Well, are you believers going to listen to the data? Data, not models.
Wait a minute? I thought "the scientists" said it would be melted soon?
(CNN)Scientists have made a discovery about the sun's "heartbeat" that they say indicates that Earth's Northern Hemisphere could experience a deep freeze in 15 years. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/world/sun-irregular-heartbeat-ice/index.html
And the pope is out there begging nations to
give money to stop GW.
So how then is 1°C half way to hell???
Absolutely silly yet the uninformed eat it up.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730324-200-earth-now-halfway-to-un-global-warming-limit/
no warming, or that a "little ice age" is on the way. These are talking points, not physics.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: terapinedQuote: AZDuffman
Here is the actual quote
"A lot of it has to do with drought, a lot of it has to do with changing precipitation patterns and a lot of that has to do with climate change"
I admit its partially wrong.
Drought, ok
changing precipitation patterns ok
Climate change maybe
The thing is this, precipitation patterns have ALWAYS been changing. In the late 1800s many believed "rain follows the plow" as to farming in the great plains. They were "right" because that area saw years of good precipitation. Until the Dust Bowl.
When you read the quote, you need to understand what is being communicated. As we all know, Obama is incapable of talking off a teleprompter. The quote was massaged so as not to directly say "GLOBAL WARMING!" To use the liberal's famous term, it is a "dog whistle" to the enviro left.
Obama one year said he was "concerned" about spring coming early. Now, anyone over the age of 20 who lived in the north knows sometimes spring comes early and sometimes not. We base Groundhog Day around it. But again, he puts out the whistle.
As to Graham, cute quote. It, however, is not "believing" the scientists who are so-called deniers. It is that once you turn 30 and even more 40 you are not as taken in by fads. You think back to the global-cooling talk and say, "I've seen this movie before. The butler did it."
Whether you agree with President Obama or not, he doesn't need any help communicating what he means. You're reading a whole lot into his statements that didn't get said, and it appears more like spin of pretty straightforward statements from your POV than discussing the actual situation. For that matter, Lindsay Graham spoke pretty bluntly as well. It is what it is.
Quote: cmc0605...none of the above arguments are worth very much. The fact is we live in a world governed by physics, and the physics says CO2 is going to increase global temperature. That is observed, and it is not true we've gone over two decades with
no warming, or that a "little ice age" is on the way. These are talking points, not physics.
Yes but physics don't tell us how much the earth will warm for a given increase in CO2. If it did then we wouldn't need 20+ models that give various results. The question of "How much warming?" is still open for debate. The question of how much warming is beneficial - something you very rarely hear discussed - is also open for debate. Yet some people want to stifle debate.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064888/full
$18,326,248,796,324
Quote: HowManyIf liberal politicians really cared about future generations, they would do something about the national debt-
$18,326,248,796,324
Oh don't you know crackhead Nobama HAS done "something about the national debt".
8 trillion somethings...
Quote: PBguyThere's a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters that attempts to explain and minimize the difference between climate models and reality. Over the last 15 years the earth has failed to cooperate and warm as forecast by the models. This, of course, is not acceptable. So climate scientists had to come up with an excuse. This is the latest excuse. Turns out the models weren't predicting the right thing.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064888/full
Try reading the paper.
Quote: cmc0605Try reading the paper.
I'd love to read it but like so much 'science' today it's locked behind a paywall. Do you have a copy you'd like to share? Oh and if you disagree with my post you could at least state why. Have you read the paper? Do you disagree with what I wrote?
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74892.html#ixzz3htT4ulVJ
Now here we are all these years later and he's finally going to make that plan active. Electricity rates will go up as utilities are forced to shutter coal plants and build new gas fired plants or even more expensive renewable energy (likely a combination). It's estimated that this plan will reduce US greenhouse emissions by a whopping 6%. In other words it will have almost zero impact on the climate.
In reality it could increase greenhouse gas emissions as the coal that isn't burned here in the US gets exported to countries like China that have far fewer rules on emissions. Obama never mentioned that.
So in the end Americans will pay more for electricity and it will have little or no impact on global emissions. But it will make some people feel good as if they've done something positive when in reality they've done nothing. It's the equivalent of clicking "Like" on Facebook.
Quote: PBguyIn 2008 Obama said “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74892.html#ixzz3htT4ulVJ
Now here we are all these years later and he's finally going to make that plan active. Electricity rates will go up as utilities are forced to shutter coal plants and build new gas fired plants or even more expensive renewable energy (likely a combination). It's estimated that this plan will reduce US greenhouse emissions by a whopping 6%. In other words it will have almost zero impact on the climate.
In reality it could increase greenhouse gas emissions as the coal that isn't burned here in the US gets exported to countries like China that have far fewer rules on emissions. Obama never mentioned that.
So in the end Americans will pay more for electricity and it will have little or no impact on global emissions. But it will make some people feel good as if they've done something positive when in reality they've done nothing. It's the equivalent of clicking "Like" on Facebook.
The one estimate I heard is it will reduce emissions by 30% by the time it's fully implemented, which I think was 2022. So I'm not sure what you're looking at, but I also can't provide a definitive source; can't remember what channel I was watching when they broadcast his speech.
I don't think your (paraphrasing) "export the coal so it'll get burned anyway" is a legitimate argument against this policy change. We can only do a federal energy policy for America, not the world. However, China is realizing they have a HUGE pollution problem with the fast and large-scale industrialization of their country, and they're having to change their energy policy as well, because they're killing their people with smog. They'll have to do it in their own time and under their own way, because we don't get to tell them how to run their country (China or another).
We have, by far, been the most backward on this among industrialized countries, and I think pretty hypocritical. We've refused to sign or comply with anti-pollution practices and standards many times in the last 50 years, and most if not all of the other countries have been pretty good about complying themselves while not calling us out (much) on our failure to act in the larger interests. So I think this is a necessary and worthwhile step, even if it is painful and expensive. All FWIW.
Even the left wing climate activists are criticizing Obama's plan:
“The actions are practically worthless,” said James Hansen, a climate researcher who headed NASA’s Goddard’s Institute for Space Studies for over 30 years and first warned congress of global warming in 1988. “They do nothing to attack the fundamental problem.”
“You’ve got to be kidding,” he wrote, when asked if the plan would make continued climate activism unnecessary. Obama’s plan, and for that matter the proposed plan Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, he continued, “is like the fellow who walks to work instead of driving, and thinks he is saving the world.”
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obamas-climate-policy-practically-worthless-says-expert
I have to laugh at the idea that this plan will SAVE consumers money. Can you name the last time a government plan saved people money and rates went DOWN?
"The government says heat-trapping pollution from U.S. power plants hit a 27-year low in April. U.S. Energy Information Administration economist Allen McFarland said a big factor was the long-term shift from coal to cleaner and cheaper natural gas. Outside experts also credit more renewable fuel use and energy efficiency."
Natural gas is CHEAP right now mostly due to fracking. It's significantly cleaner than coal and cheaper for power plants to use. Yet the push is on for renewables which are expensive and unreliable. One thing that is generally not included when talking about the cost of renewable energy is the cost of the fossil fuel backup generation required to ensure that when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing there is still power.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/carbon-pollution-u-s-power-plants-hits-27-year-low-n404726
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/612369/SHOCK-CLAIM-World-is-on-brink-of-50-year-ICE-AGE-and-BRITAIN-will-bear-the-brunt
Quote: EvenBob
Liberals will point to this article as more PROOF of global warming.
Remember . . . THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED ! ! ! !
No evidence of global warming, per se, is needed other than global temperature readings. I had thought you had at least retreated from the idea that the Earth isn't warming. Anthropogenic global warming is a different matter, but the science is about as settled as it gets, notwithstanding conspiracy theories or lame arguments like "but papers that don't mention the cause ought to have been counted as dissenting!"
And yes, this is an effect of global warming. Look at the latitude of Great Britain - it ought to be a lot colder than it is. The gulf stream has been keeping it warm, and that's been disrupted. Is that so incredible? Meanwhile, global temperatures continue to rise when solar cycles and the southern oscillation ("El Niño") are taken into account. Again, the change in the gulf stream is not evidence of global warming, which is trivial to verify, but it is an effect of it. And there's no reason it should be evidence for or against a human origin.
Great op-ed. By throwing in every SJW position they could find they show they are not really about "science" but pushing a social agenda. Hopefully the Paris Accord dies and with it the movement. Hearing the end is near for 30 years now.
Blistering heat wave demolishes all-time records in northwestern US, Canada | AccuWeather https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-forecasts/blistering-heat-wave-demolishes-all-time-records-in-northwestern-us-canada/969616