Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    7:51 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Thats it folks - Al Gore is all wet - we in for the ice age Back to Topics
flyboyUT
Champion Author
Utah

Posts:29,762
Points:1,683,930
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2013 1:19:22 PM

Shades of 1970 - here we go again.
.
.
>>>Better start investing in some warm clothes because German scientists are predicting that the Earth will cool over the next century.

German scientists found that two naturally occurring cycles will combine to lower global temperatures during the 21st century, eventually dropping to levels corresponding with the “little ice age” of 1870.

“Due to the de Vries cycle, the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the ‘little ice age’ of 1870,” write German scientists Horst-Joachim Luedecke and Carl-Otto Weiss of the European Institute for Climate and Energy.

Researchers used historical temperature data and data from cave stalagmites to show a 200-year solar cycle, called the de Vries cycle.<<<

So we need to drill for more energy to keep us warm. Will anyone ever admit that trying to predict global weather patterns is futile.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Hemond
Champion Author Providence

Posts:12,647
Points:185,550
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 7:29:20 AM

I'm starting to really enjoy these daily blizzards we have now due to global warming, oops, I mean weather. Used to be a blizzard was a 1 time event of the winter. You'd get one all winter. Now since global warming or weather, its every other day.

I no longer need to time my ski trips to take advantage of fresh dumped snow. Just go anytime since it now dumps every other day. Can't beat fresh snow, that machine made snow sucks.

Plus its so cold the local skating rink stays iced all winter. It used to be hit or miss before global warming. The skating surface would melt during the day. Now with global warming, the surface stays frozen all winter. Pure heaven.
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:28,132
Points:867,855
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 12:31:12 AM



gocatgo, "The expected high temp tomorrow will be 70+. So much for the ice age."

Once again liberals take ONE temperature reading on one day of weather and call it 'global warming/climate change/liberal voodoo hoodoo' anti-science!

ROTFL
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,738
Points:3,310,560
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 12:28:27 AM

The expected high temp tomorrow will be 70+. So much for the ice age.
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,613
Points:3,131,855
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 12:22:44 AM

btc1 - "Idheinz, what you indicate is on a per year basis."

WHAT is on a "per year basis"? You are being far too vague for your statements to mean anything. Yes, 3.4% of the Co2 produced every year comes from human sources, and 96.6% comes from other sources. Why do you think that only the human produced part accumulates? How do plants know to only use non-human Co2 to grow? How can they tell the difference? Hint: they can't. Higher levels of Co2 produce more plant growth.

btc1 - "Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2."

No, your link proved otherwise. Co2 levels are going up much faster than the total amount of Co2 produced by human sources, so we CAN'T be the cause. And besides, during the Jurassic period the Earth had Co2 levels 16x what they are today, and the result was vast forests which became the coal and oil deposits that we have today. So Co2 is NOT a problem at all.

btc1 - "Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle."

OK, that's what you're trying to prove, not what you HAVE proved. How about supporting that statement of faith in some way, so that we'll know that it's not just your religion speaking?

btc1 - "The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating."

But the amount that it is increasing far exceeds the ability of mankind to produce it, so we KNOW that we're not the cause. How about looking for the REAL cause? And since the Earth has been cooling during this buildup of Co2, we also know that it's not a problem.

btc1 - "It is something that accumulates over time and takes millennium to be fully absorb. So anytime we add it does not get absorbed quickly."

And what makes you think this? Anyone with a grow op knows that excess Co2 gets absorbed by plants very quickly.
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,762
Points:1,683,930
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2015 10:46:45 PM

See Hemond - you have another example of why I choose to live in a nice warm desert..... I havent had to drive in a blizzard for more years than I care to remember. But I do remember that there were many more fun things to do.

I still remember the 57 Chev I had with the winter kit in the trunk. A sleeping bag, extra Sorel Boots with extra socks and warm woolen longjohns, a single mantle Coleman Lantern with extra mantles and fuel, food adn fire starting equipment , flares and extra jackets, shovels, axes etc.

I only had to use the kit once when I got stuck out and got snowed in tight. That Colemen Lantern when used with the windows cracked a inch or so (one on each side of car) would keep it well above freezing inside the car.
Hemond
Champion Author Providence

Posts:12,647
Points:185,550
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2015 9:28:49 PM

Another blizzard today, how drole.

I got faked out though. It was a nice sunny clear day. I took a 100 mile ride to New Haven, Ct.. A mistake. I thought the blizzard was coming in after midnight. Nope. It started while I was in downtown NH. I had to drive back 100 miles in a global warming blizzard.
100 miles at 15 to 40 mph is not fine, took forever to get home. I should have just gotten a room.

Oh well, I least I got to hear Netanyahu's speech to Congress while driving. After that speech, he is the new leader of the free world. Do you suppose he goes along with this GW claptrap like our own hideous Obama does?
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:11,465
Points:2,209,165
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2015 6:25:58 PM

"The DC area has been experiencing a severely brutal winter. It's been so cold Joe Biden has been wearing mittens when he gropes women."
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,222
Points:3,213,650
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2015 10:24:55 AM

The truth, btc, is that CO2 at such low concentrations as we have in the atmosphere, does not have a greenhouse effect. The effect was studied in a laboratory where the concentration was much greater. Methane and water vapor have a greater effect than CO2.

The world is tilting at windmills in an effort to reduce how much carbon dioxide is being released by human activity. It just does not have the effect it has been accused of.

Case dismissed!

[Edited by: I75at7AM at 3/3/2015 10:25:10 AM EST]
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:24,036
Points:905,175
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2015 9:50:25 AM

Idheinz, what you indicate is on a per year basis.

"But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating."

It is something that accumulates over time and takes millennium to be fully absorb. So anytime we add it does not get absorbed quickly.

All of what we have added since the Industrial Revolution will take a long time to be absorbed.
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,762
Points:1,683,930
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 2, 2015 7:34:22 PM

More Ice on Great Lakes Now Than During 2014 Polar Vortex
.
.
>>>The total ice cover of the Great Lakes is currently 88.3 percent, or 2.3 percentage points more than it was at the same time during last year’s polar vortex, when 86 percent of the lakes’ surfaces were frozen solid, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The ice accumulation is also much higher than the 51.4 percent long-term average since 1973. However, it is still short of the record of 94.7 percent, which was set on Feb. 19, 1979.
Lakes Erie, Huron and Superior are almost completely frozen over, according to NOAA’s Great Lakes Surface Environmental Analysis (GLSEA). Three quarters of Lakes Michigan and Ontario are also covered in ice.

Ice cover on the Great Lakes currently runs from a high of 96.18 percent on Lake Huron to a low of 71.16 percent on Lake Michigan, Lt. David B. Keith, public affairs officer at the U.S. National/Naval Ice Center (NIC), told CNSNews.com.
As of Sunday, the ice cover on each lake was:
• Lake Huron: 96.18 %
• Lake Erie: 96.01 %
• Lake Superior: 94.14 %
• Lake Ontario: 76.13 %
• Lake Michigan: 71.16 %
There is so much ice on Lake Erie that the Arthur M. Anderson, a 767-foot freighter, got stuck in it for five days late last month. The Coast Guard ice breaker Bristol Bay also got stuck in the 8-to-10-foot thick ice itself while on a mission to rescue the stranded freighter. Both vessels were finally released by the Griffon, a Canadian Coast Guard ice cutter.<<<
.
.
.
Yep folks the east coast is setting more records on total snowfall and the Great Lakes are at record levels of ice but not to worry the GlowBULL Warmers tell us we are actually getting warmer.

flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,762
Points:1,683,930
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 2, 2015 4:46:00 PM

Seems like the GlowBULL Warmers got it wrong again.....
.
.
.>>>Climate models can be good tools for predicting future sea ice levels — unless, of course, they are completely wrong.

In the case of Antarctica, the climate models were dead wrong, according to a new study by Chinese scientists published in the journal Cryosphere. The study found that most climate models predicted Antarctic sea ice coverage would shrink as the world warmed and greenhouse gas levels increased.

The opposite happened. Most climate models analyzed in the study predicted Antarctica would shrink between 1979 and 2005, but instead south pole sea ice levels increased during that time. Going a step further, sea ice levels have only increased since 2006, hitting all-time highs for sea ice coverage in September of last year.

“For the Antarctic, the main problem of the [climate] models is their inability to reproduce the observed slight increase of sea ice extent,” researchers wrote in their study.

“Both satellite-observed Antarctic [sea ice extent] and [satellite measured] Antarctic [sea ice volume] show[s] increasing trends over the period of 1979–2005, but [climate models’] Antarctic [sea ice extent] and [sea ice volume] have decreasing trends,” researchers added. “Only eight models’ [sea ice extent] and eight models’ [sea ice volume] show increasing trends.”<<<
.
.
.
Once more the "Warmers" models dont accurately model what is reality. Sooner or later even those folks might admit they are 'in error'. But dont hold your breath waiting for it. They get too much money from the gubbiment to whomp up lots of new models that say we all gonna die if the common man doesnt give the gubbiment more power and money
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,762
Points:1,683,930
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2015 8:56:23 PM

I75 - I agree that thawing permafrost may be a very large source of methane. But we were talking about exhaust/exhalations of living organisms.

I dont know about the cows - it might be sheep and or goats or hogs mixed in there too for all I know.

Whatever it is fun to bat useless info like this around once in awhile. Since we have not figured out how to deal with termites yet we will just have to live with the pollution they cause just as we cannot deal with most sources of natural air contamination - aka the Great Smokies caused by pine trees and so forth.

I guess the point of bringing up trivia like this is to show that we really dont have a significant effect on the gas mixture of the worlds atmosphere except in local instances.

Now does man have any effect on climate - yes I think so as we change the vegetations and ground cover of ever larger portions of the earth it has to have some effect. Is it significant compared to naturally caused climate change - who knows.

But one thought keeps coming back to me. If somehow the treehuggers are able to convince enough otherwise rational people that man is causing change - what are the consequences of atempting to influence our civilization in sufficient manner to modify the effects. Whats it gonna cost in dollars and change in living.

If we decide that the entire earth must revert back to say a 1850 living standards what will happen? Do we have the technology and skills to move to a SciFi (extreme low impact) lifestyle soon enough to make any difference?

Right now the doom and gloom GlowBULL Warmers just cry like a bunch of chicken littles and just want to do small things like more public transportation and less coal burning. But they never discuss what else needs to be done worldwide adn what the effects will be.

From what I know a few degree rise in overall temps would not be a disaster - it might be a good thing.
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:75,222
Points:3,213,650
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2015 8:40:26 PM

Fly, I think the other great source of methane emissions is the thawing permafrost of peat bogs. The biological action of the decomposition of the peat releases methane, but had bnen effectively capped off with ice - permafrost soil.

So the question arises "Why is the permafrost melting (thawing)?
But there is a deeper question that supplants that question.
How did the soil get made in the first place? It had to occur under normal (temperate) climactic conditions, then it became permanently frozen. Now we see that "permafost" thawing and we somehow think this is not normal. Obviously it IS normal - that soil was not formed in an ice climate!

Meanwhile, back in the USA, 49 of 50 states have some snow cover. (The other seven just don't exist, I guess)



[Edited by: I75at7AM at 3/1/2015 8:41:12 PM EST]
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,613
Points:3,131,855
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2015 8:29:58 PM

So go ahead and fart! 270 quintillion termites can't be wrong!

And #2 is cow farts. Definitely #2... ;-)
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,762
Points:1,683,930
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2015 7:55:35 PM

Hemond - you get the gold star for the day. Termite toots are the single largest source of biologically produced methane gas. That is a fact that stuck in my head from a college class I had more than a few years ago. The second largest source I dont remember but it was in no danger at all of even getting close to the total toots of termites.
Hemond
Champion Author Providence

Posts:12,647
Points:185,550
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2015 7:47:42 PM

I'm going to toss out termites. No, I didn't google it, I just remember it from somewhere.
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,762
Points:1,683,930
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2015 3:09:43 PM

A1 and jes - no gold star for your two - your both wrong.

Anyone else wish to opine on the right answer.
jeskibuff
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:11,465
Points:2,209,165
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2015 3:08:08 PM

AnotherOne said: ---<waving hand frantically> "Ooooo! Oooo! Oooo! Mr Kahtair! Pick me! Pick me!" ;-) JOE BIDEN!!!!!---

You must not have been well-liked in high school, AnotherOne...always coming up with the CORRECT answers, it appears! ;)
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:28,132
Points:867,855
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2015 2:22:08 PM



flyboy, "Once more for fun - does anyone know what the largest source of bionic methane gas is in todays world?"

<waving hand frantically>
"Ooooo! Oooo! Oooo! Mr Kahtair! Pick me! Pick me!"

;-)

JOE BIDEN!!!!!

flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,762
Points:1,683,930
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2015 12:24:31 PM

Well SE it is true you know that Methane (a component of mammoth poots) is a strong greenhouse gas.

Once more for fun - does anyone know what the largest source of bionic methane gas is in todays world?
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,828
Points:3,945,315
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2015 11:38:26 AM

"what caused the big warm-up 12,000 years ago?"

Woolly mammoth and mastodon farts?
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,613
Points:3,131,855
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2015 11:33:25 AM

btc1 - "That is nice, Idheinz. You totally ignored this,"

No, I considered it, and showed that it was completely false. I simply edited off the quoting of irrelevant data, and the non sequitur of the completely unsupported conclusion. What they measured is that there is some warming, and that there is some Co2. That does not in any way imply a causative relationship. And what I added showed that it CANNOT be a causative relationship. Where is the evidence that the TINY portion of the increase in Co2 that mankind has caused is wholly responsible for any warming of the atmosphere in particular areas?

How about addressing what I said, rather than just requoting what had already been shown to be false?

[Edited by: ldheinz at 3/1/2015 11:35:01 AM EST]
WES03
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:7,598
Points:1,940,060
Joined:Feb 2009
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2015 10:55:46 AM

...and what caused the big warm-up 12,000 years ago? Ice covered much of North America, sea levels were 350-400 feet lower than now. Humans could not flourish in that climate.

Seems to me that drastic global warming, oops, climate change occurred. How can that be?
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:24,036
Points:905,175
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2015 9:42:39 AM

That is nice, Idheinz. You totally ignored this,

"Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra3 together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations4. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m-2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m-2 per decade and ±0.07 W m-2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m-2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5, 6, 7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance."
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,613
Points:3,131,855
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2015 8:36:32 AM

btc1, quoting others - "Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2."

That's very revealing. The total contribution from humanity to Co2 is only 12.5 PPM, and that includes 7 billion people breathing. So the change during that decade only included, what, at most 5% of the increase in Co2? So what that study really proved is that mankind CANNOT be responsible for global warming from Co2 emissions. We simply don't make enough Co2 to cause anything at all, and that's even if we falsely assume that Co2 causes global warming in the first place.
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,828
Points:3,945,315
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2015 8:26:31 AM

It is March 1, and we have seven inches of global warming on the ground with more falling. I won't be seeing crocus any time soon.

[Edited by: SE3.5 at 3/1/2015 8:26:56 AM EST]
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:24,036
Points:905,175
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2015 7:47:32 AM

johnny, it is a strawman argument when I post good science and the only thing from the deniers is look over here! Polar Bears!

No one has yet to refute the science of my latest link to the article in Nature.
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:9,484
Points:1,414,050
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2015 6:46:33 AM

>>rumble, the deniers are quiet on that....And like I said even if the Polar Bears are doing ok, does not deny climate change. It is just another strawman argument for them.<<

When a so called scientist says that dead polar bears are proof of climate change its not a straw man argument but when its proven that the polar bears are doing fine then its a straw man argument. Is that how it works?
Hemond
Champion Author Providence

Posts:12,647
Points:185,550
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2015 5:31:24 AM

QUOTE :::So you totally ignore the polar bear reproduction statement I was responding to, and actually think you made a meaningful comment? PFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Nope, I totally ignore the liberal bait you are dangling.

You are the one ignoring the learned paper that has been linked , referenced and quoted several times on this thread. A paper written by a neutral expert on polar bears. An expert whose paper refutes the liberal propaganda that global warming is endangering the polar bear.


BTW, if you are going to spit , its spelled HOCK...PITTUI.

rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,042
Points:3,860,435
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2015 12:39:10 AM

So you totally ignore the polar bear reproduction statement I was responding to, and actually think you made a meaningful comment? PFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:28,132
Points:867,855
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 11:28:43 PM



rumbleseat, you are right, I replied to your 14 year old article that you pretended supported your point and added anything useful to the discussion.

Nice current 'data' there, rumble.

I then later replied when you named me by name.

rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,042
Points:3,860,435
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 11:19:16 PM

You replied before I named you, it appears you have a selective memory. It is still on this page 19 minutes after my reply to Hemond.
I was commenting on his contention that polar bear population has increased 5-fold.



[Edited by: rumbleseat at 2/28/2015 11:23:19 PM EST]
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:28,132
Points:867,855
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 11:07:55 PM



rumbleseat, "Deflecting to excuse your stupid attack I see."

No deflecting.

And no "attack".

rumbleseat, " You jumped on it immediately with no comment on the point I was countering."

I "jumped on it" because you named me by name, rumble.

ROTFL

I also responded directly to the point you made and told you not to try to drag me into your argument with someone else, an argument that I had nothing to do with.

Then I pointed out how your 'source' was the highly dishonest World Wildlife Fund. And what you posted did NOTHING to prove your point.

flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,762
Points:1,683,930
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 11:00:05 PM

btc - its you treehuggers who brought up the whole polar bear pile of junk. It is you reality deniers who said the polar bears were all gonna go extinct because of GlowBULL Warming.

This discussion on polar bears reminds me of a story from out here.

They were having a public meeting on predator control in a town in the Rockies. The treehuggers were out in full force and trying to preempt all of the time alloted to the public at the NEPA meeting. One after another they stood up and proclaimed how cute and cuddly the coyotes were and how they needed love and not bullets and traps. They even started chanting that sheep smelled and were really trespassers in the environment anyway.

Well this grizzeled old cowboy jat in the back being polite adn waiting a chance to talk and finally he lost his temper. This treehugging lady stood up adn proclaimed that any funds alloczted towards predator control must be used to live trap the coyotes adn spay and neuter them adn the population would be controlled through loving methods that wouldnt really hurt anyone.

Well that did it - the old cowboy spit out his chaw of 'baccy and stood up and yelled "dagnabit you dumb blond." "Them blasted coyotes arent trying to make love with my sheep. Them danged howling fools keep trying to eat my sheep. Dang lady dont you know nuttin?"

btc the whole argument about the population decline of the polar bears because of glowbull warming is a propaganda lie of major proportions. Just like the big lie of the caribou being harmed by the Alaska pipeline. For spice toss in the huge lie of the Spotted Owl as a reason to shut down logging in the Pacific Northwest. Both bears and caribou species are doing well and expanding in numbers. The owl is having a hard time - primarily because the barred owl is moving into their territory from the east and taking over.

If the people who want to discuss air pollution and destruction of our environment wish to have a discussion - fine do so but dont throw a pack of lies out there and try and say if you dont accept them your not part of the consensus of scientists or whatever other epithet is currently in favor by the Luddites of the environmental movement.
Hemond
Champion Author Providence

Posts:12,647
Points:185,550
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 8:44:32 PM

::::And like I said even if the Polar Bears are doing ok, does not deny climate change. It is just another strawman argument for them.
:::


Yet if a polar bear is floating on a teensie ice cube it gets put on the front page as proof of global warming. Gotta love it.
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:24,036
Points:905,175
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 8:17:16 PM

rumble, the deniers are quiet on that....And like I said even if the Polar Bears are doing ok, does not deny climate change. It is just another strawman argument for them.

[Edited by: btc1 at 2/28/2015 8:23:28 PM EST]
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,762
Points:1,683,930
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 7:56:05 PM

Once more for effect - when does weather become climate or climate change
.
.
>>>NOAA: 2185 cold records broken or tied in past week – 1913 Low Min Records Broken & 272 tied in 7 days <<<
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,762
Points:1,683,930
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 7:47:49 PM

When does weather become climate anyway.
.
.
>>>New Yorkers cannot recall the last time they walked with their eyes trained forward, rather than watching for ice patches waiting to send them flying, which leaves them vulnerable to ice sliding off buildings from above. And in the evenings the snowplows screech past, drowning out the television in the middle of a Letterman cold joke.

Throughout the parks, on the edges of sidewalks, ice just sits with defiant, assertive permanency. It will not melt, just keeps getting icier and more discolored. The whole city feels like a giant ice cube. People lean into the wind, pull hard to get doors open, to get out of this weather already, as the whistling wind pushes back.

As it limps away, February will not be missed. With the average temperature for the month lingering around 24 degrees, some 11 degrees shy of normal by the National Weather Service’s calculation, this insult of a month looks as though it will clock in as the coldest recorded February in New York City since 1934. That is 81 years of weather. That is all the way back to the Depression, when there were so many more dire things to worry about than whether 7-Eleven had salt or whose turn it was to walk the dog.<<<
.
.
Someone tell me again how many years has it been since the GlowBULL Waaaarmers computer models, even with the "adjusted data", have been correct.

When does years and years of weather start to have an influence on "climate"?Yep we are in the throes of "climate change". The only problem --- its not what the bought and paid for "scientists" of the GlowBULL WAAAArmers said we would get. They all kept on telling us how we were all gonna die of sweat exhaustions or something when we are freezing....

Not to worry just send more money and give them treehuggers more political power and they will fix it for you.



[Edited by: flyboyUT at 2/28/2015 7:51:35 PM EST]
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,042
Points:3,860,435
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 7:30:08 PM

Still no comment on the contention that polar bear population has increased 5-fold?
Hemond
Champion Author Providence

Posts:12,647
Points:185,550
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 7:25:33 PM

:::::I made no statements that the bears were facing imminent extinction, however it is fact there are biological limitations to the rapidity with which they can reproduce.
:::


Agree. Conditions in the arctic, due to global warming, are so conducive to polar bear biology that they may breed beyond the ability of the habitat to support their numbers. There is so much forage, prey, and suitable climate that the bears are fat and happy. And if there is one thing a happy bear makes it's more bears.

This is totally different from the propaganda painted by the left. Where the poor cute bear was stranded on a teensie ice cube out in the melted ocean. Where they were starving and eating their own offspring. ( which , unbelievably bears do). That they were resorting to bear cannibalism to survive.

As the experts have documented in Fly's link, polar bear stress is pure hogwash. As was the propaganda the left published.

rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,042
Points:3,860,435
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 7:23:23 PM

"Read and weep there Rumble...."
"it took me 2 seconds to find the link that has already been posted here"

And what page, pray tell, has the statistics to support the contention that polar bear population has increased 5-fold? I seem to have missed it.

[Edited by: rumbleseat at 2/28/2015 7:27:21 PM EST]
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,042
Points:3,860,435
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 7:05:29 PM

"The LYING image was firmly implanted in people's minds - obviously including yours, rumbleseat."

Deflecting to excuse your stupid attack I see. I replied to the contention polar bear population had increased 5-fold, which would mean breeding like bunnies. You jumped on it immediately with no comment on the point I was countering.

I made no statements that the bears were facing imminent extinction, however it is fact there are biological limitations to the rapidity with which they can reproduce.



[Edited by: rumbleseat at 2/28/2015 7:10:20 PM EST]
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,762
Points:1,683,930
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 6:35:26 PM

Hemond - since it aint tons of glowBULL warming doing the damage I guess it has to be some of that there climate change stuff doing the dirt to you. Send the bill to the GlowBULL warmers/climate changers or whatever. Its their fault for not changing the climate to tropical by you as they warned would happen by now. And to think you spent all your money buying grass skirts and hula hoops....
Hemond
Champion Author Providence

Posts:12,647
Points:185,550
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 5:18:51 PM

YIkes, looks like my garage is likely to be a goner. The door is definitely sticking bad now. Although a little snow has melted, there is still 4 ft of concrete-like snow on top of it. I can see the door tracks bowing in. The rear gutter fell off last week from the weight of the ice dam. There must be tons of excess weight on that roof.

That garage is probably close to a century old. From when they first invented cars. It withstood 100 years of blizzards and hurricanes. It took global warming to ruin it.

This is actually great news - thanks to global warming if the garage falls in I get a new one. There are so many insurance claims due to global warming roof collapses that their aren't enough agents. The office just says submit a bill.

Yay! A new modern garage for me. Thank you global warming. Kinda stinks having to keep my car outside though. No choice as I don't want it crushed.
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:28,132
Points:867,855
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 4:26:50 PM



rumbleseat, let's take a look at the LIES that some of these wacko environmental groups like WWF tell day after day.

Science Magazine famously published a picture of a polar bear that tugged at everyone's heart strings.

It showed a desperate polar bear floating on a single piece of ice floating in a vast area with NO ice in sight.

Who would not feel sorry for that poor polar bear that was SURE to drown?

(Oh, btw, polar bears are STRONG swimmers!)

Groups like WWF and all the other wackos picked up and distributed that picture all over the place and trumpeted how it may already be too late to save polar bears.

Millions of little school kids were LIED to and told heart wrenching stories about these poor polar bears. They were told to go home and tell mom and dad not to be so heartless and greedy and to start protecting little polar bears.

Al Gore showed a similar image in his lying film "An Inconvenient Truth" and claimed this is what global warming was doing to polar bears.

Problem?

The picture was a FAKE!

A photo shopped FAKE!

But the damage was done.

The LYING image was firmly implanted in people's minds - obviously including yours, rumbleseat. So the extremist lefties were still very happy. They had done what they set out to do. LIE to people

And Science Magazine was forced to apologize:

"The image associated with this article was selected by the editors. We did not realize that it was not an original photograph but a collage, and it was a mistake to have used it."

So, maybe we should give Science Magazine a pass. After all they apologized.

NAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

The actual caption on the original photo that Science Magazine bought and published said:
"A polar bear managed to get on one of the last ice floes floating in the Arctic sea. Due to global warming the natural environment of the polar bear in the Arctic has changed a lot. The Arctic sea has much less ice than it had some years ago. (This images is a photoshop design. Polarbear, ice floe, ocean and sky are real, they were just not together in the way they are now)"

Science Magazine KNEW the photo was a FAKE!

But they published it anyway.

LIES from WWF and all the rest, rumbleseat.



[Edited by: AnotherOne at 2/28/2015 4:28:33 PM EST]
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:28,132
Points:867,855
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 3:56:17 PM



rumbleseat, "A1, fly, are you two actually supporting that ridiculous contention?"

Why try to drag me into your argument with Hemond?

Hemond is more than capable of taking care of you (as he already has and will continue to do - prove you wrong.)

Now to your last link.

Thanks for using the World Wildlife Fund.

They have become the usual ultra liberal mindless tree hugger group.

They claim to act on "science" but they deny every science fact that does not agree with their liberal agenda.

This is the type of groups that I used to be part of and support.

Until they left every rational idea behind and became radical mindless global warming environmentalists.
Hemond
Champion Author Providence

Posts:12,647
Points:185,550
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 3:20:30 PM

Yup, it took me 2 seconds to find the link that has already been posted here which Flyboy was kind enough to repost. The same link rumbleseat claims he can't find. Of course he can't , he's a warmist and this data blows down his house of straw.

Looks like the same old story. People go to the trouble of researching and posting links supporting the invalidity of all global warming claims. In this case polar bear endangerment. But such links fly in the face of the belief system of warmists. Of which our own rumbleseat is a fervent disciple.

Just to copy and paste some highlights off the latest linked data which BTC ignores

1 A conservation success story
2 Few populations in decline
3 Kara Sea population is growing
4 Chukchi Sea population is thriving
5 More prey means healthier polar bears
6 Polar bears are adaptable
7 Southern Beaufort numbers are rising too
8 Low sea ice in 2012 had no effect on Southern Beaufort bear
numbers ***NOTE THIS ONE
9 Other species impacted by high polar bear numbers
10 Western Hudson populations are stable
11 Hudson Bay sea ice is not changing much
12 Problem bears in Churchill are not lean or starving
13 Churchill Manitoba had the most problem bears in 1983, not 2013
14 Marginal sea ice declines during the feeding period
15 No evidence that subsistence hunting is affecting bear populations
16 Stressful research methods have been curtailed
17 No recent reports of polar bear cannibalism
18 East Greenland bears appear unaffected by pollution
19 Polar bears have survived past warm periods **NOTE THIS ONE
20 Polar bears are well distributed

Conclusion
These are all good reasons to feel good about the current status of the polar
bear. Polar bears are not currently threatened with extinction due to declining
sea ice, despite the hue and cry from activist scientists and environmental
organizations.


[Edited by: Hemond at 2/28/2015 3:24:25 PM EST]
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,042
Points:3,860,435
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 2:06:51 PM

Look, Hemond claimed polar bears were breeding so fast the population increased 5-fold.
A1, fly, are you two actually supporting that ridiculous contention? If so, please post the data and links. I am sure one of you must have them handy, and can easily prove tha 5-fold increase for us.

"Of the 13 Canadian polar bear populations, the current trends for the 11 populations not known to be severely reduced from historic levels are:
Stable = 5
Declining = 5
Data deficient = 1.
The estimated risks of polar bear population declines in the next 10 years are:
Very high/higher = 5
Lower/very low = 6 (but see Southern Hudson Bay population note above)
No estimate = 2"
Polar Bear Factsheet

[Edited by: rumbleseat at 2/28/2015 2:14:11 PM EST]
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,762
Points:1,683,930
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 1:15:32 PM

From an earlier link - Canadian style research stuff -----
.
.
>>>Just in time for International Polar Bear Day (February 27), here’s a new resource for cooling the polar bear spin. I’ve updated and expanded my previous summary of reasons not to worry about polar bears, which is now two years old.

In this new version, you will find links to supporting information,
Including previous blog posts of mine that provide background, maps and extensive references, although some of the most important graphs and maps have been reproduced here. I hope you find it a useful resource for refuting the spin and tuning out the cries of doom and gloom about the future of
polar bears. Please feel free to share it.

This is the first anniversary of Canada providing population estimates and trends independent of the pessimistic prognostications of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG), so let’s celebrate the recent triumphs and resilience of polar bears to their ever-changing Arctic environment.<<<
.
.
.
Read and weep there Rumble....

HotRod10
Champion Author Wyoming

Posts:3,886
Points:65,555
Joined:Oct 2006
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 1:02:40 PM

"Hot Rod could you provide a link to facts to backup your opinion. Last year was the hottest yet on record."

Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 9 months

In case you haven't been keeping up, there is a major discrepancy between the satellite data and the "adjusted" surface temperature data. The global warming proponents were touting the satellite data until it became apparent that it didn't show any warming, then they abandon it in favor of the surface data they could manipulate to show what they wanted it to show. I'll go with the satellite data until it can be shown to be in error. The adjustments to the surface data have already been shown to be incorrect in most, if not all, of the places where it has been scrutinized.
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:28,132
Points:867,855
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 12:32:01 PM



rumbleseat, your NOAA link gives no useful information about polar bears.

AND it links to a 'conference' from 2001!

Yup, 'the last conference' in 2001.

ROTFL

Real current data there.

SMH

Post a reply Back to Topics