In the Lefts never ending quest to monitise our environment, some levity can prevail.
No levity here, just scary reality.
No levity here, just scary reality.
Back to the subject of climate science
- Thread starter SteelChip
- Start date
Nice cartoons cartoon man, now how about some facts.
Since you like pictures:
On the left the two clouds(Min and max) give you an idea of how small volcano emissions are compared to human emissions on the right:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
The solid Earth contains a huge quantity of carbon, far more than scientists estimate is present in the atmosphere or oceans. As an important part of the global carbon cycle, some of this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at volcanoes and hot springs. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Mörner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.
The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.
Hey but never mind the science you've got cartoons.......
Since you like pictures:
On the left the two clouds(Min and max) give you an idea of how small volcano emissions are compared to human emissions on the right:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
The solid Earth contains a huge quantity of carbon, far more than scientists estimate is present in the atmosphere or oceans. As an important part of the global carbon cycle, some of this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at volcanoes and hot springs. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Mörner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.
The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.
Hey but never mind the science you've got cartoons.......
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Bawk! Bawk! Bawk! The sky is falling!
"Experts" said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 - they were wrong
Dire predictions that the Arctic would be devoid of sea ice by September this year have proven to be unfounded after latest satellite images showed there is far more now than in 2012.
Scientists such as Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Moderey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016, which has been widely reported by the BBC and other media outlets.
Prof Wadhams, a leading expert on Arctic sea ice loss, has recently published a book entitled A Farewell To Ice in which he repeats the assertion that the polar region would free of ice in the middle of this decade.
As late as this summer, he was still predicting an ice-free September.
Yet, when figures were released for the yearly minimum on September 10, they showed that there was still 1.6 million square miles of sea ice (4.14 square kilometres), which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/
------------------------
Just the facts, ma'am
Like with all science fiction, they will just re-write the next book to push the future timeline out farther
"Experts" said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 - they were wrong
Dire predictions that the Arctic would be devoid of sea ice by September this year have proven to be unfounded after latest satellite images showed there is far more now than in 2012.
Scientists such as Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Moderey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016, which has been widely reported by the BBC and other media outlets.
Prof Wadhams, a leading expert on Arctic sea ice loss, has recently published a book entitled A Farewell To Ice in which he repeats the assertion that the polar region would free of ice in the middle of this decade.
As late as this summer, he was still predicting an ice-free September.
Yet, when figures were released for the yearly minimum on September 10, they showed that there was still 1.6 million square miles of sea ice (4.14 square kilometres), which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/
------------------------
Just the facts, ma'am
Like with all science fiction, they will just re-write the next book to push the future timeline out farther
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,605
- Reaction score
- 29,986
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Why does elfiePolo give a **** about this issue? He said very clearly more than a year ago that "our fate is already sealed."
Yet here he is, more than a year later, saying, "Oh, we have to jump in and stop the climate apocalypse!!"
Wait, stop something that already happened?
Yet here he is, more than a year later, saying, "Oh, we have to jump in and stop the climate apocalypse!!"
Wait, stop something that already happened?
Liberals don't really give a crap about climate change, it's all about getting more control over people.
No i said that i believe it's too late to avoid some of the worst of it. By the fate of the human race i'm referring to civilization as we know it.
The human species will not go extinct, even in the worst scenario.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,605
- Reaction score
- 29,986
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Okay, but that was a year ago.
Another year of unfettered CO2 emissions ... we must be cooked by now.
Your governor arrived in the nick of time to ban cow farts. The only reason you have not perished.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 4,878
- Reaction score
- 5,063
- Points
- 113
I am not a climate doomsdayer nor am I a denier. While I believe that man may be contributing to the CO2 emissions, we are not the COMPLETE problem.
As history shows, CO2 level increases have been followed closely by plant growth explosions. The problem we have here is that we have caused huge deforestation problems as well as complete removal of green spaces. Without the area to allow for massive plant growth, we decrease the ability of the planet to capture the excess CO2.
I also believe we can not expect to return to pre-1800 or 1900 levels with the population levels were are currently supporting. More people require more food, which requires use of more resources, with increase resource consumption. Maybe all the doomsdayers will volunteer to be euthanized to help with this problem. Start signing them up not.
As history shows, CO2 level increases have been followed closely by plant growth explosions. The problem we have here is that we have caused huge deforestation problems as well as complete removal of green spaces. Without the area to allow for massive plant growth, we decrease the ability of the planet to capture the excess CO2.
I also believe we can not expect to return to pre-1800 or 1900 levels with the population levels were are currently supporting. More people require more food, which requires use of more resources, with increase resource consumption. Maybe all the doomsdayers will volunteer to be euthanized to help with this problem. Start signing them up not.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,605
- Reaction score
- 29,986
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
I've never once heard a report of sea ice being gone by 2016. That would lead to an incredible increase in sea level around the world, and it would have been something every country would have had to prepare for.
If you don't think sea ice is melting in the arctic, then you must have missed what is going on with the countries at the top of the world, and how they are positioning themselves to open and secure trade routes as the ice retreats. Russia is on top of this. The US, Canada, Greenland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland are on the front of what could become an Arctic conflict in the next decade or so.
I think that this argument is more plausible than any cow fart, back yard BBQ pit or evil fossil fuel version. I like clean air as much as the next guy but there is a limit to what makes good common sense. The pendulum never rests as we go to extremes in a quest for individual idealism.
I can't wait to see the end of this Obama regime's overzealous mandates and hope to hell that we don't see round duex in the form of a Hillary invasion. I don't believe our economy will be able to survive another onslaught like we've had to sustain this past century.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 12,473
- Reaction score
- 18,710
- Points
- 113
Yet the Republican Congress delays a Dept. of Labor overtime change that would result in me getting paid more money but somehow never blocks anything that Bomma's EPA wants to do.
Did the ice caps melt yet?
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Hillary Clinton urges Florida voters not to elect 'climate change denier' Trump
We can’t afford a candidate who doesn’t accept climate change,” Clinton said. “Maybe he’ll listen to our military leaders who say climate change threatens our security.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/11/hillary-clinton-al-gore-climate-change-florida-trump
-------------------
Damn those WikiLeaks!
ha ha - follow the Clinton Foundation money
Hillary's paid speech to DeutscheBank: "Fracking is a miracle but the credit goes to the US government for the US Department of Energy came up with it"
We can’t afford a candidate who doesn’t accept climate change,” Clinton said. “Maybe he’ll listen to our military leaders who say climate change threatens our security.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/11/hillary-clinton-al-gore-climate-change-florida-trump
-------------------
Damn those WikiLeaks!
ha ha - follow the Clinton Foundation money
Hillary's paid speech to DeutscheBank: "Fracking is a miracle but the credit goes to the US government for the US Department of Energy came up with it"
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
If anyone really believed in climate change they would be calling for global mandatory emissions reductions, not taxation schemes designed to enrich government coffers and transfer wealth from developed countries to less developed ones while allowing the latter to spew emissions relentlessly.
You notice they don't make China and India do anything.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,081
- Reaction score
- 11,821
- Points
- 113
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
There is much detail here. Lots to read/understand and lots to correct misinformation about polar ice caps.
Miami, Venice, Shanghai, Bangkok, etc. are all still above the waterline. No reports of encroaching water.
******** "scientists" don't seem to understand the sine wave and nature's affection for the mean.
Modelling complex systems is not science and won't be for a long, long time.
Imagine if climate modelling was useful like pharmaceutical development. Why is pharma concentrating on single molecules? Because complex systems/interactions are unpredictable.
But entropy will prevail. Bet on it.
I would start by telling them to stop *******.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 5,377
- Reaction score
- 11,904
- Points
- 113
No fukky fukky?
