Climate continues to change.

[Luk]

*points and laughs*

Hush. He *knows* how many blue eye babies are being born at any given fracking site at all times. Could be he just lives next to a lot of brown people.

 

[cowslinger64]

Well thats a bad report.

Like I said...I don't like fracking

The problem is, as with Q-Bert is refusing to admit it is a problem.. Imo, the question is at what point is the cost too high to continue fracking and other things that damage the environment and people around those sites.

 

[Que]

The problem is, as with Q-Bert is refusing to admit it is a problem.. Imo, the question is at what point is the cost too high to continue fracking and other things that damage the environment and people around those sites.

Where did I say that? I am concerned about chemicals in the ground.

My entire point is that Luke's geographical study doesn't prove anything at all other than the fact that they did a bad study without looking at the possible variables.

For all I know there are consequences and there may be horrible birth defects in the offing but this study isn't going to show it one way or the other.

If there is a consequence I would assume it's going to show up in the water supply. The water supply is going to be piped a lot more than a mile and a half from the site.

 

[just Fran]

maybe you should read a little bit now and then

https://www.ecowatch.com/10-years-o...on-our-water-land-and-climate-1891114363.html

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

maybe you should read a little bit now and then

https://www.ecowatch.com/10-years-o...on-our-water-land-and-climate-1891114363.html

Regrettably, Que seems terminally incapable of acknowledging the body of science information.

 

[just Fran]

You Guys want more of that? ~hope it stays in the U S

https://www.ecowatch.com/extreme-weather-climate-change-2517180162.html

 

[trysail]

Report back when you finish reading:
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf

...the meeting's purpose is to explore through expert presentations and discussion the state of climate science, both the consensus view as expressed by several thousand pages of the IPCC AR5 Working Group 1 report that came out three months ago, but also the views of experts who credibly take significant issue with several aspects of the consensus picture.

In doing this, the subcommittee hopes to illuminate the certainties and the gaps in our understanding of the physical basis of climate change for the subcommittee itself, for the APS leadership who are present here as observers, and, through a transcript, for the APS membership and the broader public... ​

__________________

“It’s clouds that prevent us from fundamentally in some reductive fashion understanding the climate system,” Princeton Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Professor Isaac Held, senior research scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, declared from the IPCC climate consensus bench. Collins made a similar point toward the end of the session. “My sense, to be honest with you, is that, and I think this all makes us a little bit nervous,” he said; “climate is not a problem that is amenable necessarily to reductionist treatment.”

Yet the IPCC’s top-line judgment in its Fifth Assessment Report—that it is “extremely likely” that the human emissions of greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of the warming since the mid-20th century—was described by Dr. Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory as likely to be conservative. The basis for this claim? General circulation models... ​

"In private, climate scientists are much less certain than they tell the public."

– Rupert Darwall​

​

 

[cowslinger64]

Where did I say that? I am concerned about chemicals in the ground.

My entire point is that Luke's geographical study doesn't prove anything at all other than the fact that they did a bad study without looking at the possible variables.

For all I know there are consequences and there may be horrible birth defects in the offing but this study isn't going to show it one way or the other.

If there is a consequence I would assume it's going to show up in the water supply. The water supply is going to be piped a lot more than a mile and a half from the site.

It didn't seem as tho you did care..but if I'm wrong about that I take it back.

It seems really foolish to me to think we're not damaging the planet with all we do..is it worth the cost?

 

[Que]

It didn't seem as tho you did care..but if I'm wrong about that I take it back.

It seems really foolish to me to think we're not damaging the planet with all we do..is it worth the cost?

I think it is for the moment. Some of these things exist underground already we already have methane and oil underground the question is are we helping to get into our aquafers?.

It's had a huge impact on what was the struggling economy. A lot of the early recovery from this last recession was attributable directly to the money made from fracking. It's kept the cost of oil and heating homes and powering businesses cheap while we recover. It's also somewhat reduced what should be our cost for the defense department because at this point we really don't need the Middle East in which case we shouldn't care what goes on over there. In theory anyway.

long-term no matter how we go about extracting it we will use every bit of fossil fuels of any type that's underground will find them and burn them. Then what? The obvious solution is we should be moving towards nuclear and where we have your nuclear right now we would get better and better at it it would be cheaper and safer. We need to be looking at better reactors.

 

[cowslinger64]

I think it is for the moment. Some of these things exist underground already we already have methane and oil underground the question is are we helping to get into our aquafers?.

It's had a huge impact on what was the struggling economy. A lot of the early recovery from this last recession was attributable directly to the money made from fracking. It's kept the cost of oil and heating homes and powering businesses cheap while we recover. It's also somewhat reduced what should be our cost for the defense department because at this point we really don't need the Middle East in which case we shouldn't care what goes on over there. In theory anyway.

long-term no matter how we go about extracting it we will use every bit of fossil fuels of any type that's underground will find them and burn them. Then what? The obvious solution is we should be moving towards nuclear and where we have your nuclear right now we would get better and better at it it would be cheaper and safer. We need to be looking at better reactors.

I agree with your points about cheap fuel being a big help to the economy..high fuel prices are a big drain on it...and as for nuclear energy, I agree too and wish we could find a more economical and safe way to make it a viable energy source.

 

[just Fran]

Regrettably, Que seems terminally incapable of acknowledging the body of science information.

Well maybe not in "our Lifetime" but at one Point in the Future all your Coastal Cities are gonna be under Water!

http://www.newsweek.com/epa-climate-change-website-clean-energy-742301

 

[Luk]

Which is it, "nuh UH," or "You wrote a lot of words?" It can't be both. You're free to disagree with my point of view, but suggesting that I did not give a detailed explanation as to why I dispute their conclusion is just silly.

Nuh uh, is what you and "Dick" are saying. "Dick," in this thread, has told everyone that they're wrong and hasn't told anyone why they're wrong. Because that is beneath him.

You do exactly the same thing. You keep saying "I posted a factual article and it has facts!!!

I have explained why those facts, while true, do not support the conclusion they leapt to. You haven't even attempted to refute my contention.

It's pretty fucking simple to tell when you're lying so when you start pulling shit like "8% of black babies in some podunk fracking town in the middle of nowhere" out of your ass, it's an easy tell. When talking about a fidget spinner you start babbling about centrifugal force and x/y axis. It's like Cliff jumped off Sam's barstool and landed on the Lit.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

Well maybe not in "our Lifetime" but at one Point in the Future all your Coastal Cities are gonna be under Water!

http://www.newsweek.com/epa-climate-change-website-clean-energy-742301

Science gets me hawt. You and the husband down for a threesome?

 

[just Fran]

I agree with your points about cheap fuel being a big help to the economy..high fuel prices are a big drain on it...and as for nuclear energy, I agree too and wish we could find a more economical and safe way to make it a viable energy source.

maybe this kind of Energy !
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/index/tech.html

 

[bellisarius]

Well maybe not in "our Lifetime" but at one Point in the Future all your Coastal Cities are gonna be under Water!

http://www.newsweek.com/epa-climate-change-website-clean-energy-742301

Really? And this is somehow a threat to mankind? Why?

We are in an inter-glacial period now. That means that things warm up and the ice melts. Since the last ice age the sea levels have risen 300 feet. I fail to see where another 3 to 10 feet is such a travesty, well, except for those that have made major investments along the existing shore-lines. Besides, having to move shit around is good for the construction trades.

And another ice age is coming. That is as inevitable as the rising of the sun. Why would anyone in their right mind want to take steps to hasten it along?

 

[just Fran]

Science gets me hawt. You and the husband down for a threesome?

We might not have the Energy for that

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

The science of extreme weather attribution.

For the first time, scientists have definitively linked human-caused climate change to extreme weather events.

A handful of extreme events that occurred in 2016 — including a deadly heat wave that swept across Asia — simply could not have happened due to natural climate variability alone, three new studies find. The studies were part of a special issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, also known as BAMS, released December 13.

Source: link.

 

[trysail]

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/ceres-cor-surface-sun-temperature.png?w=720


​

 

[trysail]

Butterflies And Junk Science
by Jim Steele, Ph.D.

...Singer and Parmesan illustrate a glaring problem when limiting debate to peer-reviewed journals. Contradictory evidence is simply never published.

So why haven’t they published this good news of the butterfly’s recovery? Why did only her erroneous climate gloom and doom bring worldwide acclaim? Despite a wealth of evidence that contradicted global warming predictions, her faulty “Climate and Species Range” went viral and is now cited by over 580 articles. In contrast just 17 have cited the paper detailing conservationists’ efforts that actually saved the butterfly, “The Endangered Quino Checkerspot Butterfly”. Parmesan wrote subsequent papers blaming extreme weather and climate change for population extinctions and again withheld evidence of the species’ success. Likewise her half-truths were immediately embraced and published by our leading climate scientists and then cited by more than a thousand articles. That deception however requires a future essay...

​

​

 

[trysail]

If the problems are INCREASING with the INCREASING of fracking....

Somebody just stated that Russia has a ginormous interest in obstructing fracking because the employment of fracking has tremendously damaged their gas exports. I had never considered that fact before.


That makes perfect sense and it explains why Russia has contributed so heavily to Greenpeace et al (a/k/a the Green Blob).



​

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

Trump will drop climate change from National Security Strategy

The Trump administration will drop climate change from a list of global threats in a new National Security Strategy the president is due to unveil on Monday.

I wonder if it's still true the Trump White House has no science advisor.

 

[LiamAnthony]

Somebody just stated that Russia has a ginormous interest in obstructing fracking because the employment of fracking has tremendously damaged their gas exports. I had never considered that fact before.


That makes perfect sense and it explains why Russia has contributed so heavily to Greenpeace et al (a/k/a the Green Blob).



​

There is an interesting motherjones article which outlines the similarities between "climategate" and the 2016 election hacks.

It's worth a read.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/12/climategate-wikileaks-russia-trump-hacking/

 

[phrodeau]

Trump will drop climate change from National Security Strategy

The Trump administration will drop climate change from a list of global threats in a new National Security Strategy the president is due to unveil on Monday.

I wonder if it's still true the Trump White House has no science advisor.

I think Trump uses the same guy as trysail. "Somebody just stated."

 

[thør]

I'm ordering pineapple starts for next year's garden.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

That Arctic temperature anomaly, tho.