• 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.

Global Heat: Britain longest heatwave in 42 years, deadly heat in Japan and Arctic

CharlesDavenport said:
Concern over things Malthusian makes some people feel righteous. People bad. Earth good.
Click to expand...

Let's face reality, when it comes to the environment, humans ARE bad. There isn't really a way around that. We are the most dominant and most destructive species ever to walk the planet. We are the only species to live on this planet that DEFIES a symbiotic relationship with its ecosystem. We are that successful at breeding and surviving. Where we go, things die. Ecosystems change.

The question I ask the left all the time is how do you balance that? What rules do you want? How do you enforce it?

There is no easy answer to this. No quick fix. CO2 in the U.S. is the LEAST of our worries when it comes to these questions.
 
deljzc said:
Let's face reality, when it comes to the environment, humans ARE bad. There isn't really a way around that. We are the most dominant and most destructive species ever to walk the planet. We are the only species to live on this planet that DEFIES a symbiotic relationship with its ecosystem. We are that successful at breeding and surviving. Where we go, things die. Ecosystems change.

The question I ask the left all the time is how do you balance that? What rules do you want? How do you enforce it?

There is no easy answer to this. No quick fix. CO2 in the U.S. is the LEAST of our worries when it comes to these questions.
Click to expand...

You mean, like, how do you stop people from procreating, how do you keep sick people from unnaturally extending their pathetic lives, etc.? I get it. I've heard it many times.
 
CharlesDavenport said:
You mean, like, how do you stop people from procreating, how do you keep sick people from unnaturally extending their pathetic lives, etc.? I get it. I've heard it many times.
Click to expand...

Well, for much of my life I never though population growth would slow around the world and we would eventually get to a point where either a pathogen or war or mother nature "corrects" the imbalance.

But I am actually more optimistic now. The "hockey stick" of population growth (the same shape they love to show up about CO2) is actually flattening out, which I didn't think was possible. Growth rate is down to almost 1%. When I was a teenager in my formative years, growth rate was 2% and every "expert" told me that was the norm (and rising). Gotta love those doomsayers, even back then.

It might not be out of the question that growth rate drops to 0.5% or even 0% in 30-40 years. If that happens and we never reach 10 billion people, maybe technology CAN save us all. Maybe we can migrate and move people around and preserve critically stressed environments. Maybe.
 
deljzc said:
Well, for much of my life I never though population growth would slow around the world and we would eventually get to a point where either a pathogen or war or mother nature "corrects" the imbalance.

But I am actually more optimistic now. The "hockey stick" of population growth (the same shape they love to show up about CO2) is actually flattening out, which I didn't think was possible. Growth rate is down to almost 1%. When I was a teenager in my formative years, growth rate was 2% and every "expert" told me that was the norm (and rising). Gotta love those doomsayers, even back then.

It might not be out of the question that growth rate drops to 0.5% or even 0% in 30-40 years. If that happens and we never reach 10 billion people, maybe technology CAN save us all. Maybe we can migrate and move people around and preserve critically stressed environments. Maybe.
Click to expand...

We definitely need to colonize other worlds at some point.
 
21STEELERS21 right now

giphy.gif
 
deljzc said:
Well, for much of my life I never though population growth would slow around the world and we would eventually get to a point where either a pathogen or war or mother nature "corrects" the imbalance.

But I am actually more optimistic now. The "hockey stick" of population growth (the same shape they love to show up about CO2) is actually flattening out, which I didn't think was possible. Growth rate is down to almost 1%. When I was a teenager in my formative years, growth rate was 2% and every "expert" told me that was the norm (and rising). Gotta love those doomsayers, even back then.

It might not be out of the question that growth rate drops to 0.5% or even 0% in 30-40 years. If that happens and we never reach 10 billion people, maybe technology CAN save us all. Maybe we can migrate and move people around and preserve critically stressed environments. Maybe.
Click to expand...

Libs generally rely on static models to make their points. Because, you know, dynamic models will blow their **** out of the water. You could fit the population of the world into 4 person 1500 sq ft houses and fit everyone into the state of Texas.
 
Ron Burgundy said:
Libs generally rely on static models to make their points. Because, you know, dynamic models will blow their **** out of the water.
Click to expand...

Yep, that was Malthus' fundamental error. He failed to take into account changes in technology brought on by the increased demands for food, water, medicine and transportation. A former growing corn on the Iowa plains in 1833 need not (and indeed cannot) grow 30,000 plants per acre because he cannot water that much crop, the bugs get too much, etc. and it is simply not economically feasible to grow that much corn.

But 2013, the farmer can and does grow that much because the crop price is higher due to increased population, and the higher price has triggered technological advances in farming equipment, fertilizers, pesticides, transportation, etc. that make production vastly better.
 
deljzc said:
Let's face reality, when it comes to the environment, humans ARE bad. There isn't really a way around that. We are the most dominant and most destructive species ever to walk the planet. We are the only species to live on this planet that DEFIES a symbiotic relationship with its ecosystem. We are that successful at breeding and surviving. Where we go, things die. Ecosystems change.

The question I ask the left all the time is how do you balance that? What rules do you want? How do you enforce it?

There is no easy answer to this. No quick fix. CO2 in the U.S. is the LEAST of our worries when it comes to these questions.
Click to expand...

Ants are no better... they can strip entire areas of life and fight wars non stop... they even use chemical weapons. . Left unchecked they expand uncontrollably. They have invaded every part of this plant save the “Ant”artic and oceans. They can wipe out native species and some practice slavery... there are 7.2 billion Humans... it is now believed that there are more than 100 trillion ants and their biomass surpasses humans...
 
If you're even remotely interested in how complex, adaptive and intelligent Ants are, watch the documentary "Empire of the Ants" narrated by David Attenborough. There are a couple others out there as well. You don't have to be an entomologist to be blown away.
 
About that consensus..
Study Sees No Solid Evidence for Man-Made Climate Change

A Finnish research duo has evaluated the human contribution to carbon dioxide increase as a meagre 0.01°C out of the last century's total increase of 0.1°C. Instead, clouds were named as the culprit behind climate change.
Climate change is not caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, but cloud formations, a study by Turku University researchers Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi has claimed.

In their paper, aptly titled “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change”, the Finnish researchers conclude that global temperatures are “practically controlled” by the low cloud cover fraction, whereas “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic.

During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers wrote.

According to the Finnish researchers, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate sensitivity scale is “about one order of magnitude too high”, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models.

Despite the presence of monthly temperature anomalies described as “noisy”, the recurrence of decreasing periods in the increasing temperature trend cannot be explained by the monotonically increasing concentration of carbon dioxide and seems to go far beyond the accuracy of the present climate models, the Finnish researchers wrote.
Click to expand...

I hope we start seeing more of these.
 
I'm not a meteorologist but I am in the science field. What the Finnish team is talking about is the amount of variables in weather models. The models are only as good as the information and variables put into them. This is why you see great fluctuations even within one model set. Al Gore's ignorance of science is why he took the high end of the models he saw. My guess is that he didn't even know what he was looking at when he saw it.

In the Finnish study they found that the IPCC's model didn't even take into consideration clouds. Seriously? How in the hell do you not take clouds into account when factoring weather modeling? The model can't be correct if you don't put in every single variable. But that's also the problem. If you read the study you'll see that only recently did they find out about how galactic cosmic rays effected cloud formation. That wasn't known about when many of the models were formulated. Which is the problem with weather modeling. You never can know all the variables.
 
Endless drought, the West will all turn to desert!



Lake Tahoe fills to the top as massive winter snows melt

Lake-Tahoe-Bike-Trail.jpg


Sometime, probably this weekend depending on the exact temperature, the lake’s level will reach its maximum legal limit — 6,229.1 feet above sea level — a point that federal officials maintain by releasing water from the gates of the lake’s only dam — the 18-foot-high Tahoe Dam, near Tahoe City — into the Truckee River. On Friday, the lake was less than an inch from that peak level and still rising.

The surface of Lake Tahoe, which stretches 22 miles long, has risen an astounding 8 feet since the beginning of 2016

a30.jpg


From New Year’s Day until the summer of 2017, the lake rose more than 6 feet, the most ever recorded in more than 100 years. When 2018 rolled around, the snowfall was a little below normal, but higher lake levels from the year before allowed the melting snow to fill it again to the top. Now with this year’s big winter Sierra snowpack, which was 162 percent of the historic average on April 1, Tahoe is in great shape, experts say.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/07/12/lake-tahoe-fills-to-the-top-as-massive-winter-snows-melt/
 
Been to Tahoe several times, Spike. One of the deepest lakes in the world. Those concerned about Tahoe "drying up" have always been blithering idiots. The damn thing is more than a quarter mile deep (second deepest in the United States), so a drop of 50' meant it was now ... just 1,600 feet deep.
 
I heard that they just wrapped up the skiing season at Squaw Valley a few days ago. I think it was their longest season. Not bad especially since it wasn't supposed to snow for the past 10 years.

Ever since I was a kid, it was hot and humid in the summer and cold and sometimes snowy in the winter. Some years are hotter, colder, snowier and wetter than others. To the best of my knowledge that hasn't changed. What has changed is the more comfortable temperatures and conditions inside the house, business, etc. so maybe that makes people feel like its hotter or colder outside than it was when they were young.
 
File under keep em talking off script and they'll tell you how they think -
The freshman lawmaker's chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, recently admitted to Washington Gov. Jay Inslee's (D) climate director, Sam Ricketts, that helping the climate wasn't even on their radar when they first introduced the measure, according to The Washington Post. Inslee, who's currently running for president, has made climate change the biggest issue of his platform.

"The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
“Yeah,” said Ricketts. Then he said: “No.” Then he said: “I think it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s dual. It is both rising to the challenge that is existential around climate and it is building an economy that contains more prosperity. More sustainability in that prosperity — and more broadly shared prosperity, equitability and justice throughout.” (Washington Post)
Click to expand...

from - https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortn...ff-is-undermining-her-green-new-deal-n2549948
 
Miley Cyrus Refuses to Have Kids Because of Climate Change, or Something

Miley claimed, “I’m in a hetero relationship, but I still am very sexually attracted to women. People become vegetarian for health reasons, but bacon is still ******* good, and I know that.”

“I definitely don’t fit into a stereotypical wife role. I don’t even like that word,” she added.

This liberated view of female expression also characterizes Miley’s zealous views on the climate change debate. She likened earth to a scorned woman, claiming, “And nature’s female. When she’s angry, don’t **** with her. That’s the way that I feel women are like right now. The earth is angry.” Well that’s compelling. Like a woman “forced” to carry a pregnancy to full term, Miley said we just “take and take and expect it to keep producing. And it’s exhausted. It can’t produce. We’re getting handed a piece-of-**** planet, and I refuse to hand that down to my child.”

It’s such an issue for her that she has considered not having kids: “Until I feel like my kid would live on an earth with fish in the water, I’m not bringing in another person to deal with that.”

We really wonder how her husband, actor Liam Hemsworth, is able to handle all this.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/c...s-refuses-have-kids-because-climate-change-or

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

Poor Liam
 
Spike said:
Miley Cyrus Refuses to Have Kids Because of Climate Change, or Something

Miley claimed, “I’m in a hetero relationship, but I still am very sexually attracted to women. People become vegetarian for health reasons, but bacon is still ******* good, and I know that.”

“I definitely don’t fit into a stereotypical wife role. I don’t even like that word,” she added.

This liberated view of female expression also characterizes Miley’s zealous views on the climate change debate. She likened earth to a scorned woman, claiming, “And nature’s female. When she’s angry, don’t **** with her. That’s the way that I feel women are like right now. The earth is angry.” Well that’s compelling. Like a woman “forced” to carry a pregnancy to full term, Miley said we just “take and take and expect it to keep producing. And it’s exhausted. It can’t produce. We’re getting handed a piece-of-**** planet, and I refuse to hand that down to my child.”

It’s such an issue for her that she has considered not having kids: “Until I feel like my kid would live on an earth with fish in the water, I’m not bringing in another person to deal with that.”

We really wonder how her husband, actor Liam Hemsworth, is able to handle all this.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/c...s-refuses-have-kids-because-climate-change-or

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

Poor Liam
Click to expand...

He gets lots of threesomes. That's how he is handling it.
 
Speaking of the weather, (not global warming, not climate change, The Weather) it's hotter than hell here. There's a heat advisory until Sunday night. Temp in the mid 90's and heat index of 108-110F. Does anyone know why? I'll tell you: because it's ******* SUMMER.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JMM
IndySteel said:
Speaking of the weather, (not global warming, not climate change, The Weather) it's hotter than hell here. There's a heat advisory until Sunday night. Temp in the mid 90's and heat index of 108-110F. Does anyone know why? I'll tell you: because it's ******* SUMMER.
Click to expand...

that and a tropical storm just passed through the middle of the goddamn country, bringing rain and increasing the ******* humidity.
but, all this would end if we taxed you some more. nazi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top