Climate continues to change.

[gunthernehmen]

Solar is an environmental disaster. In 30 years our grandkids will be cursing us for all the toxic waste the solar panels will produice as they're replaced at end-of-life. Only the credits solar producers currently enjoy will be long gone by then so they'll have to pay the "real" cost for new panels.

Hydro is an environmental disaster. It destroys the natural environment and wipes out ffish populations that depend on it.

Windpower is an environmental disaster. The dead birds litter the ground beneath the wind farms. Only a heartless monster would operate a wind farm.

Coal and oil on the other hand, with modern advances in clean burning and efficiency combined with land reclamation becoming more common when a coal mine is no longer producing, THOSE energy sources, ironically, have become the most environmentally friendly technologies available to us.

Water is pumped out of NYC at a rate of about 8 millions gallons a day. Without it being pumped out, much of NYC would already be underwater.

Perhaps they should turn off the pumps?

 

[William_James]

Since this needs reposting.

Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why

 

[phrodeau]

Solar is an environmental disaster. In 30 years our grandkids will be cursing us for all the toxic waste the solar panels will produice as they're replaced at end-of-life. Only the credits solar producers currently enjoy will be long gone by then so they'll have to pay the "real" cost for new panels.

Hydro is an environmental disaster. It destroys the natural environment and wipes out ffish populations that depend on it.

Windpower is an environmental disaster. The dead birds litter the ground beneath the wind farms. Only a heartless monster would operate a wind farm.

Coal and oil on the other hand, with modern advances in clean burning and efficiency combined with land reclamation becoming more common when a coal mine is no longer producing, THOSE energy sources, ironically, have become the most environmentally friendly technologies available to us.




Perhaps they should turn off the pumps?

Thank you for your unsupported opinion.

 

[Hypoxia]

Solar is an environmental disaster. ... Hydro is an environmental disaster. ... Windpower is an environmental disaster. ... Coal and oil on the other hand...

Humanity needs environmental disasters. We need to righteously fuck-over the biosphere before humanity will be persuaded to leave the planet before the next extinction-level meteorite strikes. For humans to live, dolphins must die.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Thank you for your unsupported opinion.

Well, I never really liked New York, so it was an easy call to make. But you're entirely welcome!

 

[richard_daily]

Solar is an environmental disaster. In 30 years our grandkids will be cursing us for all the toxic waste the solar panels will produice as they're replaced at end-of-life. Only the credits solar producers currently enjoy will be long gone by then so they'll have to pay the "real" cost for new panels.

Hydro is an environmental disaster. It destroys the natural environment and wipes out ffish populations that depend on it.

Windpower is an environmental disaster. The dead birds litter the ground beneath the wind farms. Only a heartless monster would operate a wind farm.

Coal and oil on the other hand, with modern advances in clean burning and efficiency combined with land reclamation becoming more common when a coal mine is no longer producing, THOSE energy sources, ironically, have become the most environmentally friendly technologies available to us.

Hahaha...

Sure thing bro.

Maybe stop reading fake news?

 

[gunthernehmen]

Hahaha...

Sure thing bro.

Maybe stop reading fake news?

Impossible. No real news has been printed or broadcast in decades. It's ALL editorial opinion.

 

[phrodeau]

Impossible. No real news has been printed or broadcast in decades. It's ALL editorial opinion.

Impossible? Can't find the off switch?

 

[gunthernehmen]

Impossible? Can't find the off switch?

That would leave me with NO information rather than BAD information.

Honestly, we were all better off when we heard about what happened yesterday on the other side of the world, a year later...

 

[thør]

Lit seems to be swarming with out of work geophysicists. Maybe they should go to work?

The Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences at the California Institute of Technology is seeking outstanding applicants for a tenure-track faculty position in geophysics at the assistant professor level. We invite applicants in any area of geophysics, broadly defined. Preference is for individuals who will lead an innovative research program and are committed to teaching, with the applicant’s overall creativity and potential being valued more than their specific area of expertise within geophysics.

The term of the initial appointment at the assistant professor level is normally four years, with appointment contingent upon completion of a PhD in a relevant field. Exceptionally well-qualified candidates may also be considered at the tenured professor level. Initial review of applications will begin on March 1, 2018, but applications will be accepted until the position is filled.

Interested applicants should submit an electronic application that includes a brief cover letter, curriculum vitae, statement of research and teaching plans, up to three representative publications, and contact information for at least three individuals who may be contacted for letters of reference. Please submit applications at the following link: https://applications.caltech.edu/job/geophysics

 

[trysail]

Climate $cience has been so completely corrupted and politicized by careerists and hijacked by activists who hope to achieve political goals they otherwise would have no hope of attaining that the actual science has been obliterated.




What Are The Grounds For Concern About Global Warming?
by Javier and Andy May


Link to full article

"...This article was first written as a long comment contributing to a discussion over the Geological Society statement at the energy and climate blog Energy matters. Scientists of the Geological Society that authored the statements participated in the discussion to defend their views.


Climate change is a reality attested by past records. Concerns about preparing and adapting for climate change are real. However, the idea that we can prevent climate change from happening is dangerous and might be anti-adaptive. Certain energy policies that might have no effect on climate change could make us less able to adapt.


Physics shows that adding carbon dioxide leads to warming under laboratory conditions. It is generally assumed that a doubling of CO2 should produce a direct forcing of 3.7 W/m2 [1], that translates to a warming of 1°C (by differentiating the Stefan-Boltzmann equation) to 1.2°C (by models taking into account latitude and season). But that is a maximum value valid only if total energy outflow is the same as radiative outflow. As there is also conduction, convection, and evaporation, the final warming without feedbacks is probably less. Then we have the problem of feedbacks that we don’t know and cannot properly measure. For some of the feedbacks, like cloud cover we don’t even know the sign of their contribution. And they are huge, a 1% change in albedo has a radiative effect of 3.4 W/m2 [2], almost equivalent to a full doubling of CO2.


So, in essence we don’t know how much the Earth has warmed in response to the increase in CO2 for the past 67 years, and how much for other causes. That is the reason why, after expending billions on the question of climate sensitivity to CO2, we have not been able to reduce the range of possible values, 1.5°C to 4.5° C[3], a factor of 3, in the 39 years that have passed since the Charney Report was published [4]. A clear scientific failure.


Climate is a very complex system and adding CO2 to the atmosphere in great amounts since 1950 led first to cooling, then to warming, and lately to a stilling of temperatures until the 2014-16 El Niño. A different explanation is required for every period when the expected warming doesn’t take place, an approach that leaves Occam’s beard unshaved...


more...


​

​

 

[richard_daily]

So... Tryfail says that no one knows the "real" science, but HE knows that it's all a hoax.

Sounds like he's still in the pockets of oil and gas.

 

[trysail]

So... Tryfail says that no one knows the "real" science, but HE knows that it's all a hoax.

Sounds like he's still in the pockets of oil and gas.

Have you ever been right about anything?

Anything at all?

Do NOT put words in my mouth you fucking liar.

You're full of shit.​

 

[trysail]

Climate $cience has been so completely corrupted and politicized by careerists and hijacked by activists who hope to achieve political goals they otherwise would have no hope of attaining that the actual science has been obliterated.




What Are The Grounds For Concern About Global Warming?
by Javier and Andy May


Link to full article

"...This article was first written as a long comment contributing to a discussion over the Geological Society statement at the energy and climate blog Energy matters. Scientists of the Geological Society that authored the statements participated in the discussion to defend their views.


Climate change is a reality attested by past records. Concerns about preparing and adapting for climate change are real. However, the idea that we can prevent climate change from happening is dangerous and might be anti-adaptive. Certain energy policies that might have no effect on climate change could make us less able to adapt.


Physics shows that adding carbon dioxide leads to warming under laboratory conditions. It is generally assumed that a doubling of CO2 should produce a direct forcing of 3.7 W/m2 [1], that translates to a warming of 1°C (by differentiating the Stefan-Boltzmann equation) to 1.2°C (by models taking into account latitude and season). But that is a maximum value valid only if total energy outflow is the same as radiative outflow. As there is also conduction, convection, and evaporation, the final warming without feedbacks is probably less. Then we have the problem of feedbacks that we don’t know and cannot properly measure. For some of the feedbacks, like cloud cover we don’t even know the sign of their contribution. And they are huge, a 1% change in albedo has a radiative effect of 3.4 W/m2 [2], almost equivalent to a full doubling of CO2.


So, in essence we don’t know how much the Earth has warmed in response to the increase in CO2 for the past 67 years, and how much for other causes. That is the reason why, after expending billions on the question of climate sensitivity to CO2, we have not been able to reduce the range of possible values, 1.5°C to 4.5° C[3], a factor of 3, in the 39 years that have passed since the Charney Report was published [4]. A clear scientific failure.


Climate is a very complex system and adding CO2 to the atmosphere in great amounts since 1950 led first to cooling, then to warming, and lately to a stilling of temperatures until the 2014-16 El Niño. A different explanation is required for every period when the expected warming doesn’t take place, an approach that leaves Occam’s beard unshaved...


more...


​

​

 

[William_James]

You mean, Andy May, the petrophysicist?

I wonder how deep tryfail is in to the pockets of big oil and coal. I hope it's deep, for as much as he whores himself to them.

 

[richard_daily]

Have you ever been right about anything?

Anything at all?

Do NOT put words in my mouth you fucking liar.

You're full of shit.​

You work in/for oil and gas.

Is that a lie?

 

[thør]

Record level?

 

[trysail]

The 2016-7 El Niño is over.

So, now we see that in the thirty-nine (39) years since the advent of satellite-based measurement of global lower troposphere temperatures, there has been a whopping 0.26°C increase (and that's ignoring potential measurement error and confidence intervals).


Anybody who claims that climate science is "settled science" is trying to sell you something.




http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2018_v6-550x317.jpg

Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from
30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010)


​

 

[Radiohead]

Minnesota must be boiling this week.

 

[phrodeau]

The 2016-7 El Niño is over.

So, now we see that in the thirty-nine (39) years since the advent of satellite-based measurement of global lower troposphere temperatures, there has been a whopping 0.26°C increase (and that's ignoring potential measurement error and confidence intervals).


Anybody who claims that climate science is "settled science" is trying to sell you something.




http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2018_v6-550x317.jpg

Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from
30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010)


​

If you're going to take the last data point for your conclusion, you need to take the first one, too. That graph starts at -0.33 and ends at +0.26. Your statement that 0.26 degrees is the increase is flat-out wrong. Maybe you should try 0.59 degrees, or better still, continue the graph further into the past to take into account the substantial warming that occurred before 1979.

 

[phrodeau]

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018...-vulnerable-extreme-weather-and-climate-risks

Half of U.S. military facilities vulnerable to extreme weather and climate risks

By Nick Sobczyk, E&E News Jan. 30, 2018, 3:00 PM

About half of the military's infrastructure has been affected by extreme weather and other climate-related risks, according to a Pentagon report obtained by a nonpartisan climate think tank.

The report — dated January 2018 and published yesterday by the Center for Climate & Security in Washington, D.C. — surveyed more than 3,500 military sites around the world. It found that about 50% of bases reported effects from events like storm surge flooding, wildfire, drought and wind.

The report is relatively narrow in scope. It examines only current climate-related effects rather than future effects of warming temperatures, and it does not offer cost estimates.

But the responses from individual installations provide a "preliminary qualitative picture of assets currently affected by severe weather events as well as an indication of assets that may be affected by sea level rise in the future," the report says.

Read the DOD's report here: https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/tab-b-slvas-report-1-24-2018.pdf

 

[Que]

If you're going to take the last data point for your conclusion, you need to take the first one, too. That graph starts at -0.33 and ends at +0.26. Your statement that 0.26 degrees is the increase is flat-out wrong. Maybe you should try 0.59 degrees, or better still, continue the graph further into the past to take into account the substantial warming that occurred before 1979.

Wow! Nearly 2/3 of a degree instead of a quarter of a degree? That's twice as bad!! -this is much worse than I ever thought it was.

 

[phrodeau]

Wow! Nearly 2/3 of a degree instead of a quarter of a degree? That's twice as bad!! -this is much worse than I ever thought it was.

Getting educated, are you? That will be a nice change.

 

[Que]

Getting educated, are you? That will be a nice change.

Now that I see how severe the problem is I'm filling up the ice cube trays in the freezer to get me through the coming apocalypse.

 

[Luk]

It has Been The Hottest Decade For Almost 11,000 Years