the capability to efficiently produce as much energy as fossil fuels then that will be the turning point. Once solar makes fossil fuels obsolete we're golden. We're not there yet. But I believe possibly my children might live to see it happen. And that's what helps me sleep better at night. Well, that and eucalyptus/spearmint pillow mist. :)

I wish that solar could replace oil, but it can't. Oil is very energy dense, but sunlight is not. 100% efficient solar cells don't even come close to competing with oil.

Natural gas will be a good replacement for a while. Once that runs out, humanity will suffer badly. But look at the bright side, CO2 emissions will come down during the apocalypse. Yay! :haha:

[Iceaxe]

Lemonade out of lemons....

......so tell me again why I should have my panties in a bunch over global warming? I really wasn't listening the first time as I was too busy riding my mountain bike in the middle of February. I have to say I'm not really seeing much of a downside today.


https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170209/ea064140a373be93cd7afd0286f3872b.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170209/df9749dd9e279a916503714d4fc8322b.jpg

[ddavis]

NCAA cooked the books on climate change.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/07/federal-scientist-cooked-climate-change-books-ahead-obama-presentation-whistle-blower-charges.html

A not-scandal, you mean. This is what the whistleblower himself has to say:
https://skepticalscience.com/bates-knew-people-would-misuse-accusations-to-attack-climate-science.html




https://skepticalscience.com/images/_core/head/right_top_shadow.gifWhistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did - to attack climate science

(http://www.skepticalscience.com/bates-knew-people-would-misuse-accusations-to-attack-climate-science.html)Posted on 9 February 2017 by dana1981

This weekend, conservative media outlets launched an attack on climate scientists (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/05/mail-on-sunday-launches-the-first-salvo-in-the-latest-war-against-climate-scientists) with a manufactured scandal. The fake news originated from an accusation made by former NOAA scientist John Bates about a 2015 paper by some of his NOAA colleagues. The technical term to describe the accusation is ‘a giant nothingburger (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nothingburger)’ (in this case, a NOAA-thing burger (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/02/serving-up-a-noaa-thing-burger/)) as Bates clarified in an interview with E&E News (http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630):
The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.


Bates later told Science Insider (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study) that he was concerned that climate science deniers would misuse his complaints, but proceeded anyway because he felt it was important to start a conversation about data integrity:
I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people.


“Misuse” is the understatement of the year

Misuse it people did – and how! Bates’ complaints boiled down (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study) to the fact that the paper didn’t have “a disclaimer at the bottom saying that it was citing research, not operational, data for its land-surface temperatures.” The Mail on Sunday (just banned by Wikipedia as an unreliable source (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website)) warped that minor procedural criticism into the sensationalist headline (https://web.archive.org/web/20170205000557/http:/www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html) “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.”

[twotimer]

Lemonade out of lemons....

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170209/ea064140a373be93cd7afd0286f3872b.jpg

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170209/df9749dd9e279a916503714d4fc8322b.jpgIndeed...81 here in Denver today, so my friend Dave and I took advantage of it. I'm kinda diggin' the GW thing, too. Although it's supposed to snow 5 inches here in town before Monday night.

[oldno7]

of course--scientist never have a political agenda....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

[oldno7]

Lots of facts and squiggly lines, for those so inclined..

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/25/monckton-fires-back-point-by-point-rebuttal-at-warmist-critics-of-new-peer-reviewed-study-shoddy-rent-a-quote-scientists/

[oldno7]

nooo...

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/

[oldno7]

chart, some like charts..

of course--this one only goes back 65 million years--purely anecdotal..

[oldno7]

Of course I don't have a dog in this fight:roflol:

I think I'll go buy another diesel truck and see if I can help cut Utah down to 3 seasons.

I say--drive more--Winter sucks:nod:

[Slot Machine]

@oldno7 (http://www.bogley.com/forum/member.php?u=2899)

Reposting links without an opinion or analysis is not the same as providing content for Bogley. Some of those charts might have meaning if you had the ability to explain them.

Repotsing links by themselves just so boring. Please try harder.

*yawn

[oldno7]

^^
But you see--we've already done this ad naseum on other threads.

You don't have proof to convince me and I don't have proof to convince you...

skewed data and lying/bought out scientist, does not agw make:roll:

[Iceaxe]

^^^THIS^^^

The discussion on Bogley is just a microcosm of the world discussion.

Slot Machine believes all his pie charts, graphs and power point presentation are absolutely correct and without fault and all of yours are pure male bovine excrement.

[rockgremlin]

I'm still trying to figure out Mr. Machine. Out of one side of his mouth he claims man is unequivocally responsible for global warming. And then out of the other side of his mouth he admits to the futility and hopelessness of the situation.

If it's hopeless, untwist your panties, take a deep breath, and go do summore canyons. And along the way have the peace of mind of knowing that although this planet may be hurling towards a toasty end, there is little we can do to stop it...least of all by arguing on Bogley.

:kickit::kickit::kickit:

[Slot Machine]

You don't have proof to convince me and I don't have proof to convince you...

If you provide peer-reviewed data, you could convince me. If you took a moment to explain your seemingly random links and charts, that would help too. Random links does not content make.

There are bought out and sold out scientists, I know. However, you can check studies and see. Generally, legitimate scientists throw quacks under the bus, so their careers are short-lived.


The discussion on Bogley is just a microcosm of how people talk when they don't understand how to interpret scientific data.Fixed that for you.

Worldwide, people generally understand the data.


I'm still trying to figure out Mr. Machine. Out of one side of his mouth he claims man is unequivocally responsible for global warming. And then out of the other side of his mouth he admits to the futility and hopelessness of the situation.

Yes! What is happening and what we can do about it are two separate conversations.

To review, I'm saying out of all three sides of my mouth-
1. The climate is warming rapidly.
2. It is 100% our fault.
3. We probably can't do anything about it, because people love burning fossil fuel.

You totally get me bruh! *hugs*

[rockgremlin]

85886

[oldno7]

In past posts, I've posted many peer reviewed papers that dispel your myth.

Peer reviewed only means that each person reviewing received a $25,000 free grant.

many to go around for all sides.

If you think "science" is free of politics--your delusional--oh, wait, never mind!

[rockgremlin]

Remember when John Kerry dropped this bomb? (Speaking in Paris last April)


“The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.

“If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions – remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions – it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.”

[oldno7]

heres a paper for our little man

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21604895

:roflol:

[rockgremlin]

New Rule. This discussion can only be continued using cartoons.


85887

85888

[Iceaxe]

Worldwide, people generally understand the data.

Again you fall back to your standard defence of mixing facts and bullshit.... you are correct in the fact people generally understand the data... but again you miss the fact that people generally interpret the data differently.

[twotimer]

heres a paper for our little man

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21604895

:roflol:Oh, for cryin' out loud...I really did NOT want to see that!

[oldno7]

https://nsf.gov/oig/case-closeout/A13030037.pdf

https://nsf.gov/oig/case-closeout/A13070076.pdf

Don't get me wrong--Science is a great asset to civilization but as great as it can/could be,it is significantly lessened my people who are chasing dollars instead of sound/un desputable science and scientific facts the leave no wiggle room for the term "settled science".

[Scott P]

https://nsf.gov/oig/case-closeout/A13030037.pdf

https://nsf.gov/oig/case-closeout/A13070076.pdf

Don't get me wrong--Science is a great asset to civilization but as great as it can/could be,it is significantly lessened my people who are chasing dollars instead of sound/un desputable science and scientific facts the leave no wiggle room for the term "settled science".

This is an honest question.

Do you really think that all scientists who believe in Global Warming are only doing so for more money and that it is all a world wide conspiracy to destroy capitalism by providing clean air? :ne_nau: For most weather and climate researchers, Global Warming is only a tiny percentage of what climatologists and meteorologists research.

It seems that if money were the only motivation for the conspiracy, they would go to the oil companies or other rich industries, and come up with a better/scarier theory, since that is much more lucrative business.

[oldno7]

Don't believe in conspiracy theories..(generally)

Do believe that there is enough evidence of fraud in the scientific community to doubt their "settled science"

the earth has warmed, the earth has cooled, I doubt anyone here and mostly you, have curtailed their outdoor activities to accommodate agw speculation.

If Scott P. was worried about it--his global footprint wouldn't be one of the size to dwarf godzilla. (godzilla is real, isn't it?)

If your not worried--I'm not worried:roflol:

[Slot Machine]

Do believe that there is enough evidence of fraud in the scientific community to doubt their "settled science.

Please provide this evidence.

If you post a link, please provide:

1: A link to a reputable source. Discussing mediocre references is a waste of time.

2. A brief explanation of your link.

3. Your opinion of your link. The audience can't and won't come to your conclusion for you.

Thanks.

:popcorn:

[Slot Machine]

people generally interpret the data differently.

I love watching you lose it when I miss one word. It is like you've won the Bogley lottery and magically you've made your point. Here is a Keenex. Please wipe off your hands. :haha:

Scientists and researchers generally, almost universally, understand the data.

If you don't understand the data, it doesn't mean it isn't valid. If you don't agree with facts, they don't magically become untrue.

[Iceaxe]

1: A link to a reputable source.

ROFLMAO....

You really just don't get it do you? That is a big part of the issue. We could probably spend the next year discussing what is a reputable source. That could easily turn into a bigger debate then who, if anyone, is responsible for global warming.

***insert guy eating popcorn here***

[Scott P]

.....I doubt anyone here and mostly you.....

If Scott P. was worried about it--his global footprint wouldn't be one of the size to dwarf godzilla. (godzilla is real, isn't it?)

Where did you come up with that conclusion? My carbon footprint is more than triple digit-negative; off set through rainforest reforestation through the Nature Conservancy. Before being critical of that though, I have never said that you should be forced to do the same, nor have I ever bragged about it, nor been critical of anyone else who doesn't. If you believe that it is all bogus, then there is no harm in contributing to reforestation anyway and it is still a good cause either way.

I have never believed in the all or nothing approach or attitude. I even work in highway engineering. To say that all humans should immediately stop using electricity or fuels is fallacy.

More concerning to me than Global Warming, however, is pollution in general. Everyone who visits or lives in Utah during the winter time, which is probably the majority of Bogley members can see it. So, while it is fallacy to say that humans should immediately stop using electricity or fuels, it is also fallacy to do nothing at all. Collectively, we should all be interested in finding ways to cut pollution, just as we should for eliminating terrorism (though pollution kills a lot more). It would have a lot of side benefits as well.

While places like Denver, Salt Lake City, or Los Angeles may have bad air at times, it isn't comparable to cities in India or China. I think anyone who has visited some of those places would actually be glad that we have regulations here. While the US does use a lot of energy, over-all we are pretty clean users of it, at least compared to much of the world.

[Slot Machine]

You really just don't get it do you? That is a big part of the issue. We could probably spend the next year discussing what is a reputable source.

I get it. You don't know a good source from a bad source. I am listening.

Did you know that scientists are trained to evaluate studies and look for flaws in them? Did you know that I had to train to do this for a year? Did you know that there are great places to get good data?

Go ahead. Post some data that you think is good. I'll tell you if it is crap. Double dog dare you.

I bet your next post has zero data and a zippy one liner. :getiton:

[twotimer]

Help me out. Opening a can of worms here. I don't know what to believe about global warming. Is it real or made up? Oh yes...a can of worms indeed! So, seven pages in...been swayed one way or the other?

[twotimer]

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSP05FEYSiWAln02JwE5UwgqNUJ4nM34 hr0yZwRxFSXsYZc1bGSCw

[oldno7]

So you don't accept the above papers from NSF, in regards to plagiarism and fabricated/falsified data?

Do you even science :roflol:

A hint for you, the rose color your seeing all scientist in--it's just your glasses.

I'm guessing you have a special room for your stack of participation trophies.:nod:

[oldno7]

How about scientific consensus, are you good with that?:haha:

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.JFDZkxCl.dpbs

[rockgremlin]

How about scientific consensus, are you good with that?:haha:

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.JFDZkxCl.dpbs

Interesting link. But I can guaran-damn-tee that the AGW sympathizers will take one look at the title and dismiss the rest of the entire article as hogwash as it doesn't support their stance.

Therein lies the fatal flaw in the AGW debate --- both sides use data not to discover truth, but to prove the other side wrong.

[tallsteve]

Oh yes...a can of worms indeed! So, seven pages in...been swayed one way or the other?

Ha, ha! Yeah, the confusion is real...that and just my overall distrust of big government. Honestly, other than the finger pointing, there's been some good discussion here. I'm leaning towards believing global warming is real and that I need to make a more concerted, personal effort to reduce my carbon footprint.

[Slot Machine]

So you don't accept the above papers from NSF, in regards to plagiarism and fabricated/falsified data?

Please read and summarize your own crappy links so I don't have to.

Those links are the NSF scolding one university. It does not even mention climate change. (???)

Data Grade: F


How about scientific consensus, are you good with that?:haha:

http://notrickszone.com/285-papers-70s-cooling-1/#sthash.PJoHxopP.JFDZkxCl.dpbs

If we lived in 1989, then yes, I would be good with that. But we live in 2017. That collection of studies has not been relevant for many years. Sorry.

Data Grade: F

Please look at the chart below. The phenomenon we are talking about becomes prominent around 1970.

85890

[Slot Machine]

both sides use data not to discover truth, but to prove the other side wrong.

Scientists don't work like politicians. The person that discovers the truth gets the glory. It is a race to the truth, not a race to prove another person wrong.

Let's take the problem of dark matter for example. Do you think the top theoretical physicists have a political stance on that topic? Certainly not. Each of them wants to go down in the history books as the person that was brilliant enough to solve the puzzle. They do review and debunk each other, but that is not their main focus.

Climate change science basically works the same way. Each scientist wants to find the best data. They get no prize for agreeing with Al Gore. Actually, Al Gore used their data, so he is agreeing with them.

Occasionally you will discover a bought and paid for scientist, like Willie Soon, that has a stance that breaks far from the data. For those that don't know, he was paid $1.25M by Exxon, The Southern Company, and the American Petroleum Institute (Koch Brothers) to lie to the public.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

And yet again, nobody is providing any data for this mythical 'other side' that you speak of RG. The data has to have two sides for there to be another side. Right?

[oldno7]

whooaaaa, I got F's from you??

So I am right:roflol:

[Slot Machine]

I love dunking over people with science!

Me dunking over @Iceaxe (http://www.bogley.com/forum/member.php?u=36) with science!
https://i.makeagif.com/media/5-10-2015/FW4RQL.gif


Me dunking over @oldno7 (http://www.bogley.com/forum/member.php?u=2899) with science!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--WJ2KIpqcq4/Un4x6ASNUNI/AAAAAAAAAGA/gM1kQ6x_ku8/s1600/Kemp+on+Elliot.gif

I think @rockgremlin (http://www.bogley.com/forum/member.php?u=5) is sort of trying to understand. So I’ll just show him how to dunk with science!
http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1237977573_dunk.gif

@oldno7 (http://www.bogley.com/forum/member.php?u=2899) dunking with science!
http://www.gifbin.com/bin/052012/1336405435_fat_guy_trampoline_dunk_fail.gif

Bring it.

[jman]

And yet again, nobody is providing any data for this mythical 'other side' that you speak of RG. The data has to have two sides for there to be another side. Right?

Here are some correlations that I have noticed with climate-change deniers.

-people in this group are typically conservatives (not that there is any wrong with this), but with this they are already skeptical of government related-anything. They "hate" (my word) anything the government has its hands on. They LOVE the privatization of everything.

(I had a fun discussion with a coworker of mine who is a climate-change denier and was telling him that I am grateful that the demand for coal is going away and being replaced by renewable energies. My coworker insists on the privatization of everything but when it comes to coal and oil, he gets defensive and said "well, what about these miners? What jobs will they be going to? This will hurt their industry!". Of course it will! And privatization is survival of the fittest in its essence. But yet he was worried that this lack of oil demand was going to hurt the miners. I replied, "well, they will need to adapt and perhaps it's an industry that just needs to go away". He didn't like that answer. The irony of privatization and the oil industry. Oh and of course, they love it when fuel prices are $4.00+. Lol

-This same group is pro-energy development, but not for renewable sources, but specifically from coal and oil (which is interesting to me). Although ironically, only 33% of the electricity in the US is produced via coal. And they want more coal! They fail to realize they renewable energy is gathering a lot of momentum and demand for this type of energy will far out weigh renewables in the future. And thankfully.

- this same group, in my opinion, seem to me believe more in conspiracy theories compared to their counterparts. These are the "truthers" of 9-11, how the Apollo Landing was staged, JFK shooting...and of course, Climate change. This ties again to the first point that the government is out "to get them" and screw them.

- this same group has a hard time with the name transition from the name "Global Warming" to now "Climate Change". Therefore it's all a hoax to them or made-up since scientists "can't make up their minds".

- I have noticed, with my friends and family who are these "anti" or "denier" groups drive larger, gas-guzzling vehicles. And when you drive vehicles that love guzzling liquid gold...it would make sense to be anti-global change. It makes sense to me because you have skin in the game and don't want your vehicle to be more regulated as they "roll coal" down the freeways.

- this same group typically listen to the same echo-chamber, championed by ring-leader Rush Limbaugh. There are others, but Rush is the main champion of this group. And remember Rush is just a talking-head, he isn't a "scientist" isn't the slightest yet people swear by his knowledge and experience.

-this same group is nearly 100% sure and positive and close-minded when it comes to new data points in regards to climate change. They know 100% for a FACT (!!) that it is all made-up and it's just a government ploy to put down the man.

- I have noticed a certain demographic with these climate-change deniers, not that there is anything implied or wrong with this but it Is interesting. They typically seem to be 50years of age and older. Call it ageism, but there is a correlation.

-for some strange reason, people in this same group believe that one volcano eruption spews out more pollution and CO2 than man can do in 2 years (!!), despite (a lot of) evidence to the contrary. I'm not sure where this group gets that piece of info from, but it's obviously coming from the same echo-chamber. And my guess is Rush. Just a guess though. But it strikes me as odd of the number of times I have heard that almost exact-phrase being often repeated.

Now, Correlation isn't causation, but I love context. And knowing how this group thinks or where they get their information (the Rush Limbaugh echo chamber, for example).

:)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rockgremlin]

"both sides use data not to discover truth, but to prove the other side wrong."


^^^^ Btw, that comment was aimed specifically at the Boglites that post in this thread.

And again, I reaffirm that I am not a GW denier. (For the third time).

And I'm not a conspiracy theorist either, although if you think Oswald was capable of splattering Kennedy's brains all over the trunk of his limo by shooting a moving target at an oblique rear angle from six stories up you need to go get your own head examined. Can we just agree that the very laws of physics prove this to be patently absurd?

[Scott P]

My coworker insists on the privatization of everything but when it comes to coal and oil, he gets defensive and said "well, what about these miners? What jobs will they be going to? This will hurt their industry!". Of course it will! And privatization is survival of the fittest in its essence. But yet he was worried that this lack of oil demand was going to hurt the miners. I replied, "well, they will need to adapt and perhaps it's an industry that just needs to go away". He didn't like that answer. The irony of privatization and the oil industry. Oh and of course, they love it when fuel prices are $4.00+. Lol

Perhaps the below isn't "politically correct", but it is my experience.

The miners will be hurt if the coal mines shut down and towns will not adapt. I live in a coal mining town and used to work in a unionized coal mine.

From my experience at least, the picture of a hard working coal miner with his pick and shovel in hand isn't realistic. In reality, most (but certainly not all) coal miners work above ground and never get their hands dirty. At the unionized mines at least, the union provides job security and it is almost impossible to get fired. One miner I worked with almost killed someone by plowing his truck into a grader. He was fired, but the union made the company take him back.

Most unionized mine workers that I worked with tended to be lazy since the union prevent almost anyone from being fired (only one person got permanently fired when I worked there but he was going 62 mph in a 10 mph zone in a 120 ton payload truck, wrecked the $3.8 million vehicle and took out the power lines). When I worked there at least, the miners would take double their allotted break times and one of my jobs was to try and get them to fill out their time sheets correctly. I thought I could do this by being friendly (which I always was), but if you wore the white hat, you were the enemy.

The thing about coal mining is that it pays $40-50 per hour, plus great benefits, for what is a surprisingly cushy job for most (or at least more cushy that it would seem for most). (Of course not all union coal mining jobs are cushy). Most coal miners aren't educated. A lot of them can't read and write. The prevailing attitude among many in coal mining towns, including this one, is "why finish high school or go to college, when I can go work at the coal mines for a lot more money?".

So, you have a lot of people with very little education (several of which cannot read or write), who are used to having job security, great benefits, a relatively cushy job, and who are used to making $40-50 an hour.

There is no way that they will adapt. They aren't going to find equivalent jobs for the same rate of pay and benefits. There is no way. Having a coal mine shut down really does devastate a town and those type of jobs don't come back. Retraining the coal miners or hoping that they will adapt really doesn't seem realistic.

[tallsteve]

jman- I am a conservative and I am skeptical of government, but...
-I am pro-energy development from renewable sources. Not a fan of coal.
-Not a conspiracy theorist.
-I do think the name change from Global Warming to Climate Change was a bit silly but, nothing more.
-Don't drive a big gas guzzler vehicle and don't even own one.
-Don't listen to Rush or Beck or pretty much any of them. Not a Fox news watcher, either (I don't watch any station, however).
-Admittedly, I have a hard time looking at data. My brain isn't wired for numbers- never has been. That's why I posted my initial question to begin with. I have seen data manipulated before to meet a certain end, though (in businesses I was employed at)
-I am 57 years old.
Did I debunk your theory about conservatives?

....and, Slot Machine, I could still dunk when I was 40 years old. Haven't even attempted it since then :haha:

[rockgremlin]

^^^ Scott, what you're describing is typical of pretty much any union setting. I've worked for both unionized and non-unionized mines, and I can tell you there is a very stark difference between the two. You're dead on about the union setting. Laziness is rampant, as are entitlements. But in a non union setting, people bust ass a lot more, because they know they could be fired for talking out of turn, or taking two minutes longer than they should've for lunch.

Union jobs are retirement homes, non union jobs are revolving doors.

[oldno7]

dunking over---come on, in real life, you can't even touch the net:roflol:

But--fantasize away........:facepalm1:

[twotimer]

Personally, I'm neither a denier nor an advocate. I just don't really care, as the climate is (and has been) suitable for me to work and play. There seems to be quite a bit of BS and trickery with the whole AGW thing though, so I snicker at that...like I would anyone who says pay attention to this hand and ignore the other.

I also believe that eventually (50 years? 200 years?) the dookie is going to hit he fan in regards to population and resources...not to mention political and religious upheaval mixed in. I think we are living right now in the apex of humanity. Seen the movies Soylent Green or Blade Runner?

I have a date with Death sometime before 2060. I just hope everything remains stable until then.

[rockgremlin]

I think even more applicable than Soylent Green or Blade Runner is Huxley's "Brave New World," where man's downfall will be his over-obsession with pleasure. Where facts would be drowned in a sea of distractions, and deemed irrelevant. Sounds pretty similar to today's current society, eh?

[twotimer]

I think the more interesting discussion would be what the future holds for mankind, as I'd like to see 8 or more pages of varying opinions on that, because that's really the end all be all.

[Iceaxe]

@Slot Machine (http://www.bogley.com/forum/member.php?u=20293) - your tour guide to everything that is wrong with the discussion on global warming..

FWIW - Repackaging the Kool-Aid as "Country Time", but adding the meaningless "New and Improved!" label doesn't count as science.

I really wish I could take something, anything, meaningful away from this thread but I can't.

***kicks a rock as he slowly walks away***

[Slot Machine]

FWIW - Repackaging the Kool-Aid as "Country Time", but adding the meaningless "New and Improved!" label doesn't count as science.

YESSS!! :rock:

I bet your next post has zero data and a zippy one liner. :getiton:

Woohoo! Called it!! :lol8: Dunked that one!

https://i.makeagif.com/media/5-11-2015/EXeE7o.gif

You keep screaming from the rooftops what is wrong, but don't have the audacity to say what you think is right. Sup wit dat?

[oldno7]

up there little guy, thats the basket...

[Iceaxe]

You keep screaming from the rooftops what is wrong, but don't have the audacity to say what you think is right. Sup wit dat?

The 'right' thing for folks to do is to stop manipulating data and spinning facts to support their agenda.

Game/set/match

[Slot Machine]

Game/set/match

Aw hell naw. You don't even have your tennis shoes laced up yet! If you haven't noticed, this is not a political thread, as badly as you would like it to turn into one.

This thread is about knowing what to believe when it comes to climate science. The data speaks for itself if you are familiar with the scientific process.


I really wish I could ADD something, anything, meaningful TO this thread but I can't.

Fixed that for you... again! :lol8:

[Slot Machine]

up there little guy, thats the basket...

I think it is funny that you keep plodding ahead, pretending to know anything about this topic, using a strategy of posting one naked link after another, as if if you are contributing.

If there was a thread about corn cob pipes, overalls, or banjos, I'd know that I'd be at a HUGE disadvantage in a discussion with you. I simply don't have the training or decades of experience that you have with those things. Unless I had questions, sitting on the sidelines would be the best course of action for threads about those topics.

[oldno7]

The only pretending going on here is you thinking your a tall/black/ basketball player...:haha:

Yep, us Southern hillbillies, we be extremely deplorably and mighty proud of it.

BTW--you got beat up a lot in jr. high and high school didn't you:roflol:

small man syndrome, you's got it.....

By the way--you heard our guy Trump was abolishing any records of climate change, didn't you?:mrgreen:

yep--we're still winning...

[oldno7]

Oh--and I know a lot about climate change--was 64 here yesterday.

Up to 72, right now.

Thats likely more than you "claim" to know..

seemed to change in 24 hours...

crazy..

[Slot Machine]

The only pretending going on here is you thinking your a tall/black/ basketball player...:haha:

It is unfortunate that my metaphor is lost on you. I'll dumb it down next time around. :bandit:

On the bright side, I'm pretty stoked that you now know how how climate change works. Learning all of that new information wasn't so bad, now was it? I hope that you share your new knowledge with all of your friends. *high five*

That is enough science for now. I have a two week vacation in the Caribbean to attend to.

*dusts off hands*

Slot Machine

[twotimer]

That is enough science for now. I have a two week vacation in the Caribbean to attend to.


Hey Bob, have a good time! Slow down and soak up every minute, 'cuz it's all just waiting for you back home.:2thumbs:

[rockgremlin]

Slot Machine - Here's some ammo for the next time you argue with someone over whether or not the earth is round...


85903

[Iceaxe]

Slot Machine


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu3XAeQa3x8

[kiwi_outdoors]

this thread is no good without a poll

[qedcook]

Are there actually people who think the earth is flat, or is that a fabrication of the liberal media to be able to attack people by calling them flat-earthers? Think about it!!! Which is more likely??? :naughty:

[twotimer]

I think even more applicable than Soylent Green or Blade Runner is Huxley's "Brave New World," where man's downfall will be his over-obsession with pleasure. Where facts would be drowned in a sea of distractions, and deemed irrelevant. Sounds pretty similar to today's current society, eh?One of the possible answers to the Fermi Paradox (where are all the aliens?) is that their society is so technologically advanced that there's no need to travel thru space, or spend the resources trying. Living in a "Matrix", where everything they need and desire is provided. We may actually get there before we get anywhere past Mars.

[Iceaxe]

Are there actually people who think the earth is flat, or is that a fabrication of the liberal media to be able to attack people by calling them flat-earthers? Think about it!!! Which is more likely??? :naughty:

No one here thinks the earth is flat. That is Slot Machine doing his usual mixing of facts and bullshit and trying to sell it as the complete unbiased truth.

[tallsteve]

I found this article interesting about a new study: http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/

[Iceaxe]

Bill Nye the science guy gets destroyed by Tucker Carlson as he tries to argue from the same perspective Slot Machine always argues from.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKMxmYcfw8Q

[twotimer]

Yeah, I saw that last night. Mr. Nye cited the "fact" that you can grow grapes in England nowadays when (supposedly) in the past, you couldn't. A quick google of "growing grapes in England" revealed that to be an exaggeration.

That's the problem with these guys trying to sell the AGW thing, they sprinkle sensational bullshit into their arguments. He also gave Tucker some beef for having kids. Just another know it all judgemental snob.

BTW...it's the last day of February, it's 6:30 here in Denver, there's a fresh coat of snow on everything and it's a chilly 23 degrees. Global warming my ass.

[Scott P]

BTW...it's the last day of February, it's 6:30 here in Denver, there's a fresh coat of snow on everything and it's a chilly 23 degrees. Global warming my ass.

Really? And what about the rest of the month?

85991

85992

85993

85994

[twotimer]

Really? And what about the rest of the month?

The rest of the month was absolutely fantastic for mountain biking in the lower foothills. I loved it...it's also something that occurs here in the front range nearly every winter. A nice dry spell in January and/or February, with those groovy Chinook winds.

Within the next two weeks little green things will start popping out of the ground. We'll also get more heavy, wet snow.

Nothing new under the sun, really.

[Iceaxe]

Really? And what about the rest of the month?

Same old argument... no one denies the climate is changing.... but to what extent are humans responsible?

[Scott P]

Same old argument... no one denies the climate is changing.... but to what extent are humans responsible?

That would be a difficult question to answer. (An even harder question to answer is what the effects will be, both positive and negative [yes there would be positives to parts of the world as well]).

There are basically four different "factors" that cause climate change. (Note edited; I should have mentioned continental drift!).

1. Changes to Sun activity.

2. Changes to the tilt of the Earth and orbital variations (maybe that could be two things, but changes to the Earth's position is the single key here).

3. Continental drift.

4. Changes to atmospheric chemistry.

Natural events can change (and have changed since the earth began) any one of these. Humans could only potentially change one of these (unless we come up with a bigger bomb). It can't be argued however that changing the atmospheric chemistry of the atmosphere won't cause any change. That is scientifically impossible. What is difficult however, is to calculate how much change should be attributed to each factor. Also, the first three factors should favor a very slight cooling in recent years. If this isn't happening, factor 4 must have some effect.

Do you think it is possible to change the atmospheric chemistry and not have change occur? If so, why?

Also, why is Venus hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is much closer to the sun?

Why is the average temperature of the moon about 60F degrees colder than that of the earth?

I really think that you are smart enough to answer those questions.

PS, as for the record highs in Denver, I was just wondering why this month's conditions were used for the statement "Global warming my ass", when the month was actually well above normal. It cannot be claimed that the high temperatures were due global warming. Although global warming could potentially add a degree or two, most of the record heat in Denver was due to La Niña/positive phase of the El Niño Southern Oscillation.


it's also something that occurs here in the front range nearly every winter. A nice dry spell in January and/or February, with those groovy Chinook winds.

Nothing new under the sun, really.

80 degrees does not occur in Denver every winter, in fact before this year it has never occurred anytime during the meteorological winter since records began.

================================================== ===========

Personally, I think it is stupid that the question of Global Warming is dependent on what political party someone belongs to. What political party someone belongs to should have no bearing on whether or not Global Warming is occurring any more than that of whether or not cigarette smoking causes cancer.

[twotimer]

Personally, I think it is stupid that the question of Global Warming is dependent on what political party someone belongs to. I couldn't agree with you more...but I also think it's a bit ignorant to assume that everyone aligns their views on this with politics.

Don't throw a wet blanket over everyone that questions it, Scott. I'm hearing and reading all the same stuff you are in regards to the GW "settled science"...it's just that I'm also listening to the critics, and not blowing them off as idiots.

An 80 degree day in February is hardly a reason to panic, IMO. All records are meant to be broken...and some day that one will, too.

[Iceaxe]

Personally, I think it is stupid that the question of Global Warming is dependent on what political party someone belongs to. What political party someone belongs to should have no bearing on whether or not Global Warming is occurring any more than that of whether or not cigarette smoking causes cancer.

What does political party have to do with it? I believe you are the only one that introduced political party into the equation.

LET ME REPEAT... no one (at least on Bogley) denies the climate is changing.... the question is to what extent are humans responsible?

[Scott P]

I couldn't agree with you more...but I also think it's a bit ignorant to assume that everyone aligns their views on this with politics.

I don't assume that everyone does that; I just think it's dumb that it has become a partisan issue (and I'm speaking to both sides on this).


Don't throw a wet blanket over everyone that questions it, Scott. I'm hearing and reading all the same stuff you are in regards to the GW "settled science"...it's just that I'm also listening to the critics, and not blowing them off as idiots.

Then don't listen to the doomsayers or the critics.

The fact that changing the atmosphere's chemistry or adding CO2 to the system will cause change (and CO2 causes warming; many other changes cause cooling) is settled science any very easily proved by looking at the temperatures of several of the celestial bodies in our solar system and comparing their atmospheres or lack thereof combined with the distance from the sun.

You don't have to listen to any side. This can also easily be proved in a sixth grade science class; i.e. by filling one small greenhouse with a large percentage of CO2 and one greenhouse with straight air and taking the temperatures of both over a given period of time. This really is settled and easy to prove.

What isn't settled is how much change will occur in a large system (such as the earth) and what the effects will be. This is not settled. As stated, there will also be positive effects as well. Predicting the future is also not settled as there are many factors that affect climate (and as said before, technically we're still in an ice age when compared to the entire earth's history).


An 80 degree day in February is hardly a reason to panic, IMO. All records are meant to be broken...and some day that one will, too.

I never said it a reason to panic, in fact I said that the primary reason for the warm temperatures was not because of global warming. I just thought your comment was silly (I couldn't tell if you were joking or not) since most of the month has been very warm (and once again global warming was not the primary reason Denver has been so warm lately).

[Scott P]

What does political party have to do with it?[quote]

Almost all the doomsayers are Democrats and almost all the deniers are Republican. Like it or not, the politicians and others have made it a partisan issue.


[quote]LET ME REPEAT... no one (at least on Bogley) denies the climate is changing.... the question is to what extent are humans responsible?

I have already said that that would be a difficult question to answer. However, it really can't be reasonably argued that changing the atmosphere's chemistry won't cause change, neither can it be argued that CO2 doesn't cause warming. This is very easy to prove.

PS, I have never said that I was one of the doomsayers either. Although there will be negative (and positive effects), it is probably impossible for man-made climate change to cause the earth to be doomed. Even if all the fossil fuels on earth were burned immediately, the majority of the CO2 would by cycled out of the atmosphere in a few hundred years. Even worst case scenario, this wouldn't be enough to wipe out life on earth. There is also no chance of the polar ice caps completely melting anytime soon either, unless something other than man causes this.

Although climate changes (both warming and cooling) have caused mass extinctions in the past, it would take something a lot more drastic than burning of fossil fuels to wipe out most life. It would take a more drastic change in the atmosphere or a change in the earth's orbit or tilt to do that. Something like an asteroid or even a nuclear war might be able to do that as well, but the burning of fossil fuels in itself wouldn't do it.

[tallsteve]

I found this article on a new study out of the University of Wisconsin quite interesting. From the article: “The impact of astronomical cycles on climate can be quite large,” explains Meyers, noting as an example the pacing of the Earth’s ice ages, which have been reliably matched to periodic changes in the shape of Earth’s orbit, and the tilt of our planet on its axis.

http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/

[rockgremlin]

Bill Nye the science guy gets destroyed by Tucker Carlson as he tries to argue from the same perspective Slot Machine always argues from.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKMxmYcfw8Q

Carlson: You're not a scientist, you're a popularizer.

LOL. He's got a point.

Speaking of deniers, how did you like Bill Nye denying he ever recommended locking up GW deniers? Bill didn't look too happy as they ended the segment.

[hank moon]

no one (at least on Bogley) denies the climate is changing.... the question is to what extent are humans responsible?

This is not a productive question. Humans are 100% responsible for any action taken to address the issue - so what'll it be?

[Iceaxe]

This is not a productive question. Humans are 100% responsible for any action taken to address the issue - so what'll it be?


If humans are not responsible for climate change should we be taking action to correct it?

And if humans are responsible for climate change should we be taking action to correct it?

And to top it off climate change is not necessarily a bad thing.

[emoji301]

[hank moon]

If humans are not responsible for climate change should we be taking action to correct it?

And if humans are responsible for climate change should we be taking action to correct it?

And to top it off climate change is not necessarily a bad thing.

[emoji301]

Climate change has consequences - yes, humans should (and must) take action to address those.

Human activity influences climate change - yes, humans should take action to minimize the negative influence and maximize the positive.

Broad value judgments on climate change are useless. It's like saying the wind is inherently bad or good. Fact is that it's happening, and how will we respond? Hosting endless debates about the degree of human responsibility for CC itself is spitting in the wind.

[Iceaxe]

And broad statements like you posted are not pissing in the wind?

:roflol:

I guess some of you guys will just never understand what I find so comical about the whole issue.....

But I'll try one last time.... how is it that those who believe man is 'mostly' responsible can make broad statements and we are just supposed to accept them, yet those who believe nature is 'mostly' responsible can not? At least on Bogley anyways...

http://bestanimations.com/Animals/Reptiles/Dinosaurs/Dinosaur-01-june.gif

[hank moon]

And broad statements like you posted are not pissing in the wind?

But I'll try one last time.... how is it that those who believe man is 'mostly' responsible can make broad statements and we are just supposed to accept them, yet those who believe nature is 'mostly' responsible can not? At least on Bogley anyways...


To me, the question of “percentage of human responsibility in having brought about climate change” is irrelevant. I have no idea or belief on the matter. How can I make it any plainer that my concern is only with what action to take to address the ongoing consequences of climate change?

[Scott P]

But I'll try one last time.... how is it that those who believe man is 'mostly' responsible can make broad statements and we are just supposed to accept them, yet those who believe nature is 'mostly' responsible can not?

Please explain further. You haven't explained why you believe the way that you do.Which factors do you believe that nature is currently changing to make the world warmer vs. the ones man is currently changing to make the world warmer?

Here are the factors:

1. Changes to Sun activity.

2. Changes to the tilt of the Earth and orbital variations (maybe that could be two things, but changes to the Earth's position is the single key here).

3. Continental drift.

4. Changes to atmospheric chemistry.

Which of the above is (are) the current primary cause(s) for nature causing most of the change? Please be detailed and explain your answers.

[twotimer]

How can I make it any plainer that my concern is only with what action to take to address the ongoing consequences of climate change?Well..."Operation Dark Storm" from the Antimatrix didn't work too well. Perhaps we shouldn't try to screw with the atmosphere? I'm joking of course, but at the same time I'm not.

http://www.bogley.com/forum/image/jpeg;base64,/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wCEAAkGBxITEhUSExIWFRUVFxcWFxcVGBcVFxcVFRUWFxUYFx cYHSggGBolGxUVITEhJSkrLi4uFx8zODMtNygtLisBCgoKDg0O GhAQGi0mIB0tLS0tLS0tLS0rKy0tLS0tLS0tLS0rLS0tLS0tLS 0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLf/AABEIAJABXgMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAbAAABBQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAECAwUGB//EAD8QAAEDAQUFBgUCBAUEAwAAAAEAAhEDBCExQfAFElFhcSIyg aGxwRNCkdHhBvEjUmJyFEOCorIkM8LyBxUW/8QAGQEAAwEBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAECAwQF/8QAKBEAAgIBBAEEAgIDAAAAAAAAAAECEQMSITFBUQQTImEUMoG RQlJx/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwDyGUoTJ1RIk6ZTZSJwCAIymWrYdjGoJLw B0krTo7ApDHed1MeiuONs2jhlLdHLomz2Kq/uU3u6NMfXBddQslNndY0c4v8Aqj6drOd6v2fs0/Gfk4 jsGscYb1N/wBAjKf6dA7zyeQEfddYHMfj VTUspHdvHDNaRhFPdDWKBiUtl0m/ID/AHX qLa0C4ADyV7mKtzV2Y5Q4SoiWJx3IOaDj VRUokX5cUSkCqnjUjFq QJJE1KE3t n2QxC5JQcXuYyjQk0J0lIhBMnSKAGTlKEoQAkkkkAJFsHw7yO3 kP5cCCQbj0UWAMvPfyGTf7gc SHJlJ7gO903nEq6nTDBvOxybnxBIPy qlTphgDnCSb2tN4N/zCbh6qDGuqHHKSScABzSsZFoL3dczcB7AKNWJ7OHPM5qyrUA7L e7mcC6 6QqEIRYys5uBI8gr6tWo0Al0TN2YHE8FFjQwSQC44NygjExnyQ 9RxJJJklS430WpyS5E6oTeSopa1CWtQqoltsWtQmGtBOEtazQx Eybh4 yrlWHAdT6Diq9alKgENaKsa Mh43 qrCsbTJuCQxVnkgzw6ZhYr9awW2 mQDhhkRy4LEqYrKZouCvV34QLkadaMIN4vUICqUlFKUwJI lgOiz5WjTwCTGdDshv8OeZ9kcg9kj GPH1R0rsh qPRxL4IikpQmIVGgwRFG1EY3qhJAmrNEta8c/NCVaJbjeOIVTHEYI6haQbnfhHBDTXBnuZwUCFo17LF7cMxrFCF srfHl6ZlPEpbxKQo1aW9hj6qZarbNQLjAjCb7gAOJXQ1Frc5mu mZpamWhXoTcbiNQUC9pFxXHkxOP8AwwnGiCdJOsyBkk8JAIAQC J3BTEm95yx3cQd4fzYQFINFMSb3nLENHPg7lkhnkm83k4k3qeR kXEm8/f1V7WBok4kS0cr 0fHJT HuAF3eN4bwFxDj9lXTpl5JJuxc43xKAHYx1RxJPNzjkOJ yatWu3W3Nn6kZmfTJKrWkbrbmjLG/Mk3cFS1pJgY6yRQDIm6nj3 H8hkQeBPopyKQ41PJtxBBBHe9EGSlyPgdxm85qBUk2tQqEKEx1 oJ0tcUgGSSTlAEz3fH2VatHdPUcsiqkgENaCkohWNAzw vqkxkRn0Posetideq3Lspz kcFiV8T7fhZTNI8FGtYoSpiUWdauQlYXlZjBkkySYiUrSYswLU YkxnS7LH8Nvj6ouFRYB/Db0RC7oL4o9TGvihk6UJBXRdCTQpQkEqERSUi1MgYTZrVFxvCv r2YO7TcfX8rPRFmtG7diEmiHHtFJblmoscWmRoe6069EPEjH1W e5uRW2PJWzMpwU19hfw21GbwucMchOAaAFn1qM3YOHh4FW0KhY 6Qbx4o620xUHxGDqMT/ceAyXQkuHwzjarZnPFsahMEdaKW8JGI8x91RZKBe9rRi4gLky4 9DMJQaZfa7O1tOmB33Aud0dG75eqrj4d57 I/pwIMg97lkj7a5tN5IvfPZv8A 20XN/1QBdkhNpWYMLQDLi0F0Yhxm488Fzxd/wAiaAnGTJM64otrBShzr35NPy4EFwi/omDRTvPfyB W/wCYHE8lGhS3pc4w0Xk5nk3i5WxDUqJdLiYAxcb74mJ4lRr1pua IaMBcT4kYlPaa 9cBDRcB7mMXc1VTplxgCZSS7AiGkm6/zRZcKYgQX5m4huBG7z5pnPFPstMuzcDhEghpGRGaEnX7o5ARKZ OkUANrUJoTga/ZKEAJNrUqSQaUVYEUlaKLuGvBP8DorWOT4Q9LHoU94EAjEHEcC rDZWDGoPAFxTNYACJxjy6ptwc1X482UoMhXawRuknjIhVohgE4 D1VT7jhxu/dTkwuCtg40RpC8a9Fj2vE69VuisTAuAkYCFiWwdo/n2XJMqPAKdavCErY69kUdYfuhbRjr3WQwRJMkqAmzELUprLpYj qtSkkB2tm2e8UmGJG6DdzCiQt6xtIYwT8rB9R FfaLEx Iv4jFdsZbbndDNSSZzSZH2vZzm34jiPdBELROzpTTWxFJShMUx 0MCnIShIFADQkpQmhAUXWavumMkZaLOHDebj6/lZqLsVogwcFLREo9oGc2U9KqWyBmI8wbj4I22UPnb4/dBObK3xZOmYZcepWix1lcGh R8uEoN4c077DBHDJaFC1Hd HEyQBxj UKu12fccWmCOORHUauXTKOtaZfwcbV7ANgpfEqNDsCZdncL3H6 SirZDSXOvqOJO7iGAziD83LJUUa7qLi5uMEAxMA8OBVlisRf23 bxbfhe554N58TkvMyR0yt9GNdA1GlMueSGzefmP8AaDib1CvXJ 5AYAXDr1MXrSqbPqPkkCm1o7LXHcEcBvZ qzGUCXQMfph5JJpktURo0i4gDE3cPNEuqhgLWG83OeMwRe0cue aZ9UNBazAiHOw3sDHIeqHpXuHUKq1MEQOs04pkoyeiRJXavR WarF5BvgHp1MJxZ Y8Pwr4VlmqlpkAGQRffiIu581f40EV7aRTSsJOAcY4Ccp9kQzZ jp3d2 JgnLjBVlW11N3dM7sARGTZjG/5j9Uzfi1N4jedAl2NzcL SXtpb7Aoob/AEFw7ILZuJiYxibikymy6XmC0kxkRvQDHGB9VPZtgdWfuAgEzj OWN4RLdkDce8v3d3DebAcb7mmcbkOUY7NjA5pCbiT2d3r80/hU2qo0xut3br75v8VsWLZVN9B1Rx3XBwbLid0Ds3kRzVVu2a6m zssDmY/Eb2p8R3QpU46q7AxRrFRjX7Kzd1qFB2tFbgIHX7qFRt5xx5qwD Q/ChXPaK5vUr4kT4EKDh2ogXcPDBYu0R2z79ea1t7j5rM2kO2epw/BXmZAjwAu1j UJaMUU7WjCFtIwWBQFKUpklQi2z94LUoi9Zlm7wWtZR2h1COwP ULNIDQb 75NKNY4FBmlgRoKym4O5H1 xXXSOitgqFn23Zode24 RRrakXO qthG8Rxk4u0clUpFpgiCm GeC6i02Rr4kXjUJVGgZdnl8v4V6ys/rHjimo2csQmWztOzNDZi 6/qshwVmnpfUrPG6qiKkQmhOEzroiQkpQmQOjQsNeeyfD7Km10N0 yO6fJDAwtWi4VGQfHrxUvYyktLtGS4ZhaFnoNfSMAlwkkzAaBe PA8eKFfTIJaf3Ss9XccDcYyOB6jNdmOWqNdo5M KnqXZRVpSIz91QbbVA3N9wAuiTA8Ft7Vphx IyS094wQN4z7Qse10p7X19ijNBZI6v7OScbVoqs1F9R0DqScAM yScArK7gAWM7ubr 0QTBvwF CIZtCmKYpinzd2j2ncTAB6CVFu1S0OaxjGhwg9mZ675K856r4M tqMw60FKiO0OoTOdr9lKh3h1HqtY8olchRTKTk0L2UjtIkLc/TbmgVd4gdgxvRjynNA7LpU3P/iEhsG9omDlMXxKNtlkaxgqNdTeN4DBwOBuLXZLnzNP4eSWTp21 rbO m877nHsjENF1 97BVWC2mk4fDBcB3rj2p70j0RIe3/Bky0VN8Rg127I4XwqbPtGmbPUpOJD3Gd J3uTovWGnZ7diLKdYsqm0U6JDb5BMtBIvwFyl8Su1gdIDKpMNP bHOBBhC2HaYo06jW9p1QRfc0C8Z3k3qR22RTpsYC00zIdOMziI wvSeOV7IRK0UKlNwoGoN15BIZh2jF44qVq2VLGvp1C6ng6fkOZ IGSDtG0H1HB/wANu DMtbiRmRN6oIrQbiGuIkYAnEXJqEtt6YGltSxUWWRtYCJN7nE4 De43DBcf/wDb0t6Lx/VED7x4I7a9RxphjnFzSW9mZEbwMRPJBug/KDkZ4QuTNnnhlpT wC2kG8Xg4Z3JWgXnX3VOzWwwtiIc7E4AkkBXWg3/AE4cPBb5JqeJS8kz4Imm0T2r8ozw6c1lbXHb17haJ1q9AbX73g MOg5rzsgocGYTr9ihrVlr2RL9aIQ1ow191gMz0pTSlKoAix97w W1s1s1WDi5vqFi2PveC39htmvTH9bfVC5Gj1ABQqMi8a5q1qlC 7TdFVN8jX1Cm10X4jX0Krc3dvGvwkw5j/U1BVBjTN6eFQ0xeLwVc54idTwUtEuN7My7eJPw2359FRV2ZDSZ kxrqtenZgCSbyReMr8YTFkXYg4HnwPNVFnHmlPDFLHsjlSEoRF sp7r3DmUOdZLU9vDPXBS8iHD8poRFGkO87u ZPAJrQ8OJIEDIchgle5qUFX2SoWun69FWxpJgIpldrGuaG9pwg uOWGHmhiaCLbQ3m7wvIE9Qs5wkLQ2bX X6fZVV7MQ67CJ6cU4S0OzHTdwZLZlobBZUMNg3mbhiQ1uEkxeg LuoPp4J3tjULQrWRnwWvZMgdonM4GOi9CMorf/Y8 UdLo56vTgx9Oiq1wWhaactnNvogDrELjzY9MjmyRpjQpUO8Oo4 cVEa0E7HQRr1WS2ZCDSoxr9lA2j n1CgbScgPVek/VY0dPuRCqVVzT2XEHC4xciH0p71QeZzWY60O4x5eqgarjmddFj L1cekS8qNIU2ZuPgAPdRL6QmRPCXC7rdeswnRvS1mFk/VPwT7po/wCKYMGt hPDXimftHgAOjWhZ12oKc Pn7rN55MTyMMdtF3E/U5mT5ql1qceHr7qgaw9kjqfys/dn5J1MsJ37jwJGV4BI80LvDGRx5 qC2lbiAWMMG8Ei7qAuloWIsruJ3Q2lRbULeB 8NJnmFx5pamaRfkxG2locWO7LgTIN1/X8otmE/t7rmary5znHFxJPUklTs1VzDIPhkUo5a2YnE6PeHAYcc OSB2wMDyHHhzBRlO8SMDfd JQm18G4YDhz6LSfAR7Md2tAhUWqYzxV755 f5VFYXft9guYszEkySoQVYsT0XTfpVs2qj/AHA/QErmrBifBdV jh/1VLqf LkR5KXJ6f8ADBVbmwiWpObK60zagQhDzunh6R9kY5sKmvSkc1Q 4uitro7QwPeHAq2kY7V 6cOnHqhQYu vPgFfTcBzYfIoLaDgqq4uJiRmOI4jmE1J0dk CvUtUZyinszk7ZU3nk8Td0UKbMzhlz6clp7SsbWu3z3TkLr E5LLqOJWy3Wx6GJLSlHhCrVCb/ADgOA5KLGyVKlTJuH7DieSlUcBc3DM4T JTNSVRwAhviePIcsEOFMX6lSp0pvNwGJ9hOJ5ICiVmYZkXRiTM DqVrVXb9M7uBHKT1WM9 QuCN2ZWv3T4Zoaszmu0BkXaHRXbOtDWmHt3mnI4A4TAxU7fR3X Tk6/7oR4vnXkunBK1pZzeoha1InaWbryAZE8ZuWVaae6TwyyuXS26o 2pTYRi1sQBgBjPC/NYtqpy2Yvb6Hpq9a5Frx/aOGSuJna4 iR1opzrNNrNcBzC1qE06/dLWXsnnV/upAUavTayS1l7J9akJAMdYpgNXJ9agpHWigBE6/dIa0Ew1oJzz19UgGc6MfP8oGrai7sskCDLrxAHCEa6kXENDSQZ wE4Dl1CrtVBwBBAEkCXFrYAA/nhZzlS5LSMWjT3nAHAuEk9bzrgu0/U9qFKvbG/wA1JtJvOfhT/tL1ywswJLd5t91zpE9R4X4K23241TNQ9u7eOE7rQ0HqYXIW0wc 2Ahm/IwmM70Mxq6Cv o6rrM2yk0vhN3WiGgPO6d4S6ZxWRua8Aig3NTZ9qd8MNnDs5YD CZHNU7V7renPieCbZ BCs2qOw3x9eYW/ CCPZhv1ohUv1oFWu1h7EKs Pn VgUZCUpklQg3Z a6v9Fsm0s5Bx/wBpXK7PwPVdj hGzaOjXeyIfsio8nolJ8dEQCqN2U7Hwuzk2LSJQtdpggYosFRe 2UkMAq0JAjH14qLDAv8AHXFEkKD6QKoal5Is4ZHun2KLovkcwg 2GJBw1f0V7TEFH0Nllpoh7S05rmH2chxbwxyF3NdYsnblExvDl vc4wPqiDrY0wTp0Y733bowzwvP25KkayTkK2lTES7DzPSVtwdx GnTzNwGrlKvUnC5uQn8Xnmo1Xzy4AXAdFEcEgIqdN8EEZJnMIx uunhccFGUxmzXbv05HUZdVlubI0Ufsqti3xGKhbaMYDC7DGZIP 1uRGWmRg1zFkdlWvdDmF0B0E8wMWnqPOEHWYA4i/dPK8tOBu5KL7iibdVpua3cBG72bzJIxm6M5H0Xox5tdnnSVOjD rsgkcNZquNfsUZbW3A BywwxnQQmtQuDLHTJo5ZqpDax/CeNR Uo1f7phrD8LEgROiR9lW6u0YuA8fyudtFWTeSqnNB66zXM8/0dCwLydEbfRzf9BvE Q9VA7ZoZNcep3fJrT6rAccuCVM3gxdInpmollkzRYYnRHazZgU 2/6muPm5//AIqFq2taGfKGC/AMaLrjeGzceavpOphxc8AkvMTENp7s5SDOXihNv1XFrwRcHtAg XGWmb kfRcqzylJI29qKVgFfatV LieRLnDzKG/xLrxIBOYAF/gqWuITVXtm44rcikO q7DeP1VY5qxjZTPanYqIPA3Zz3sOUK6yW1zbjePNC1MPFRaUCa Oq2XXa4Ojj44ZhEbSA GMMTw5dFx9OqWkOaYIzXQVNr0zQaC/t4kAHGL8 KrVtRnorcAdrUlVEcvr/AOqg 1N5n6e4KrNqGQ14Qs6EZ6SZJAjQsHd8V236Ab/GceDD5kLi9n93xK7r/wCPGTUqHgwcsT FUP2RUeTugk4Sk0J11GwqTouVqpeM1bQM3ZoYEKzc1Si4Qzhkm mDKqjJVdCpi03D/AIn7FXqqtTnr68jyTGn0GMuu nTh4FKqwOBBwNyHs1W6Dkc/oWnngiipYPZnMVbPuE72RIA4kRjfcIOKGc dBa23KN4eOh9tcljlbRd7no45ao2I6xSB1cmUXvAxIHUhUWGVm ywOjDsn1Hv9EKlR2jQEtfWptBGbwL8RnxHms pt6zD/ADmnp2vZRqS7I1xXLNay1N1wP3WtaRIxuNxwOOB44wuKf qLMPmcejSiP/31AM3fh1XGI UdMSplkj5McmWGzTNWs3y6 PmqDrBc/af1u0kltAieLgOuAQD/ANXVMqbB1JK6sXrccY1JnLmnGUrR17mSCOPqMFmO1h9lzb/1TaMtwdG/coSptquf8w AA9lhn9Xjm7jZyz R14Gr/Yp9Ze4XEPt1U41HfUj0VLqzji5x6krmedeDPQaNUCccymL4HM X5VQPookSuY7CwPAuKcVAqqkKDXXoCzVbb4aGubvECGun5f5Ty mVXarVvNDQIaDN5kknMnxhDDCE9VSopOx2NCrdRzUt4pAqrAmW kXpEcU eirB1l5oEQtA7IPOPJDgoqrVlkQO8D5EIWUxMeU0pAFJ7YMSD0 wTIlwKUyZJMzP/Z

[Iceaxe]

How can I make it any plainer that my concern is only with what action to take to address the ongoing consequences of climate change?

Oh, I get it now.... even if climate change is completely natural and God's will you still think it's bad and us puny humans should attempt to interfere. Got it.

[stefan]

And if humans are responsible for climate change should we be taking action to correct it?


it would be foolish to think that the ramifications of climate change are necessarily benign, minor, or desirable and that we should just charge ahead and see what happens.

there also might be hysteresis in the system so that the effects aren't directly reversible after some point.

[twotimer]

How about all those that are truly concerned about it just kill themselves? Seems like a viable option to me...less carbon spewing humans and the bonus of not having to listen to them gripe about it anymore. Sounds a bit heavy...but why live in misery and worry?

[Scott P]

How about all those that are truly concerned about it just kill themselves? Seems like a viable option to me...less carbon spewing humans and the bonus of not having to listen to them gripe about it anymore. Sounds a bit heavy...but why live in misery and worry?

Couldn't the same be said for those that want the public lands to go away or be transferred because there supposedly isn't enough private land for them to make a living.:ne_nau:

[Sombeech]

​COW FARTS

[twotimer]

Couldn't the same be said for those that want the public lands to go away or be transferred because there supposedly isn't enough private land for them to make a living.:ne_nau:These people can always find satisfaction in other ways or modify what they do to get by. You're statement is beside my point in that the AGW crowd will NEVER be satisfied...unless the world turns in the direction that they wish, which will never happen.

Continual dissatisfaction in an argument that they'll never win. I say that's a shitty way to live.

It's like we're all hanging around a campfire...roasting smores, maybe smoking a cigar and enjoying some cognac, when someone gets up and tries to convince everyone that there's a problem...except that most those around the fire aren't concerned. The only guy with a problem, is the guy with a problem...you dig what I'm saying?

This thread is kind of pointless. I don't even trust the people who are paid to study this stuff...so no one around here can bring any weight to bear. When the argument can't go anywhere conclusive, I like to throw down the "black curtain"...hence the suicide thing. Bam, done.

[devo_stevo]

Ugh. This is super lame. We're just running around in circles and nobody is ever going to be convinced that they are wrong.

My take on this is that there is not a lot, or anything at this point, that we can do to affect the temperatures that are coming our way. That being said, nobody likes to walk out the front door and be able to taste the air they are breathing. Nobody like to turn on the water tap and have it run dry or spew dirty, poisonous water into your cup. Nobody likes heading out into the mountains or the desert and find piles of trash all over the place. Fossil fuels are great for the energy that they produce, but one day (even if it's a thousand years from now) they are going to run out. The fact that there is so much of it just means that we have time to figure out other means of producing electricity.

Given all that, it is a good idea to not trash the place. Even if you're fine, your kids might not be. The world will be a much different place when my grandkids are my age then it is today. In some ways, I think it'll be much better. In other ways, not so much. It would at least be nice if they could breathe the air and drink the water withour it making them sick.

Also, I'm not a big fan of bankrupting nations just to "stop" climate change. Like I said, it's not stopping no matter what we do at this point. There's no point in destroying the world economy over it.

[Brian in SLC]

How about all those that are truly concerned about it just kill themselves? Seems like a viable option to me...less carbon spewing humans and the bonus of not having to listen to them gripe about it anymore. Sounds a bit heavy...but why live in misery and worry?

And you had an issue with the tone of the gun thread? When an urban dictionary definition of ROTFLMAO was quoted?

Hilarious.

[qedcook]

​COW FARTS
i spit out my coffee and i wasn't even drinking any

[tallsteve]

​COW FARTS

I'm more concerned about BRAIN FARTS. I seem to be seeing more and more of them these days!

[twotimer]

And you had an issue with the tone of the gun thread? When an urban dictionary definition of ROTFLMAO was quoted?

Hilarious.Oh heck...it''s a bit of a joke, really. I'm not attacking anyone here and certainly not trying to "bully" anyone to suicide. A friend of mine spent YEARS lamenting his divorce...finally I said to him "Get over it or kill yourself".

It's just annoying being preached to by hypocrites. It's pretty easy to flip the bird why they burn gas, take hot showers, wash clothes, buy plastic stuff, fly on planes, etc...

That other thread just read like it was getting very personal. I know Ice can take care of himself just fine, but it just looked ugly. I felt compelled to chime in.

[stefan]

How about all those that are truly concerned about it just kill themselves? Seems like a viable option to me...less carbon spewing humans and the bonus of not having to listen to them gripe about it anymore. Sounds a bit heavy...but why live in misery and worry?

It's just annoying being preached to by hypocrites. It's pretty easy to flip the bird why they burn gas, take hot showers, wash clothes, buy plastic stuff, fly on planes, etc...


like republicans/conservatives who are deeply worried about or preach about the national debt, especially in the face of republican/conservative leadership increasing the debt.

while i can appreciate your issue of hypocrisy, i think it's unreasonable to hold everyone accountable to the extreme as you seem to suggest. it's certainly no reason to dismiss it entirely. also, it's not about going cold turkey. it's about curbing the rampant growth of the problem in the short term and finding better ways for the long term. while i am a strong believer in individuals doing their part, if the goal is to reduce the collective impact of our populations, then changes adopted on the large scale (whether they are private or public sector solutions) can have sweeping effects.

[twotimer]

like republicans/conservatives who are deeply worried about or preach about the national debt, especially in the face of republican/conservative leadership increasing the debt.

while i can appreciate your issue of hypocrisy, i think it's unreasonable to hold everyone accountable to the extreme as you seem to suggest. it's certainly no reason to dismiss it entirely. also, it's not about going cold turkey. it's about curbing the rampant growth of the problem in the short term and finding better ways for the long term. while i am a strong believer in individuals doing their part, if the goal is to reduce the collective impact of our populations, then changes adopted on the large scale (whether they are private or public sector solutions) can have sweeping effects.First of all, I personally don't give a rat's ass about the national debt and my "suicide solution" in regards to the AGW crowd is simply a tongue-in-cheek remark to the misanthropy of the whole thing. Being so definitively concerned about how other people live is nonsense to me...especially when the culprits aren't leaching on society at large.

I'm with you on hoping that technology will cure all our ills...I can't imagine that 100 years from now they'll be putting around with internal combustion engines or that a bulk of our electricity will still be generated by dirty power plants...it's too bad we can't launch big time into nuclear...but there certainly is risk in that, check out the Wiki on "Normal Accidents".

I just don't think a radical headlong rush is necessary...and I certainly don't dig the fact that these kids are having the shit scared out of them in regards to their future with the heavy catastrophe predictions. I was 17 years old in 1980 and at that time, there was a lot of worry about nuclear war. All kinds of music and movies were made about it's inevitability...check out the lyrics of the Prince song "1999", you might be surprised by that one!

Anyway, I never really worried about that, as it seemed to me as highly unlikely madness. I had plenty of friends though, that were seriously downed about what the future would hold...I felt sorry for them being so worried about such a high improbability. This global warming "panic" is like a repeat of that, IMO.

I live in a one bedroom condo, never had kids, I recycle my stuff and generate about one bag of garbage per week...one load of laundry per week, too. But I own and drive two vehicles (one work, one play) and am plugged into the grid...as solar is not functional in my complex. Not sure I'd sign up for it, anyway.

I paint houses for a living...at least a couple hundred people each year. Big houses, big energy use with the washer and dryer spinning all day, mom in and out with shopping bags, zipping around with the kids in the SUV, AC all summer long, big trash bins getting filled up each week, etc...

Cars and power plants, man...that's where the answer lies. Give it some time, I say.

[hank moon]

https://casetext.com/case/juliana-v-united-states-1

[rockgremlin]

https://casetext.com/case/juliana-v-united-states-1

Am I reading this right...they wanna go ahead and sue the entire United States government for their actions (or inactions) over the last 50 years?

[rockgremlin]

Please enjoy this image that perfectly illustrates how most things are portrayed on the internet...including global warming:

(Sorry it won't embed...please follow the link - you won't regret it)

http://m.webtoons.com/en/comedy/dustinteractive/ep-54-news-dogs/viewer?title_no=907&episode_no=54

[twotimer]

That one had me laughing hard!

[rockgremlin]

That one had me laughing hard!

It's pretty good, right? For those of you that haven't clicked the link you should. It's completely relevant, and completely hilarious.

[devo_stevo]

Awesome.

[Iceaxe]

Top 10 climate change predictions gone spectacularly wrong....

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/top-10-climate-change-predictions-gone-spectacularly-wrong?utm_source=FBLC&utm_medium=FB&utm_campaign=LC

[rockgremlin]

Top 10 climate change predictions gone spectacularly wrong....

http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/top-10-climate-change-predictions-gone-spectacularly-wrong?utm_source=FBLC&utm_medium=FB&utm_campaign=LC

LOL. This is why it's difficult to take the most recent predictions at face value. How do you sift fact from hysteria?

[twotimer]

It's pretty dry along the foothills here. The mountains are buried, though.

Today on the news, our fine Governor Lickenpooper declared the the fire season has been extended by 80 days because of climate change.

Last year at this time everything was wet and green and the weeds looked great.

[tallsteve]

I would fully support this:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-red-team-exercise-would-strengthen-climate-science-1492728579 (click "Skip these deals & continue to WSJ.com")

"Congress or the executive branch should convene a climate science Red/Blue exercise as a step toward resolving, or at least illuminating, differing perceptions of climate science. While the Red and Blue Teams should be knowledgeable and avowedly opinionated scientists, the commission should have a balanced membership of prominent individuals with technical credentials, led by co-chairmen who are forceful, knowledgeable and independent of the climate-science community. The Rogers Commission for the Challenger disaster in 1986, the Energy Department’s Huizenga/Ramsey Review of Cold Fusion in 1989, and the National Bioethics Advisory Commission of the late 1990s are models for the kind of fact-based rigor and transparency needed.




The outcome of a Red/Blue exercise for climate science is not preordained, which makes such a process all the more valuable. It could reveal the current consensus as weaker than claimed. Alternatively, the consensus could emerge strengthened if Red Team criticisms were countered effectively. But whatever the outcome, we scientists would have better fulfilled our responsibilities to society, and climate policy discussions would be better informed."

[rockgremlin]

^^^ You're muddying the waters with facts. It's much more satisfying to wait until the dead of winter, go shovel a foot of snow off your driveway, and then go around wincing from lower back pain and blisters and at the end of it all boldly proclaim "So much for global warming!!"

[hiacbanks]

is it better to but science and politics in different room for a second?

[qedcook]

Snow on Friday... This global warming spring is killing me... (troll, troll, troll)

[hank moon]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39987495

Norway is boosting the flood defences of its Global Seed Vault on the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard after water entered the entrance tunnel last year.
The storage facility, deep inside a mountain, is designed to preserve the world's crops from future disasters.
Unseasonably high temperatures last year caused the permafrost to melt, sending water into the access tunnel.
No seeds were damaged but the facility is to have new waterproof walls in the tunnel and drainage ditches outside.
The vault stores seeds from 5,000 crop species from around the world. Dried and frozen, it is believed they can be preserved for hundreds of years.

[hank moon]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40106278

Shareholders in Exxon Mobil have backed a motion requiring the company to assess the risks from climate change.
The plan, proposed by investors including the Church of England, was supported by over 62% of those eligible to vote.
The vote comes as US media reports that President Trump is poised to pull out of the Paris climate agreement.
Exxon will now have to consider how global efforts to mitigate climate change will impact their business.

Did Exxon know?
Long seen as the last bastion of opposition to action on rising temperatures, Exxon Mobil is the world's largest publicly traded oil company.
They've recently been under investigation by some state authorities in the US.
They've been accused of allegedly concealing information from shareholders on when the company first realised that human emissions of carbon were driving up global temperatures.
Previous attempts by activists to force the company to take the impact of climate change into account failed. Last year, the motion gained just over 38% of shareholder support.
The resolution, filed by the Church Commissioners for England and New York State Comptroller Thomas P DiNapoli, asked Exxon to report on how its business model will be affected by global efforts to limit the average rise in temperatures to below 2C.

[twotimer]

The resolution, filed by the Church Commissioners for England and New York State Comptroller Thomas P DiNapoli, asked Exxon to report on how its business model will be affected by global efforts to limit the average rise in temperatures to below 2C.To me, the notion that we can turn off this or that or that thing over there and thereby regulate the temperature of the earth is an absolute joke.

I say let technology run it's course. We'll be driving a lot less within 20 years anyway...'cause drones will be delivering damn near everything.

[rockgremlin]

To me, the notion that we can turn off this or that or that thing over there and thereby regulate the temperature of the earth is an absolute joke.


I agree 100%.

But that doesn't sit well with a narcissistic society who believes that everything that happens in this world is a function of human interaction. Sadly, our society has adopted this vain notion that we are responsible for everything that happens on this planet. That we have now assumed responsibility for what used to be governed by Mother Nature in days past. We actually believe that we can alter the global temperature like changing the thermostat in our homes.

It's gotten so bad that now whenever any natural calamity occurs like a tornado or hurricane we are quick to take credit for it. "Well, this wouldn't have been so severe if we wouldn't have altered the global climate by burning fossil fuels..." :roll:

Thousands of years ago man worshiped the sun or other forces of nature. In time, man would move on to worship a god or gods. Now man worships....himself.

[hank moon]

To me, the notion that we can turn off this or that or that thing over there and thereby regulate the temperature of the earth is an absolute joke.

What you have stated IS a joke, but that's not what is being proposed. The formal term for that type of fallacy is "strawman" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

[qedcook]

It snowed 3 inches on May 16th... :roll:

[hank moon]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/01/michigan-congressman-who-believes-in-climate-change-says-god-will-take-care-it.html
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/01/michigan-congressman-who-believes-in-climate-change-says-god-will-take-care-it.html)


Michigan congressman who believes in climate change says God will 'take care of it'


A Republican congressman from Michigan said at a town hall meeting on Friday that God will “take care” of climate change if there’s ever a “real problem.”
Rep. Tim Walberg, a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, was reportedly (http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article153661794.html) speaking at a coffee hour in Coldwater, Mich., when he made the comments.
"I believe there's climate change. I believe there's been climate change since the beginning of time," Walberg said. "Do I think man has some impact? Yeah, of course. Can man change the entire universe? No."
He went on: "Why do I believe that? Well, as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I'm confident that, if there's a real problem, he can take care of it."
===

Ah, NOW I get it. It's all about who can construct the biggest strawman. Now it's not about trying to mitigate human impact on climate change, it's about Man changing the entire universe. INFINITY +1. PLUS INFINITY!

[devo_stevo]

It snowed 3 inches on May 16th... :roll:And on March 18th, it was 74 degrees...

[rockgremlin]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/01/michigan-congressman-who-believes-in-climate-change-says-god-will-take-care-it.html
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/01/michigan-congressman-who-believes-in-climate-change-says-god-will-take-care-it.html)


Michigan congressman who believes in climate change says God will 'take care of it'


A Republican congressman from Michigan said at a town hall meeting on Friday that God will “take care” of climate change if there’s ever a “real problem.”
Rep. Tim Walberg, a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, was reportedly (http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article153661794.html) speaking at a coffee hour in Coldwater, Mich., when he made the comments.
"I believe there's climate change. I believe there's been climate change since the beginning of time," Walberg said. "Do I think man has some impact? Yeah, of course. Can man change the entire universe? No."
He went on: "Why do I believe that? Well, as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I'm confident that, if there's a real problem, he can take care of it."
===

Ah, NOW I get it. It's all about who can construct the biggest strawman. Now it's not about trying to mitigate human impact on climate change, it's about Man changing the entire universe. INFINITY +1. PLUS INFINITY!


I wonder if he was just speaking offhand and the media latched on and pounced. There's a difference between making an official public announcement regarding relevant policy and just making an offhand comment about personal beliefs.

Clearly, if he was formally addressing climate change it would be wrong to mix in religion and personal beliefs. Or maybe he was just pandering to his constituency? :ne_nau:

[qedcook]

And on March 18th, it was 74 degrees...
An average temperature for May...

[Iceaxe]

BOOM!!!!

And just like that Trump gives the middle finger to the Paris climate agreement.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=44466631&nid=157&title=trump-pulling-us-from-global-climate-pact-dismaying-allies

https://www.boomerpdx.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/DonaldTrumpFinger-1.jpg

[twotimer]

What you have stated IS a joke, but that's not what is being proposed. The formal term for that type of fallacy is "strawman" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)Oh Hank...I think you and I just have our ears tuned to different sides of the argument.

So does the boss, as he just pissed all over the plan.

[Scott P]

An average temperature for May...

From a historical standpoint, the last year that May snowfall reached average or above in Salt Lake City was 1993. All years 1994-2017 have had below average snowfall for May, at least at the airport.

I threw this spreadsheet together for Salt Lake City:

87159

T = trace amounts, or less than 0.1 on average.

Although this decade isn't over yet, the trend for Salt Lake City has definitely been decreasing snowfall in September, October, March, April, and May. This covers this current decade, plus the past five decades prior. Winter snowfall hasn't really decreased much, but early and late snow has decreased dramatically.

2017 this far is the only May since 2010 to receive any measurable snowfall.

Of course this is at the airport. The benches can snow more. The airport has seen up to 7.5 inches of snowfall in May, but the benches have seen snowfalls of 1-2 feet of snow in May. It hasn't happened in several years though.

[hank moon]

87161

[Iceaxe]

Good read on the Paris Climate Accord.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-02/studying-climate-doesnt-make-you-expert-economics-and-politics

[rockgremlin]

Good read on the Paris Climate Accord.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-02/studying-climate-doesnt-make-you-expert-economics-and-politics

A pretty interesting read.

Most people who bitch that Trump backed out of the Paris agreement haven't even taken the time to figure out what was spelled out in that agreement in the first place.

[tallsteve]

Sorry if this has already been posted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k

[qedcook]

It snowed 3 inches on May 16th... :roll:

I take it all back. Just make this heat wave stop...

[oldno7]

We just need to look at the rate of change (in the last two centuries) to understand the global threat.

This just in----The global threat, is from-----tropical regions....

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/prnewswire-space-news.html?rkey=20171012DC14646&filter=1639

[rockgremlin]

Climate change is a fact. But t (https://777spinslot.com/casino-gala-bingo-features)here (https://777spinslot.com/casino-gala-bingo-features) has always been climate change. We just need to look at the rate of change (in the last two centuries) to understand the global threat.

Meet Paul. Paul is a spammer. Paul thought that by hiding links to gambling sites in his post, he could fly under the radar. :fitz:

[2065toyota]

I wonder if there is anything real with this, or just more BS. I don't have time to cipher through it all anymore

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/something-scorching-hot-melting-antarctica-below-nasa-thinks-180655776.html

[rockgremlin]

I wonder if there is anything real with this, or just more BS. I don't have time to cipher through it all anymore

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/something-scorching-hot-melting-antarctica-below-nasa-thinks-180655776.html


Interesting...

Now the question is...how can we pin this on human activity? :ne_nau:

[Scott P]

I wonder if there is anything real with this, or just more BS. I don't have time to cipher through it all anymore

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/something-scorching-hot-melting-antarctica-below-nasa-thinks-180655776.html

It's real, but not new. Here is the story from NASA:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/hot-news-from-the-antarctic-underground

[Sombeech]

Interesting...

Now the question is...how can we pin this on human activity? :ne_nau:


The volcanoes can be blamed on the natives throwing virgins in for human sacrifice.

Believe it or not, there used to be a time when we snickered at the thought of ancient humans thinking they could influence the weather and climate.

[Iceaxe]

Epic Fail!
#JunkScience

Nine years ago Al Gore predicted the North Pole would be completely ice free today.

https://youtu.be/u1XyTbPwhlw

[twotimer]

The volcanoes can be blamed on the natives throwing virgins in for human sacrifice.

Believe it or not, there used to be a time when we snickered at the thought of ancient humans thinking they could influence the weather and climate.You put this up a couple months ago and I missed it, but that's friggin' funny!

[DirkHammergate]

Most people who bitch that Trump backed out of the Paris agreement haven't even taken the time to figure out what was spelled out in that agreement in the first place.

Kinda like how the Republicans didn't read their own tax code.

[Iceaxe]

Kinda like how the Republicans didn't read their own tax code.I've read the new tax code and it's going to be very good for me... so what's your point?

[rockgremlin]

From KSL: https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46229471&nid=157&title=massive-storm-roars-into-east-coast-record-cold-to-follow

"National Weather Service meteorologist Dan Peterson said record low temperatures were predicted for 28 major cities across New England, eastern New York and the mid-Atlantic states by dawn Sunday.

Boston expected a low around minus 11 overnight Saturday into Sunday. Portland, Maine, and Burlington, Vermont, could see minus 16 and 19, respectively, the weather service said."

Meanwhile, Scott P be like:

88606

[Scott P]

From KSL: https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46229471&nid=157&title=massive-storm-roars-into-east-coast-record-cold-to-follow

"National Weather Service meteorologist Dan Peterson said record low temperatures were predicted for 28 major cities across New England, eastern New York and the mid-Atlantic states by dawn Sunday.

Boston expected a low around minus 11 overnight Saturday into Sunday. Portland, Maine, and Burlington, Vermont, could see minus 16 and 19, respectively, the weather service said."

Meanwhile, @Scott P (http://www.bogley.com/forum/member.php?u=213) be like:

88606

There is some truth to that. Everyone around here is talking about how mild the winter is because thus far the coldest temperature of the winter has been a mild -14 downtown (-18 at my house). The local saying here is that it isn't even winter until it drops to at least -20. Back east they are calling it winter Armageddon and bomb cyclone.

Still, even for back east it isn't really a historic cold snap, though daily records will be set. The record lows in the mentioned cities of Burlington and Portland (ME) are -30 and -39 respectively. The Boston readings predicted might be considered historic though, if it really does drop down to -11 (though this seems too cold). The coldest reading there is -18 and it hasn't dropped to -11 for several years.

For anyone interested, here are some interesting historic cold snaps, some in unexpected locations:

Salt Lake City:

88607

St. George:

88608

Tallahassee Florida:

88609

Dallas Texas:

88610

Las Vegas:

88611

San Diego:

88612

North Dakota (North Dakota gets cold regularly, but the impressive part was how long the cold snap lasted in 1936).

88613

Houston, Texas 1895:

http://wintercenter.homestead.com/KountzeTX1895-1.jpg

The interesting thing about the Houston snowstorm is that 22" of snow fell in 24 hours. This is more than has ever fallen so quickly in places like Chicago.

I wonder how much people would freak out now days if it dropped to -30 in SLC or below zero in Florida, or even -11 at St. George and 8 in Las Vegas? When we were in Las Vegas a few days ago everyone was wearing parkas when it was 40 degrees outside. Our kids thought it was hilarious.

[Brian in SLC]

Epic Fail!
#JunkScience

Nine years ago Al Gore predicted the North Pole would be completely ice free today.

https://youtu.be/u1XyTbPwhlw

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHE0n5c6-6g

Crazy stuff. Anyone follow the Franklin expedition stuff? That ain't your great grandfathers northwest passage anymore. That they've found both boats is pretty neat.

Yeah, cold. I flew out of Boston after an early morning drive from Portland Maine on this Tuesday. -15F leaving the house. Frikkin' cold.

I haven't skied subzero F temps at an open ski area for years. The Mainers don't give it a second though. Kids just don't seem that affected by it...

[rockgremlin]

^^^ Sounds like my kids. I'll be bundled up like an Eskimo because it's 20F outside, and they're content to run around with nothing but shorts on.

[oldno7]

,,,,

[oldno7]

...

[tallsteve]

Interesting take: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865694894/Op-ed-Climate-skeptics-have-valid-reasons-to-question-manmade-warming.html

[Brian in SLC]

Interesting take: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865694894/Op-ed-Climate-skeptics-have-valid-reasons-to-question-manmade-warming.html

Interesting that they're from an organization thats into climate change denial.

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

Not that neither gentlemen (and I use that term loosely) have degrees in any type of science. They just appear to be tools for the anti science folks who deny climate change.

Kinda like gettin' diet and exercise advice from an obese person...

[Sombeech]

Kinda like gettin' diet and exercise advice from an obese person...

I had a fat kid tell me that too many donuts can make you fat.

And you know what, he was right.

[tallsteve]

Not that neither gentlemen have degrees in any type of science.

Oh, you mean like Al Gore? :roflol:

[rockgremlin]

Oh, you mean like Al Gore? :roflol:


https://media.giphy.com/media/cF7QqO5DYdft6/giphy.gif



Mic.....drop.....

[oldno7]

Oh, you mean like Al Gore? :roflol:

:roflol::roflol::roflol:

or bill nye the "science" guy:crazy:

[rockgremlin]

:roflol::roflol::roflol:

or bill nye the "science" guy:crazy:


True, but "Bill Nye the Mechanical Engineering Guy" just doesn't have a very friendly sounding ring to it...

[Iceaxe]

Oh, you mean like Al Gore? :roflol:
BOOM!!

[Brian in SLC]

BOOM!!

HEY! He invented the internet!

Touché...ha ha.

Bunch of damn smarty pants...

[oldno7]

...,

[accadacca]

Ok, now I have no clue what to believe...

Asteroid that killed the dinosaurs caused massive global warming

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2170015-asteroid-that-killed-the-dinosaurs-caused-massive-global-warming/

And this...

World Temperature Rise Nears Danger Level

With world temperature rise already 1°C above pre-industrial levels, new research shows that there is only a 0.5°C safety margin left in the system before the most vulnerable groups of people suffer severely.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/world-temperature-rise-nears-danger-level/