|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 11, 2016 17:16:23 GMT -5
OB, you are even older than your years. You still think the only valid source of real news is old newspapers? That is hilarious---have you heard of the internet? Not only are the WP and NYT heavily slanted to the left---except to someone who believes anything right of Communist Party line is right wing--- they, along with almost all other old media, have totally abandoned traditional journalistic ethics. The frequently just lie, but then that is not a problem for you. I shudder to think how you might define "qualified". Approved by the DNC? Oh, knock it off, lol!
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 14, 2016 17:44:01 GMT -5
"Bloomberg New Energy Finance finds that 2015 was a record year for global investment in the clean energy space, with $ 329 billion invested in wind, solar panels, biomass plants and more around the world.,,most striking is that it happened in a year in which key fossil fuels — oil, coal and natural gas — were quite cheap...Overall, the addition of 121 gigawatts of solar and wind globally (also a record) means that roughly half of new electricity generating capacity installed last year was in these two technologies." linkOf course, this refers only to NEW investments; alternative energy sources still account for a small fraction of total energy production capacity (about 5 percent in the US, for example). But there's clearly a shift from coal, oil, and gas to sun, wind, and biomass. The US 2015 investment of $56 billion was the second-highest in the world, but still only a bit over half China's $110 billion, about one-third of the world's total. Still, that US investment generated 35,000 jobs, with even more expected this year. The real laggard here is India, which invested only $10.9 billion, even though it has ambitious clean-energy goals. We've just about reached the tipping point on this front: the future will belong to clean energy technology.
|
|
|
Post by bigapplebucky on Jan 14, 2016 18:05:18 GMT -5
Hurricane Alex - hitting the Azores tomorrow (Jan 15)First January hurricane since 1938. That was the year of the "great storm" that hit Long Island hard and cut a new inlet into Fire Island. The weather person said the storm was a fluke, and I can believe that. But why did that same person say this storm was five months early and not two months late? After all, the storm season ended December 1st and won't restart until June 1. We're closer to December 1.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 14, 2016 22:50:02 GMT -5
But why did that same person say this storm was five months early and not two months late? After all, the storm season ended December 1st and won't restart until June 1. We're closer to December 1. Good point! I assume it's just because they name these storms based on the calendar year, but I agree it make more sense to say this is a late rather than early one.
|
|
|
Post by bigapplebucky on Jan 18, 2016 11:20:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Jan 18, 2016 12:07:48 GMT -5
There is nothing to see here except radical propaganda. Miami has always flooded & will always flood.
Here is a moderate & reasoned explanation from National Review - a source no longer considered 'Conservative' media by any means.
www.nationalreview.com/article/382818/flooding-miami-vice-celina-durgin
As the left creates public hysteria by engineering monsters composed of dead dinosaurs, government will grow and citizens will forsake liberty to save the planet.
Soon we will be back at the Brook Farm Institute of Agriculture & Education, learning to live without cars & heat as liberals plan our daily indoctrination classes.
>O
|
|
|
Post by brisco0317 on Jan 18, 2016 12:13:19 GMT -5
There is nothing to see here except radical propaganda. Miami has always flooded & will always flood.
Here is a moderate & reasoned explanation from National Review - a source no longer considered 'Conservative' media by any means.
www.nationalreview.com/article/382818/flooding-miami-vice-celina-durgin
As the left creates public hysteria by engineering monsters composed of dead dinosaurs, government will grow and citizens will forsake liberty to save the planet.
Soon we will be back at the Brook Farm Institute of Agriculture & Education, learning to live without cars & heat as liberals plan our daily indoctrination classes.
>O Just more fear mongering from the hypocritical left...
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 18, 2016 12:20:00 GMT -5
Just more fear mongering from the hypocritical left... B-| I'm sorry, but just what is the "hypocritical" part of AGW?
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 20, 2016 13:14:21 GMT -5
"Last year shattered 2014’s record to become the hottest year ever recorded, based on data going back to 1880, two U.S. government science agencies announced Wednesday...Specifically, the year was 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 degrees Celsius) hotter than 2014, the prior record year, according to NASA. The measurement recorded by NOAA was slightly worse: 0.29 degrees Fahrenheit (0.16 degrees C) hotter than 2014...Overall, NOAA said, 2015 was 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) above the 20th century average." linkBut, you know: HOAX!
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Jan 21, 2016 1:06:05 GMT -5
|
|
munertl
State Legislator
Posts: 261
|
Post by munertl on Jan 21, 2016 10:47:22 GMT -5
"Last year shattered 2014’s record to become the hottest year ever recorded, based on data going back to 1880, two U.S. government science agencies announced Wednesday...Specifically, the year was 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 degrees Celsius) hotter than 2014, the prior record year, according to NASA. The measurement recorded by NOAA was slightly worse: 0.29 degrees Fahrenheit (0.16 degrees C) hotter than 2014...Overall, NOAA said, 2015 was 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) above the 20th century average." linkBut, you know: HOAX! but it was below zero a couple days ago. Clearly they must be making it up.
|
|
|
Post by leftylarry on Jan 25, 2016 13:18:56 GMT -5
This makes too much sense, can't be true though, it wasn't in the NYTIMES.
By Patrick J. Michaels Jan. 24, 2016 2:45 p.m. ET 1553 COMMENTS An East Coast blizzard howling, global temperatures peaking, the desert Southwest flooding, drought-stricken California drying up—surely there’s a common thread tying together this “extreme” weather. There is. But it has little to do with what recent headlines have been saying about the hottest year ever. It is called business as usual.
Surface temperatures are indeed increasing slightly: They’ve been going up, in fits and starts, for more than 150 years, or since a miserably cold and pestilential period known as the Little Ice Age. Before carbon dioxide from economic activity could have warmed us up, temperatures rose three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit between 1910 and World War II. They then cooled down a bit, only to warm again from the mid-1970s to the late ’90s, about the same amount as earlier in the century.
Whether temperatures have warmed much since then depends on what you look at. Until last June, most scientists acknowledged that warming reached a peak in the late 1990s, and since then had plateaued in a “hiatus.” There are about 60 different explanations for this in the refereed literature.
That changed last summer, when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) decided to overhaul its data, throwing out satellite-sensed sea-surface temperatures since the late 1970s and instead relying on, among other sources, readings taken from the cooling-water-intake tubes of oceangoing vessels. The scientific literature is replete with articles about the large measurement errors that accrue in this data owing to the fact that a ship’s infrastructure conducts heat, absorbs a tremendous amount of the sun’s energy, and vessels’ intake tubes are at different ocean depths. See, for instance, John J. Kennedy’s “A review of uncertainty in in situ measurements and data sets of sea surface temperature,” published Jan. 24, 2014, by the journal Reviews of Geophysics.
NOAA’s alteration of its measurement standard and other changes produced a result that could have been predicted: a marginally significant warming trend in the data over the past several years, erasing the temperature plateau that vexed climate alarmists have found difficult to explain. Yet the increase remains far below what had been expected.
It is nonetheless true that 2015 shows the highest average surface temperature in the 160-year global history since reliable records started being available, with or without the “hiatus.” But that is also not very surprising. Early in 2015, a massive El Niño broke out. These quasiperiodic reversals of Pacific trade winds and deep-ocean currents are well-documented but poorly understood. They suppress the normally massive upwelling of cold water off South America that spreads across the ocean (and is the reason that Lima may be the most pleasant equatorial city on the planet). The Pacific reversal releases massive amounts of heat, and therefore surface temperature spikes. El Niño years in a warm plateau usually set a global-temperature record. What happened this year also happened with the last big one, in 1998.
Global average surface temperature in 2015 popped up by a bit more than a quarter of a degree Fahrenheit compared with the previous year. In 1998 the temperature rose by slightly less than a quarter-degree from 1997.
When the Pacific circulation returns to its more customary mode, all that suppressed cold water will surge to the surface with a vengeance, and global temperatures will drop. Temperatures in 1999 were nearly three-tenths of a degree lower than in 1998, and a similar change should occur this time around, though it might not fit so neatly into a calendar year. Often the compensatory cooling, known as La Niña, is larger than the El Niño warming.
There are two real concerns about warming, neither of which has anything to do with the El Niño-enhanced recent peak. How much more is the world likely to warm as civilization continues to exhale carbon dioxide, and does warming make the weather more “extreme,” which means more costly?
Instead of relying on debatable surface-temperature information, consider instead readings in the free atmosphere (technically, the lower troposphere) taken by two independent sensors: satellite sounders and weather balloons. As has been shown repeatedly by University of Alabama climate scientist John Christy, since late 1978 (when the satellite record begins), the rate of warming in the satellite-sensed data is barely a third of what it was supposed to have been, according to the large family of global climate models now in existence. Balloon data, averaged over the four extant data sets, shows the same.
It is therefore probably prudent to cut by 50% the modeled temperature forecasts for the rest of this century. Doing so would mean that the world—without any political effort at all—won’t warm by the dreaded 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 that the United Nations regards as the climate apocalypse.
The notion that world-wide weather is becoming more extreme is just that: a notion, or a testable hypothesis. As data from the world’s biggest reinsurer, Munich Re, and University of Colorado environmental-studies professor Roger Pielke Jr. have shown, weather-related losses haven’t increased at all over the past quarter-century. In fact, the trend, while not statistically significant, is downward. Last year showed the second-smallest weather-related loss of Global World Productivity, or GWP, in the entire record.
Without El Niño, temperatures in 2015 would have been typical of the post-1998 regime. And, even with El Niño, the effect those temperatures had on the global economy was de minimis.
Mr. Michaels, a climatologist, is the director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.
|
|
|
Post by brisco on Jan 29, 2016 9:55:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brisco on Jan 29, 2016 10:07:22 GMT -5
This makes too much sense, can't be true though, it wasn't in the NYTIMES. By Patrick J. Michaels Jan. 24, 2016 2:45 p.m. ET 1553 COMMENTS An East Coast blizzard howling, global temperatures peaking, the desert Southwest flooding, drought-stricken California drying up—surely there’s a common thread tying together this “extreme” weather. There is. But it has little to do with what recent headlines have been saying about the hottest year ever. It is called business as usual. Surface temperatures are indeed increasing slightly: They’ve been going up, in fits and starts, for more than 150 years, or since a miserably cold and pestilential period known as the Little Ice Age. Before carbon dioxide from economic activity could have warmed us up, temperatures rose three-quarters of a degree Fahrenheit between 1910 and World War II. They then cooled down a bit, only to warm again from the mid-1970s to the late ’90s, about the same amount as earlier in the century. Whether temperatures have warmed much since then depends on what you look at. Until last June, most scientists acknowledged that warming reached a peak in the late 1990s, and since then had plateaued in a “hiatus.” There are about 60 different explanations for this in the refereed literature. That changed last summer, when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) decided to overhaul its data, throwing out satellite-sensed sea-surface temperatures since the late 1970s and instead relying on, among other sources, readings taken from the cooling-water-intake tubes of oceangoing vessels. The scientific literature is replete with articles about the large measurement errors that accrue in this data owing to the fact that a ship’s infrastructure conducts heat, absorbs a tremendous amount of the sun’s energy, and vessels’ intake tubes are at different ocean depths. See, for instance, John J. Kennedy’s “A review of uncertainty in in situ measurements and data sets of sea surface temperature,” published Jan. 24, 2014, by the journal Reviews of Geophysics. NOAA’s alteration of its measurement standard and other changes produced a result that could have been predicted: a marginally significant warming trend in the data over the past several years, erasing the temperature plateau that vexed climate alarmists have found difficult to explain. Yet the increase remains far below what had been expected. It is nonetheless true that 2015 shows the highest average surface temperature in the 160-year global history since reliable records started being available, with or without the “hiatus.” But that is also not very surprising. Early in 2015, a massive El Niño broke out. These quasiperiodic reversals of Pacific trade winds and deep-ocean currents are well-documented but poorly understood. They suppress the normally massive upwelling of cold water off South America that spreads across the ocean (and is the reason that Lima may be the most pleasant equatorial city on the planet). The Pacific reversal releases massive amounts of heat, and therefore surface temperature spikes. El Niño years in a warm plateau usually set a global-temperature record. What happened this year also happened with the last big one, in 1998. Global average surface temperature in 2015 popped up by a bit more than a quarter of a degree Fahrenheit compared with the previous year. In 1998 the temperature rose by slightly less than a quarter-degree from 1997. When the Pacific circulation returns to its more customary mode, all that suppressed cold water will surge to the surface with a vengeance, and global temperatures will drop. Temperatures in 1999 were nearly three-tenths of a degree lower than in 1998, and a similar change should occur this time around, though it might not fit so neatly into a calendar year. Often the compensatory cooling, known as La Niña, is larger than the El Niño warming. There are two real concerns about warming, neither of which has anything to do with the El Niño-enhanced recent peak. How much more is the world likely to warm as civilization continues to exhale carbon dioxide, and does warming make the weather more “extreme,” which means more costly? Instead of relying on debatable surface-temperature information, consider instead readings in the free atmosphere (technically, the lower troposphere) taken by two independent sensors: satellite sounders and weather balloons. As has been shown repeatedly by University of Alabama climate scientist John Christy, since late 1978 (when the satellite record begins), the rate of warming in the satellite-sensed data is barely a third of what it was supposed to have been, according to the large family of global climate models now in existence. Balloon data, averaged over the four extant data sets, shows the same. It is therefore probably prudent to cut by 50% the modeled temperature forecasts for the rest of this century. Doing so would mean that the world—without any political effort at all—won’t warm by the dreaded 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 that the United Nations regards as the climate apocalypse. The notion that world-wide weather is becoming more extreme is just that: a notion, or a testable hypothesis. As data from the world’s biggest reinsurer, Munich Re, and University of Colorado environmental-studies professor Roger Pielke Jr. have shown, weather-related losses haven’t increased at all over the past quarter-century. In fact, the trend, while not statistically significant, is downward. Last year showed the second-smallest weather-related loss of Global World Productivity, or GWP, in the entire record. Without El Niño, temperatures in 2015 would have been typical of the post-1998 regime. And, even with El Niño, the effect those temperatures had on the global economy was de minimis. Mr. Michaels, a climatologist, is the director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. The part I highlighted is what casts doubt for me on what is really going on with global warming. Why did NOAA "overhaul" its data? If you have a theory, you do experiments and research to prove or disprove that theory. It should be pretty straightforward. You don't "massage" data to fit the theory - that is science 101.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 29, 2016 16:56:00 GMT -5
The part I highlighted is what casts doubt for me on what is really going on with global warming. Why did NOAA "overhaul" its data? If you have a theory, you do experiments and research to prove or disprove that theory. It should be pretty straightforward. You don't "massage" data to fit the theory - that is science 101. There's a concise explanation here. The major data adjustment involved the shift from ship- to buoy-based measuring instruments: "Prior to the mid-1970s, ships were the predominant way to measure sea surface temperatures, and since then buoys have been used in increasing numbers. Compared to ships, buoys provide measurements of significantly greater accuracy. 'In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data,' said Dr. Thomas C. Peterson, principal scientist at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information and one of the study's authors. 'In order to accurately compare ship measurements and buoy measurements over the long-term, they need to be compatible. Scientists have developed a method to correct the difference between ship and buoy measurements, and we are using this in our trend analysis.' In addition, more detailed information has been obtained regarding each ship's observation method. This information was also used to provide improved corrections for changes in the mix of observing methods." Given that all the underlying data are available to everyone on the NOAA website anyone can check to see what they did, and why. This whole "hiatus" thing was just the latest weak reed for the denialists, but the rants about it are all sound and fury signifying nothing.
|
|
|
Post by bigapplebucky on Feb 1, 2016 11:31:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Feb 1, 2016 16:24:06 GMT -5
Do most folks think that Nessie will pluck them from their boat & devour them in front of their family as they cruise along Picnic Point?
Do most folks think that Bigfoot will storm from the woods in the Lacrosse suburbs & make a hotdog out of their dachshund named Boris?
No. Outside of the radical fringe extremist left, most rational people do not care about an attack of mythological creatures ending the world...
Perhaps there is a ray of hope for the republic?
dailycaller.com/2016/02/01/poll-91-of-americans-arent-worried-about-global-warming/
>O
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 1, 2016 17:14:32 GMT -5
"A YouGov poll of 18,000 people in 17 countries found only 9.2 percent of Americans rank global warming as their biggest concern." Well, duh! I doubt anyone here regards global warming as THEIR OWN biggest concern. Mine right now is planning a business/pleasure trip to Europe later this month. Also, getting my tax payments together, and avoiding some nut-case with a gun killing me at a coffee shop. A few billion people are worried about finding any food at all to live on for the next 24 hours. That doesn't mean that the issue isn't important for society, however. I am quite certain that in August of 2008 virtually no American would have said their "biggest concern" was the secondary market for subprime mortgages, but that didn't make that issue unimportant, either. BTW, Krugman has good news to report today: "Most people who think about the issue at all probably imagine that achieving a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would necessarily involve big economic sacrifices...But things are actually much more hopeful than that, thanks to remarkable technological progress in renewable energy. The numbers are really stunning…, the cost of electricity generation using wind power fell 61 percent from 2009 to 2015, while the cost of solar power fell 82 percent. These numbers…put the cost of renewable energy into a range where it’s competitive with fossil fuels. … "So what will it take to achieve a large-scale shift from fossil fuels to renewables, a shift to sun and wind instead of fire? Financial incentives, and they don’t have to be all that huge. Tax credits for renewables that were part of the Obama stimulus plan, and were extended under the recent budget deal, have already done a lot to accelerate the energy revolution. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which if implemented will create strong incentives to move away from coal, will do much more. And none of this will require new legislation; we can have an energy revolution even if the crazies retain control of the House. "Now, skeptics may point out that even if all these good things happen, they won’t be enough…But I’d argue that the kind of progress now within reach could produce a tipping point, in the right direction. Once renewable energy becomes an obvious success and, yes, a powerful interest group, anti-environmentalism will start to lose its political grip. And an energy revolution in America would let us take the lead in global action." linkThe retrograde minds that insist switching from coal and petroleum to more sustainable energy sources will be a disaster are like the guys who worried that the automobile would destroy the economy, based on its effects on the horse, buggy whip, and hay industries.
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Feb 1, 2016 18:57:38 GMT -5
Krugman has good news to report today...
What!? Is this Forum like Bizzaro Superman world?
So now we lead with one of America's creepiest & most radically indoctrinated Ministers of Propaganda?
Shouldn't Krugman be advising Sweden or Denmark on economic issues?
When the left has officially killed all remnants of the free market (Coming Soon To A Theatre Near You!) this specter might be relevant again...
I thought he had crawled under a rock, but I guess (like mildew) he keeps coming back...
>O
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 1, 2016 19:58:18 GMT -5
So now we lead with one of America's creepiest & most radically indoctrinated Ministers of Propaganda? Nobel Prize-winning economists, and perhaps next Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. :-)
|
|
|
Post by bigapplebucky on Feb 8, 2016 22:02:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by leftylarry on Feb 9, 2016 12:20:27 GMT -5
"They pretend to be scientists, but, in fact, are highly paid salesmen working for Exxon, the Koch Brothers and other carbon industry folks. ""
LMAO, typical leftist answer, if a guy doesn't agree with the lies and nonsense, he has no chance of getting hired by the LEFTISTS who control the discussion, so he gets hired by the other side and then you say, 'HE's working for them."" LMAO
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 9, 2016 14:19:01 GMT -5
"They pretend to be scientists, but, in fact, are highly paid salesmen working for Exxon, the Koch Brothers and other carbon industry folks. "" LMAO, typical leftist answer, if a guy doesn't agree with the lies and nonsense, he has no chance of getting hired by the LEFTISTS who control the discussion, so he gets hired by the other side and then you say, 'HE's working for them."" LMAO Except, of course, that it's true.
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Feb 10, 2016 0:45:18 GMT -5
The radicals in robes temporarily halted Chairman Obama's Global Warming Dictate.
news.yahoo.com/u-supreme-court-blocks-obama-carbon-emissions-plan-232809840--finance.html
2 radicals joined with 3 moderates in reaching the 5-4 decision to slow America's march towards Communism.
AGW Church members were disturbed to find fellow liberals like Roberts & Kennedy questioning their religious symbols.
A portion of this disturbing apostasy was caught on video...
>O
|
|
|
Post by bigapplebucky on Feb 11, 2016 19:19:58 GMT -5
Checking Ted Cruz's climate science denial howlers(Antarctic scientist attacked by Republican Ted Cruz says Texas Senator “has confused which way is up” )The Critical Thought from this piece: And I liked this bit too: You’d have to first overturn the laws of atmospheric physics, and maybe then prove the atmosphere and oceans are not heating up, that the world’s plants and animals on the move across the world are reacting to something else (like, say, messages from Uranus), that the oceans are rising just because they fancy it and that all the recent record hot years could have just come along by chance.
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Feb 12, 2016 1:22:12 GMT -5
Radical propagandists at NASA have issued a report to explain why sightings of mythological creatures are down 20%...
news.yahoo.com/parched-earth-soaks-water-slowing-sea-level-rise-231245199.html
It is not that these monsters of campfire ghost stories simply do not exist...
Oh No - not as long as they can advance Socialism! Now, the planet is actually soaking up Chupacabras each & every day!
The once proud agency that explored the deep reaches of space is now concentrating on the absence of Bigfoot, Nessie and the Skunk Ape.
At this rate of liberal lunacy, we will soon be stealing & spending billions to explain the low number of sightings of Casper the Friendly Ghost.
>O
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 12, 2016 1:47:12 GMT -5
At this rate of liberal lunacy, we will soon be stealing & spending billions to explain the low number of sightings of Casper the Friendly Ghost.
Well, there certainly is a lot of lunacy on this issue, but I believe you're pointing in the wrong direction. Instead of looking this way <---- I think you need to look ----> that way. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by bigapplebucky on Feb 16, 2016 17:57:35 GMT -5
January worldwide temperatures smash all time recordThis January was the warmest January on record by a large margin while also claiming the title of most anomalously warm month in 135 years of record keeping. The month was 1.13°C — or just a smidge more than 2°F — above normal. That tops December’s record of being 1.11°C — or just a smidge below 2°F — above average. It marks the fourth month in a row where the globe has been more than 1°C (1.8°F) above normal. Incidentally, those are the only four months where the globe has topped that mark since record keeping began. If 2016 sets another global temperature record, that would make it back-to-back-to-back years of record setting hot temperatures. That’s never happened before. Meanwhile the paid Merchants of Doubt keep pumping out bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 16, 2016 22:52:28 GMT -5
It's all a myth, BAB. I read it on the Interweb
|
|
|
Post by bigapplebucky on Feb 20, 2016 18:34:50 GMT -5
Good cartoon, except the word scientist is not in quotes.
|
|