• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Doom and Gloom as Climate Change is the topic again

Superman

You may worship me
Moderator
Forefather
Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
20,992
Reaction score
24,379
Points
113
Location
Trampa, FL
but ... we're not going to die with soot-filled lungs when a haze blocks the sun?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/immediacy-threat-climate-change-exaggerated-175817468.html

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests
[The Telegraph]
Henry Bodkin
The TelegraphSeptember 18, 2017

Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.

An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.

Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

They also condemned the “overreaction” to the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, announced by Donald Trump in June, saying it is unlikely to make a significant difference.

Professor Michael Grubb said:
We're in the midst of an energy revolution and it's happening faster than we thought

According to the models used to draw up the agreement, the world ought now to be 1.3 degrees above the mid-19th-Century average, whereas the most recent observations suggest it is actually between 0.9 to 1 degree above.

The discrepancy means nations could continue emitting carbon dioxide at the current rate for another 20 years before the target was breached, instead of the three to five predicted by the previous model.

“When you are talking about a budget of 1.5 degrees, then a 0.3 degree difference is a big deal”, said Professor Myles Allen, of Oxford University and one of the authors of the new study.

Published in the journal Nature Geoscience, it suggests that if polluting peaks and then declines to below current levels before 2030 and then continue to drop more sharply, there is a 66 per cent chance of global average temperatures staying below 1.5 degrees.

The goal was yesterday described as “very ambitious” but “physically possible”.

Another reason the climate outlook is less bleak than previously thought is stabilising emissions, particularly in China.

Renewable energy has also enjoyed more use than was predicted.

China has now acquired more than 100 gigawatts of solar cells, 25 per cent of which in the last six months, and in the UK, offshore wind has turned out to cost far less than expected.

Professor Michael Grubb, from University College London, had previously described the goals agreed at Paris in 2015 as “incompatible with democracy”.

But yesterday he said: "We're in the midst of an energy revolution and it's happening faster than we thought, which makes it much more credible for governments to tighten the offer they put on the table at Paris."

He added that President Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement would not be significant because “The White House’s position doesn’t have much impact on US emissions".

“The smaller constituencies - cities, businesses, states - are just saying they’re getting on with it, partly for carbon reduction, but partly because there’s this energy revolution and they don’t want to be left behind.”

At a glance | Paris climate accord

The new research was published as the Met Office announced that a “slowdown” in the rate of global temperature rises reported over roughly the first decade of this century was now over.

The organisation said the slowdown in rising air temperatures between 1999 and 2014 happened as a result of a natural cycle in the Pacific, which led to the ocean circulation speeding up, causing it to pull heat down in the deeper ocean away from the atmosphere.

However, that cycle has now ended.


Claire Perry, the climate change and industry minister, claimed Britain had already demonstrated that tackling climate change and running a strong economy could go “hand in hand”.

“How is the time to build on our strengths and cement our position as a global hub for investment in clean growth,” she said.

----

that red part is for you, elftard
 
What the left isn't telling their very underrated fan base is this.

Sunspot activity and the weakening of the Earth's magnetic field ( Which blocks out the rays that warm it ) are bigger x-factors that whatever is put into the atmosphere.
 
Elections have consequences...


Next wave of EPA science advisers could include those who question climate change

People who have questioned aspects of mainstream climate research appear on a list of 132 possible candidates for positions on EPA’s influential Science Advisory Board, which the agency has opened for public comment until September 28.

One candidate believes more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will “confer great benefits upon future inhabitants of the globe” by driving plant growth. Another has said of the climate change debate that “scare tactics and junk science are used to secure lucrative government contracts.” Five candidates have challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s own science on the warming of the planet in court.

The agency also has begun taking steps to roll back Obama-era climate regulations, while President Trump has proposed deep cuts to climate research.

The EPA has already seen a controversy involving a separate advisory board, the Board of Scientific Counselors, where a number of researchers expecting to have their terms renewed were informed by the new administration that they would not be retained.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...estion-climate-change/?utm_term=.a3d9c5fc31c4

-----------------------

WH: US staying out of climate accord

(CNN)President Donald Trump still plans to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement unless there are major changes made to the carbon emissions pact, the White House said

The statement came after a European diplomat told reporters that a Trump administration envoy appeared to signal a softening stance during a meeting of climate ministers in Montreal, Canada.

A major point of contention between the United States and its global allies, the Paris climate accord issue reappeared just as Trump was set to make his major diplomatic debut at the annual United Nations General Assembly in New York

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/16/politi...eal/index.html
 
but ... we're not going to die with soot-filled lungs when a haze blocks the sun?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/immediacy-threat-climate-change-exaggerated-175817468.html

Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests
[The Telegraph]
Henry Bodkin
The TelegraphSeptember 18, 2017

Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.

An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.

Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

They also condemned the “overreaction” to the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, announced by Donald Trump in June, saying it is unlikely to make a significant difference.



According to the models used to draw up the agreement, the world ought now to be 1.3 degrees above the mid-19th-Century average, whereas the most recent observations suggest it is actually between 0.9 to 1 degree above.

The discrepancy means nations could continue emitting carbon dioxide at the current rate for another 20 years before the target was breached, instead of the three to five predicted by the previous model.

“When you are talking about a budget of 1.5 degrees, then a 0.3 degree difference is a big deal”, said Professor Myles Allen, of Oxford University and one of the authors of the new study.

Published in the journal Nature Geoscience, it suggests that if polluting peaks and then declines to below current levels before 2030 and then continue to drop more sharply, there is a 66 per cent chance of global average temperatures staying below 1.5 degrees.

The goal was yesterday described as “very ambitious” but “physically possible”.

Another reason the climate outlook is less bleak than previously thought is stabilising emissions, particularly in China.

Renewable energy has also enjoyed more use than was predicted.

China has now acquired more than 100 gigawatts of solar cells, 25 per cent of which in the last six months, and in the UK, offshore wind has turned out to cost far less than expected.

Professor Michael Grubb, from University College London, had previously described the goals agreed at Paris in 2015 as “incompatible with democracy”.

But yesterday he said: "We're in the midst of an energy revolution and it's happening faster than we thought, which makes it much more credible for governments to tighten the offer they put on the table at Paris."

He added that President Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement would not be significant because “The White House’s position doesn’t have much impact on US emissions".

“The smaller constituencies - cities, businesses, states - are just saying they’re getting on with it, partly for carbon reduction, but partly because there’s this energy revolution and they don’t want to be left behind.”

At a glance | Paris climate accord

The new research was published as the Met Office announced that a “slowdown” in the rate of global temperature rises reported over roughly the first decade of this century was now over.

The organisation said the slowdown in rising air temperatures between 1999 and 2014 happened as a result of a natural cycle in the Pacific, which led to the ocean circulation speeding up, causing it to pull heat down in the deeper ocean away from the atmosphere.

However, that cycle has now ended.


Claire Perry, the climate change and industry minister, claimed Britain had already demonstrated that tackling climate change and running a strong economy could go “hand in hand”.

“How is the time to build on our strengths and cement our position as a global hub for investment in clean growth,” she said.

----

that red part is for you, elftard

Wait..............I thought AGW didn't exist, so.....that makes your point moot right?

But...but....China would never lower their emissions....... China would never comply......hmmmmm..

But.....Solyendra...but...OH.. we let the Chinese have basically the entire market for solar panel manufacturing and sales.....

So according to Grubb(and he's wrong) there is a 66% chance our grand children's world might not be plunged into chaos and 33% it will................and you're celebrating???????


He added that President Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement would not be significant because “The White House’s position doesn’t have much impact on US emissions".

“The smaller constituencies - cities, businesses, states - are just saying they’re getting on with it, partly for carbon reduction, but partly because there’s this energy revolution and they don’t want to be left behind.”


So it's the DEFYING of idiotic CONservative policies that gives us hope???? You can't make it up...the stupidity of Superdouche is staggering.



The organisation said the slowdown in rising air temperatures between 1999 and 2014 happened as a result of a natural cycle in the Pacific, which led to the ocean circulation speeding up, causing it to pull heat down in the deeper ocean away from the atmosphere.

However, that cycle has now ended


This is the so called "pause" in warming (which was really a slow down in the rate of warming) that deniers like to frame in an 18 year window. Of course no serious climate scientist would take such analysis seriously. As what is in the red says: that cycle has now ended. We will now start to see a rapid warming rate as before.

The models are well known to be conservative in nature, so Grubb makes the mistake of not considering that important piece of information


All of this stuff is good and well, but it's Grubb's opinion, and that's all it is. I know he looked at the paper dumbass....

Oh are we still enjoying the lack of hurricanes? Maria says "Hello dumbasses".
 
you dimwitted mouthbreathing menstruating blue-haired douche...

we've on this board LONG said that AGW is more of a natural occurrence than something man-influenced. We've not denied that the planet is constantly in flux. We've not denied that there are portions of the globe that have temperature increases and others with lower temperatures.

it's blindingly stupid dipshits like you who can't quite understand that the planet and mother nature do more than man. That the sun does more than man. YOU and your inept cohorts place more of the burden on MAN (especially the white man) and what he/she does (but not what ze does) than natural ******* occurrences.

and, since you're unable to grasp it ... that's precisely what this article has said.

read it slower.

maybe Steeltime will come around and break it down for your dumbass.
 
Last edited:
Man that guy is freaking screwed! They'll make sure he won't be able to get a job at McDonalds for this.
 
as cold as it was on the East coast this year I could use a little global warmingyu
 
Last edited:
you dimitted mouthbreathing menstruating blue-haired douche...

we've on this board LONG said that AGW is more of a natural occurrence than something man-influenced. We've not denied that the planet is constantly in flux. We've not denied that there are portions of the globe that have temperature increases and others with lower temperatures.

it's blindingly stupid dipshits like you who can't quite understand that the planet and mother nature do more than man. That the sun does more than man. YOU and your inept cohorts place more of the burden on MAN (especially the white man) and what he/she does (but not what ze does) than natural ******* occurrences.

and, since you're unable to grasp it ... that's precisely what this article has said.

read it slower.

tenor.gif


Oh, and interesting how those articles about the level of CO2 in the atmosphere - so prevalent 20 years ago - now seem to have gone into hiding. Oh, look, I found recent readings!! Temperatures below expected, CO2 levels must be leveling off or declining, right??

RIGHT??? Not so much.

mlo_full_record-copy_trimmed1500.png


Direct relationship between CO2 levels and temperatures? Non-check.

Lowered CO2 levels from China accounting for temperatures lower than predicted? Non-check.

Alternative energy sources lowering CO2 levels? Non-check.

So elftard's entire argument - "the Chinese are going solar!!! Alternative energy is lowering CO2 levels!!" - is ******* false, disproved by objective data, bullshit, phony, dumb and fat.

Like elftard.
 
you dimitted mouthbreathing menstruating blue-haired douche...

we've on this board LONG said that AGW is more of a natural occurrence than something man-influenced. We've not denied that the planet is constantly in flux. We've not denied that there are portions of the globe that have temperature increases and others with lower temperatures.

it's blindingly stupid dipshits like you who can't quite understand that the planet and mother nature do more than man. That the sun does more than man. YOU and your inept cohorts place more of the burden on MAN (especially the white man) and what he/she does (but not what ze does) than natural ******* occurrences.

and, since you're unable to grasp it ... that's precisely what this article has said.

read it slower.

maybe Steeltime will come around and break it down for your dumbass.





giphy.gif
 
tenor.gif


Oh, and interesting how those articles about the level of CO2 in the atmosphere - so prevalent 20 years ago - now seem to have gone into hiding. Oh, look, I found recent readings!! Temperatures below expected, CO2 levels must be leveling off or declining, right??

RIGHT??? Not so much.

mlo_full_record-copy_trimmed1500.png


Direct relationship between CO2 levels and temperatures? Non-check.

Lowered CO2 levels from China accounting for temperatures lower than predicted? Non-check.

Alternative energy sources lowering CO2 levels? Non-check.

So elftard's entire argument - "the Chinese are going solar!!! Alternative energy is lowering CO2 levels!!" - is ******* false, disproved by objective data, bullshit, phony, dumb and fat.

Like elftard.

elfie as this **** goes over ze's head

Hillary-DNC-seizure.gif
 
you dimitted mouthbreathing menstruating blue-haired douche...

it's blindingly stupid dipshits like you who can't quite understand that the planet and mother nature do more than man. That the sun does more than man. YOU and your inept cohorts place more of the burden on MAN (especially the white man) and what he/she does (but not what ze does) than natural ******* occurrences.
.

Bwahahahaha.......now that's a classic.

BTW, jus for the record


4PGsqU2.jpg


and for that comment..."(especially the white man)"

may5Bfh.jpg
 
Also.........Neither Irma nor Harvey was the strongest storm to hit the US. The Galveston storm in 1900 was,
 
And the record hurricane drought before Irma had to be caused by global warming too.
 
global warming is a ***** it causes hurricanes, hurricane droughts, cooling, snow storms etc
 
And the record hurricane drought before Irma had to be caused by global warming too.

Actually my comment on Maria was a joke. I don't think(but not 100% sure) anyone in climate science made the claim there would be more hurricanes, I believe the prediction was that the storms would be more intense. Those predictions were first made around 20 years ago, they have proven to be prophetic.
 
Climate Alarmists Finally Admit ‘We Were Wrong About Global Warming’


Trump was right AGAIN!

103808911-GettyImages-578546944.530x298.jpg




“Trump Says Plan to End Climate Spending Would Save $100B”


Nov. 1, 2016 — Donald Trump says he would save $100 billion over eight years by cutting all federal climate change spending—a sum his campaign says would be achieved by eliminating domestic and international climate programs.

“We’re going to put America first. That includes canceling billions in climate change spending for the United Nations, a number Hillary wants to increase, and instead use that money to provide for American infrastructure including clean water, clean air and safety,” the Republican presidential candidate said Oct. 31 at a rally in Warren, Mich. “We’re giving away billions and billions and billions of dollars,” he said.

In a policy statement from his campaign on the same day, “New Deal for Black America,” Trump said he would “cancel all wasteful climate change spending” under the Obama administration and plans by Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, a sum that Trump said would total $100 billion over eight years.

https://www.bna.com/trump-says-plan-n57982082131/?amp=true
 
Last edited:
Actually my comment on Maria was a joke. I don't think(but not 100% sure) anyone in climate science made the claim there would be more hurricanes, I believe the prediction was that the storms would be more intense. Those predictions were first made around 20 years ago, they have proven to be prophetic.

So your evidence is that 20 years ago someone said that there will be a very strong hurricane at some point in the future, and that will prove man-made global warming. Well, I will counter that with a prediction that there will be a weak hurricane at some point in the future and that will prove that there is no man-made global warming.

You all sound so ******* stupid.
 
So your evidence is that 20 years ago someone said that there will be a very strong hurricane at some point in the future, and that will prove man-made global warming. Well, I will counter that with a prediction that there will be a weak hurricane at some point in the future and that will prove that there is no man-made global warming.

You all sound so ******* stupid.

So you don't so a pattern in "strongest storm ever" "largest rainfall event ever". You can't see it happening over and over? Sure there will be outlier years depending on Solar maixima, El Nino/LaNina,the PDO, etc. but, the trend will be upward from here on out.

And if you don't see that you and your ilk are the epitome of stupid.
 
So you don't so a pattern in "strongest storm ever" "largest rainfall event ever". You can't see it happening over and over? Sure there will be outlier years depending on Solar maixima, El Nino/LaNina,the PDO, etc. but, the trend will be upward from here on out.

And if you don't see that you and your ilk are the epitome of stupid.

pretty sure that is your crown to wear.....elitist hypocrite
 
So you don't so a pattern in "strongest storm ever" "largest rainfall event ever". You can't see it happening over and over? Sure there will be outlier years depending on Solar maixima, El Nino/LaNina,the PDO, etc. but, the trend will be upward from here on out.

And if you don't see that you and your ilk are the epitome of stupid.

stop buying into sensationalistic news.
pro tip: if it says "largest ever" or "most ever" it's geared to getting feeble minds to click on the website. if it's on the tv, turn the channel. you'll be happier.

i seriously doubt that the rainfall was measured in the same depths that we measure now. likely, in the future, our system will be archaic as well, and those generations will wonder how the hell we managed to live.

you seriously need a goddamned bottle of xanax poured down your thoat.
 
stop buying into sensationalistic news.
pro tip: if it says "largest ever" or "most ever" it's geared to getting feeble minds to click on the website. if it's on the tv, turn the channel. you'll be happier.

i seriously doubt that the rainfall was measured in the same depths that we measure now. likely, in the future, our system will be archaic as well, and those generations will wonder how the hell we managed to live.

you seriously need a goddamned bottle of xanax poured down your thoat.

Yeah NOAA is exaggerating because they want more hits on their site....................

 
Top