July is on track to become Earth's hottest month on record, climate scientists say

  
Via:  perrie-halpern  •  5 months ago  •  170 comments

 July is on track to become Earth's hottest month on record, climate scientists say
Even with more than a week left until the end of the month, experts are already anticipating that the current record from July 2017 will fall.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


By   Denise Chow


July is on track to become the hottest month in recorded history, climate scientists say, after heat waves blanketed North America and the Arctic saw warmer than usual temperatures. It’s the latest sign that the planet’s overall climate is warming, and that human activities are causing extreme events such as heat waves to become more likely and more intense, the scientists say.

Even with more than a week left until the end of the month, dozens of experts are already anticipating that the current record from July 2017 will fall.

“It's looking like there's a strong likelihood that we will end up with the warmest month ever,” said Brian Brettschneider, a climate researcher at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. (In this case, "ever" means since modern record-keeping began in 1880.)

In July 2017, when the previous record was set, average global temperatures were 2.16 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the 20th century average for July of 57.8 degrees Fahrenheit,   according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration , which collects climate data and tracks temperature records. This July is expected to narrowly surpass the average temperatures from two years ago, scientists who study climate patterns say.

“Of course, we won’t know until all the tallies are in, but we’re on a good pace right now to beat that record,” said Jack Williams, director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Dozens more   climate scientists   have   echoed   the   prediction   on   Twitter .

“July is the warmest month of the year globally. If this July turns out to be the warmest July (it has a good shot at it), it will be the warmest month we have measured on Earth!” Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, tweeted July 15.

In an email Tuesday to NBC News MACH, Mann called the new record “likely,” saying there’s now a “greater than 50/50” chance that the month will set a new high temperature.

July’s anticipated milestone comes on the heels of another worrisome climate record: last month was the hottest June on record. Average global temperatures last month were 1.71 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the 20th century average for June of 59.9 degrees Fahrenheit, according to NASA and NOAA, which independently   track global surface temperatures .

This summer has been a scorcher for much of the world, with Europe suffering through an intense heat wave in late June   that saw the highest temperature ever recorded in France. This past weekend,   about 169 million people across the United States were under heat alerts   as temperatures in cities such as New York City; Little Rock, Arkansas; and Memphis, Tennessee, climbed into the triple digits. And this week, another heat wave is expected to hit parts of Western Europe.

While steamy temperatures are expected in June and July in the Northern Hemisphere, Williams said this summer’s record-setting heat is far from normal.

“The climate system right now is like a batter on steroids,” Williams said, using a baseball analogy. “Heat waves of today are going to be the normal events of tomorrow.”

Mann said the recent warming trends demonstrate the profound impact of climate change on the planet.

“It’s part of a worrisome pattern of streaks of broken records which, we have shown simply would not be occurring in the absence of climate change,” Mann said. “This is just one additional confirmation, along with the spate of unprecedented extreme weather events we’ve seen in recent years, of the fact that the impacts of climate change are no longer subtle. They are staring us in the face.”

Human activities — primarily from burning fossil fuels — emit   carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere . Increasing greenhouse gas emissions is associated with warmer global surface temperatures; the planet’s 10 hottest years on record have all fallen in the past two decades,   according to Climate Central .

“There’s internal fluctuations in the climate system that cause the needle to metaphorically bounce around from year to year, but the trend is unmistakable,” Brettschneider said.

Unless significant measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions are adopted, scientists expect temperature records to keep falling. Scientists say global temperatures could increase by   at least 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit this century   — creating conditions on Earth that have not been seen in more than 2 million years.

“The closest equivalents were found in the Pliocene [Epoch], when sea levels were higher by tens of feet and it was a much warmer world,” Williams said. “That was a time period prior to human evolution. Part of the bigger picture here is we’re pushing the climate system toward states that we haven’t seen in our societal experience — and even in our species’ experience.”

The current warmest year on record was 2016, when a naturally recurring climate pattern known as El Niño contributed in part to warmer-than-usual conditions. So far this year, the period from January through June has tied 2017 as the second-hottest year to date on record,   according to the NOAA .

For Williams, the record temperatures add urgency to efforts to sound the alarm on climate change.

“It’s tough being a climate scientist and seeing the trends that we’re heading towards and trying to raise awareness,” Williams said. “It feels like an uphill battle. At the same time, I feel like this is the defining issue of my generation, and it’s a fight and conversation worth having. It’s important work, so we just keep at it.”


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.    5 months ago

I am left wondering if this is a fait accompli. 

What do you think? 

 
 
 
Enoch
1.1  Enoch  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    5 months ago

Dear Friend Perrie: Forget the sunscreen.

Please pass the BBQ sauce.

I think we don't know if we can reverse global climate change grounded in fossil fuel and other human activities in time.

I do opine that we should give it the old college try. 

We have nothing to lose by doing all we can while we are still here.

Technology, which gave us the benefits of the internal combustion engine et al may be our way out of this for sustainable natural fuels.

Same for plastic replacement and other problematic products of humanity.

The only thing I am sure of at this point is that nature will get along just fine without us.

Daily thousands of genus and species go extinct.

This isn't new.

Life will find a way.

It just may not be us as the dominant or even present life form.

Enoch, Smearing Some "Boss Sauce" on My Chicken and Human Wings Before Going Out for My Daily Constitutional.

   

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.1.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Enoch @1.1    5 months ago
If countries like Portugal, and Spain, and Germany can do it, we sure should be able to do so...
(BTW..... From a Kansas boy...... K.C. Masterpiece..... There is no substitute!)
"Praise the lord and pass the sauce!"

 
 
 
Enoch
1.1.2  Enoch  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.1.1    5 months ago

Dear Friend FlyNavy1: Amen Brother!

P&AB.

Enoch. 

 
 
 
cjcold
1.1.3  cjcold  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.1.1    5 months ago

Chiefs, Arrowhead, tailgating, KC Masterpiece sweet & spicy on the ribs. Nuf said!

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.1.4  1stwarrior  replied to  cjcold @1.1.3    5 months ago

You wouldn't dare - and advertise it????

Ohhhhh - the agony and despair.

Jealous I am.

 
 
 
cjcold
1.1.5  cjcold  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.4    5 months ago

We always cook extra so the folk walking through can have a taste.

Arrowhead parking lot BBQ is as good as it gets. Right up there with contest quality.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.6  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Enoch @1.1    5 months ago
Life will find a way. It just may not be us as the dominant or even present life form.

That is what I am concerned about. I would like to leave a planet for my children and my grandchildren (Perrie wishing for grandchildren someday)

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.1.7  FLYNAVY1  replied to  cjcold @1.1.3    5 months ago

I've been teaching my German neighbors all about how to make great KC style ribs... 

I can get five racks of b-back ribs for about $12.00.  The meat is superb, they just needed to know about the rubs, and the slow approach and what KC Masterpiece is all about.  

 
 
 
Enoch
1.1.8  Enoch  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.6    5 months ago

Dear Friend Perrie: Mrs. E. and I are gifted with grandchildren.

When yours appear, be prepared for among the best of all life experiences.

P&AB.

Enoch.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1.9  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Enoch @1.1.8    4 months ago

I have four. Three boys ages 22, 20, 13,and a girl 8. (guess who gets spoiled the most?). Since my wife and only son passed away a few years ago, they are the only things that keep me going and make life worth living.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.10  r.t..b...  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.9    4 months ago
they are the only things that keep me going and make life worth living.

You are blessed...as are they, Ed. Here's to a long and healthy life loving on and imparting your wisdom gained from a well-lived life on those you care most about. Peace.

 
 
 
Enoch
1.1.11  Enoch  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.9    4 months ago

Dear Brother Ed-NavyDoc: The young give us geezers a reason to get up in the AM. 

Enjoy them all you can.

Be there for them as they need you to be.

Most sorry for the untimely loss of your dear wife and son.

I am always avaialable, 24/7 for any Pastoral Care needs you may have and which addressed on your terms, respecting your uniqueness and values.

P&AB, Always.

Enoch.

 
 
 
Enoch
1.1.12  Enoch  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.10    4 months ago

Dear Friend r.tb...: Well said.

Great soulful expressions.

P&AB.

Enoch.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2  WallyW  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    5 months ago

So....what's the solution? Waving the magic wand of a carbon tax? Mandated use of alternative fuels?

There is not going to be an appreciable decrease in the use of fossil fuels worldwide anytime soon.

What caused the heat and drought of the 1930's?

And what will we do about the other, much more potent, greenhouse gas....methane?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/06/the_heat_waves_of_the_1930s.html

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/unexpected-future-boost-of-methane-possible-from-arctic-permafrost/

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  WallyW @1.2    5 months ago

Always with you Wally, it's "What can't be done."

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2.2  WallyW  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.1    5 months ago
So you have no real world answers, but can only offer snark?
Kindly refrain from any more personal attacks and taunting.
I am not the topic.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.3  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  WallyW @1.2    5 months ago
What caused the heat and drought of the 1930's?

That was regional and there have always been regional droughts around the world. What we are talking about is world temperature not regional. Also what made that so bad, was the over-farming that happened. Had they actually followed good farming practices, it would have been bad, but not as bad as it was. 

So....what's the solution? Waving the magic wand of a carbon tax? Mandated use of alternative fuels?

Maybe tax credits for electric alternatives instead of punitive taxes. Europe is already using far more electric cars than we are. The bigger issue is how to get China and Russia on board. But that should not preclude us doing something.

And what will we do about the other, much more potent, greenhouse gas....methane?

Methane is a big problem and a by-product of animal farming. That is a harder one to solve. But check out this article:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/07/03/623645396/surf-and-turf-to-reduce-gas-emissions-from-cows-scientists-look-to-the-ocean

 
 
 
cjcold
1.2.4  cjcold  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.3    5 months ago

The rapidly warming and melting Arctic tundra is also releasing tons of trapped methane.

Warming lakes and wetlands also increase methane release tremendously.

Our solid waste landfills emit massive amounts of methane as well.

Damn those inescapable positive feedback loops!

 
 
 
cjcold
1.2.5  cjcold  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.3    5 months ago

Grew up on a ranch/farm that my little brother has turned into a profitable operation.

I'll be sending this to him to see what he thinks.

He denies global warming and thinks the smell of cow manure is the smell of money.

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.2.6  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @1.2    5 months ago

Well, denial and ignorance sure isn't helping. 

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2.7  WallyW  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.6    5 months ago

Once again, what solutions do you offer?

Name calling and fear mongering sure isn't helping.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.3  Drakkonis  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1    4 months ago

I think that where I live (Pacific Northwest), July has been a lot cooler than it has over the past several years. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.3.1  MrFrost  replied to  Drakkonis @1.3    4 months ago

I think that where I live (Pacific Northwest), July has been a lot cooler than it has over the past several years. 

Only slightly. I live in the same region and over the last 30 years it has gotten steadily warmer each year. But, global doesn't mean, "this region", either. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.3.2  Sparty On  replied to  MrFrost @1.3.1    4 months ago

I've lived in the same region my entire life as well .... nearly 60 years.  

I've seen the Great water levels go up and down twice in my lifetime.   We are on our third up in my lifetime right now.   Last nearly record high levels were roughly 30 years ago.   Every time it goes up the alarmists start chirping about global warming or whatever other hincky cause they can come up with.   When it goes down another group of alarmists chirp about lose of our fresh water supplies by this cause or that.   And they pontificate .... meanwhile the water level gradually recedes and they fade into the past .... until roughly 30 years later when the water level starts rising again and new batch of of alarmists trip the alarm ............... and the wheel goes around and around.

I'm not a denier but i'm of the mind that mans effect on the environment pale in comparison with natural cycles and mothers nature.   Has man's added contributions tipped the natural cycles in one direction or the other?   Perhaps but it is the epitome of arrogance IMO to claim with certainty that we have more than even a rudimentary understanding of the forces at work here.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.3  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @1.3.2    4 months ago
I'm not a denier but i'm of the mind that mans effect on the environment pale in comparison with natural cycles and mothers nature. 

In terms of the history of our planet, your statement is demonstrably true.   Of course, if we ever have a nuclear war we will likely initiate a new age in Earth's evolution.   We might also accomplish a new age by triggering a Venus-like atmosphere that kills all life on the planet.   I hate to think that we (our descendants) will be that stupid, but I have observed human beings hold beliefs that defy facts and reason and blindly walk off the metaphorical cliff, so ...

Perhaps but it is the epitome of arrogance IMO to claim with certainty that we have more than even a rudimentary understanding of the forces at work here.

The climate is profoundly complex and climate science does not claim to have all the answers.   What it does claim, however, is that the surface temperature of the planet continues to rise at an accelerated pace, the rise correlates with the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, the signature of most of the CO2 matches that of fossil fuels, CO2 absorbs reflected heat and releases it back into the atmosphere rather than allow it to radiate into space.    The data (and simulations via models) supporting this theory is substantial and in spite of a tiny minority of deniers, there is a worldwide consensus that we are trending towards a very bad scenario.   So we can blindly and stupidly dismiss this because the science is not exact (science is never exact) or we can take seriously what we see as a profoundly deadly trend and start the process of sensible mitigation.   We phase in practical measures (e.g. renewable energy, conservation) commensurate with our understanding and revise as our understanding increases.

If by some remarkable fortune climate science discovers that individuals like Dr. Fleming are correct and the climate will simply recycle back to a cooler point without first triggering a self-perpetuating greenhouse effect then we can all take a deep breath and make use of the new renewable energy technology and more sensible energy utilization that we have put into place.   A net good thing regardless.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
2  FLYNAVY1    5 months ago

We can't let a little thing like global climate change interfere with company profits and stock prices now can we?

Don't expect any change in thinking by those that should be responding anytime soon.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
2.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @2    5 months ago

LOL I’ve been thinking about dumping my Netflix stock after the recent big drop. Now I know it’s because more people are outside enjoying this wonderful warm weather and less time huddled around the boob tube. 

 
 
 
Kavika
3  Kavika     5 months ago

But but Al Gore....

 
 
 
Enoch
3.1  Enoch  replied to  Kavika @3    5 months ago

Dear Brother Kavika: Don't forget Leslie Gore.

"Its my planet and I'll cry if I want to. You would cry too if global climate change happened to you".

Enoch, Doing the Monster Mash (it is a grave yard smash).   

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
3.1.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Enoch @3.1    5 months ago

Enoch, Doing the Monster Mash.... Be still my heart!  That, or "the things you see without a gun"..... Your choice Enoch.

Best regards

 
 
 
Enoch
3.1.2  Enoch  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @3.1.1    5 months ago

Dear Brother FlyNavy1: As to you and yours, always.

Thanks.

Enoch.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2  MUVA  replied to  Kavika @3    5 months ago

Al Gore can't wait to get his hands on that carbon bank money.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @3.2    5 months ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif that makes no sense whatsoever

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.2  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.1    5 months ago

jrSmiley_30_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.3  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.1    5 months ago
 
 
 
cjcold
3.2.4  cjcold  replied to  MUVA @3.2.3    5 months ago

Good for Al Gore! Showing folk that they can fight AGW/climate change and make a profit.

 
 
 
charger 383
4  charger 383    5 months ago

Overpopulation is what is causing the problem

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  charger 383 @4    5 months ago

I agree, but that is a hard one to stop. 

 
 
 
cjcold
4.1.1  cjcold  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1    5 months ago

Bailiff. Whack his pee pee!

Harsh but possibly necessary for those who breed irresponsibly.

 
 
 
charger 383
4.1.2  charger 383  replied to  cjcold @4.1.1    5 months ago

Haven't heard that one in a long time, still funny  

 
 
 
cjcold
4.1.3  cjcold  replied to  charger 383 @4.1.2    5 months ago

Have to be really stoned to listen to Cheech & Chong or Firesign Theatre these days.

Commercial stoner comedy stopped being funny for me back in the 70s.

Listened to Clyde Clifford/Beaker Street KAAY Little Rock back in the late 60s damn near every late night when I wasn't on stage. Clifford turned me on to a whole bunch of new music.

 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4.1.4  FLYNAVY1  replied to  cjcold @4.1.1    5 months ago

Now I know we are from the same generation... No stems, no seeds......

 
 
 
cjcold
4.1.5  cjcold  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4.1.4    5 months ago

That you don't need...

 
 
 
Enoch
4.1.6  Enoch  replied to  cjcold @4.1.3    4 months ago

Melony Haber?

Audrey Farber?

Susan Underhill?

Oh, you must mean Nancy!

Enoch, Recalling That Every Thing We Know Is Wrong.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    5 months ago

Our low was 68 f last night, I can't remember July being this cool in Central Texas.

I'll take it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.1  Sparty On  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5    5 months ago

We got down to 56 .... free cooling for the house baby!

Not that unusual for here though (Michigan) if one has a memory just a bit longer than a dog.   It happens ....

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Sparty On @5.1    5 months ago

we've had a few days at 100 f, usually we are on day 25 of over 100. Unseasonably cool this year.

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1.1    5 months ago

I'd say we've been about average temperature wise.   Rarely get to a hundy but it happens.   Not this year yet.  

We are right in the meat of summer when that usually happens.  

Fricken humidity has been more wicked than normal though.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.3  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.2    5 months ago

Guys, 

Temps are not local, but worldwide. And if you are cooler, it means that the jet stream has just moved over a bit. Paris had record highs never on record before. 

btw.. last night was the first night we were not in the high 80's in weeks. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
5.1.4  1stwarrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.3    5 months ago

Hell, we've just gone through our four weeks of 101-108 temps - very normal for this time of year in NM.  Today, it's only gonna get to 99 and tomorrow 104.

 
 
 
cjcold
5.1.5  cjcold  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.4    5 months ago

Here in the land of OZ we just went through a few weeks of extreme heat.

My air cooler couldn't keep up so went for a few drives in my well air conditioned truck.

Usually ended up in a well air conditioned bar.

It's down to the 80s now which almost feels chilly.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
5.1.6  FLYNAVY1  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.4    5 months ago

100 compression golf balls, or best to just stay in the pro-shop under those temperature conditions?

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5    4 months ago

All and all, July was not that hot here.  There were some triple digit temps, but to me, the month seemed mild overall.

 
 
 
Sparty On
6  Sparty On    5 months ago

Well, the question is how much man is really affecting an earth cycle that has been verified, going back millions of years.   Studies like this one usually only go back a couple hundred years.   A fraction, of a blink of an eye, by comparison.

Scientifically, there is no doubt man is having an effect.   How much of an effect is debatable.  

Blind faith in people profiting from this like AL Gore is very shortsighted IMO.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @6    5 months ago
Blind faith in people profiting from this like AL Gore is very shortsighted IMO.

The worst thing to ever happen to this issue was Al Gore, since he diminished the issue. I am not a fan of Gore nor did I see his dumb movie. As an earth science teacher, I have been keeping up on this issue for a long time, and yes, while the earth does go through cycles, the ice cores tell us that the earth has never been this hot before. The bigger question is how much will this affect the whole ecosystem that we are a part of. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1    5 months ago

Not a teacher but earth sciences, specifically global warming, have become an interest of mine.

Are you familiar with Milankovitch cycles?   Although over much longer time frames they prove the cyclical nature of earths long term climate patterns.   Data largely obtained from ice cores as well but also included deep sediment analysis.   I was under the impression that we have been this warm but much longer than a couple hundred years ago.    Am i wrong on that? 

The article this seed is based on only goes back to the 1880's.   Like i said, not even a blink of an eye in relation to the life of the earth.

 
 
 
cjcold
6.1.2  cjcold  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1    5 months ago

No matter who champions this issue, the fossil fuel industry spends millions to denigrate them.

Thanks to Al Gore this important/lethal issue finally gained the traction it deserves.

This environmental scientist owns a copy of his movie and finds it to be spot-on, not "dumb".

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.3  XDm9mm  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1    5 months ago
the ice cores tell us that the earth has never been this hot before

First and foremost, the 'ice cores' can only date back about 750,000 years, at least what we have thus far.  It's 'believed' they might be able to date back as far as 1.5 million years.

Now, I'm not a science nor math teacher, but I'm fairly certain that even 1.5 million years prior to now is no where near the guesstimated 4.5 billion years age of this planet.   

In short, we're simply guessing about a great deal of what we claim is scientific proof.  Hell, you and I both know that 'science' claims that there are 'stars' (suns like ours) that died years (billions?) ago, whose light is still traveling through space and has not yet reached us.  But, 'science' cannot prove that those stars are in fact dead.

Another point you didn't note is that never before in this planets history (at least as much as we know) have there ever been this many of our species rummaging around on it's surface trying to survive.   

All we can do is hope to be able to adapt to whatever mother earth has in store for us.  Or we'll simply be another species that goes extinct.

 
 
 
MUVA
6.1.4  MUVA  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.3    5 months ago

You are right there is no established norm.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.5  XDm9mm  replied to  MUVA @6.1.4    5 months ago
no established norm.

The only "norm" is that there isn't any and it's continual constant change.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.6  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.1    5 months ago
Are you familiar with Milankovitch cycles?

Yes, I am. For those of our readers who don't know what they are, it a "wobble" the earth has due to 3 factors, eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession. Eccentricity is how centric or elliptical the earth orbits around the sun. This varies about every 90-100,000 years. The earth's tilt on its axis towards the sun shifts about every 35-40,000 years and precession is the earth's actual wobble better expressed as where the North Star is in the sky. this changes every20-23,000 year. All three affect the earth's temp. 

All of these have been going on for since the eath found it's orbit. They affect the glacial and interglacial periods. The thing is, technically we are in an interglacial period of a glacial period, so this warming trend, is a bit extreme from what we have seen from the ice cores and other interglacial periods. And even during the longest of these periods, man was alive as were most of the animals we know, so obviously while we had climate changes during man's time on the planet, it was not enough to alter life. But we are seeing extinctions now at a record pace, and that is what is troubling. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.7  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.3    5 months ago

You can tell a lot in those 1.5 million years. How our planet goes in and out of cooling and warming cycles. 

We do know our activity can't be helpful to the earth. Let me remind you about the hole we made in the earth's ozone layer is affected by VOC's. Since we have stopped using them, the ozone layer has started to repair itself. But did you wonder why skin cancer is on the rise? It was from the accumulated damage from when the hole was bigger. 

you and I both know that 'science' claims that there are 'stars' (suns like ours) that died years (billions?) ago, whose light is still traveling through space and has not yet reached us.  But, 'science' cannot prove that those stars are in fact dead.

They know that suns are constantly born and dying. They have actually caught those moments. They also know the speed of light, so they know how long ago we are now viewing a star. They have never claimed a specific star is dead or alive, but they have said we wouldn't know due to the speed of light and the fact that stars are born and dying all the time. That is not saying that a specific star is dead or alive. That they can't tell nor have they said that they can tell. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.8  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.6    5 months ago
The thing is, technically we are in an interglacial period of a glacial period, so this warming trend, is a bit extreme from what we have seen from the ice cores and other interglacial periods.

There's been other "bumps" is the "sine wave" of this trend.   Possibly caused by volcanic activity or other natural phenomenon.   Like todays data, it's pretty hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what the causes are using the data sources we have.   There is still very much we don't understand about it.

But we are seeing extinctions now at a record pace, and that is what is troubling. 

True but not all of that is directly attributable to global warming.   Some of it certainly is but not all of it.

My question on this topic remains.    How much man has actually contributed to the global warming problem.   That is a question that has not been answered.   Not beyond a reasonable doubt.

 
 
 
WallyW
6.1.9  WallyW  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1    5 months ago
the ice cores tell us that the earth has never been this hot before. The bigger question is how much will this affect the whole ecosystem that we are a part of. 

How far back do the ice cores go?

Earth has been way hotter in the past.

And also much colder, if we are to believe the scientists

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201508_slushball/

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.10  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.8    5 months ago
My question on this topic remains.    How much man has actually contributed to the global warming problem.   That is a question that has not been answered.   Not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes, you are right. We can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But we can show other damage like the ozone that we have done. The thing is, there is no turning back. We have only one planet and we can't live anywhere else. I would rather side on prudence. Honestly, I do find it hard to believe that even if this is a natural trend, that we are not making it worse. Can we agree on that?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.11  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  WallyW @6.1.9    5 months ago
How far back do the ice cores go?

Oldest one on record is now 2.7 million years. 

Earth has beenwayhotter in the past.

Yes, but not during an interglacial, which are in now.

And also much colder, if we are to believe the scientists

Yes during glacial periods, which we are not in right now either. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.12  XDm9mm  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.10    5 months ago
Honestly, I do find it hard to believe that even if this is a natural trend, that we are not making it worse. Can we agree on that?

Of course we're making it worse.  There has never been 7.5+ BILLION people AND the requisite supporting infrastructure in "recorded" history.

So, unless people are willing to stop having children, are willing to reduce their food consumption, reduce their standards of living, there's not really a lot more we can do other than to try and find ways to mitigate the change and adjust to what the world is coming to and hope the species survives long enough to see it change again.

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.13  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.10    5 months ago
Can we agree on that?

Most definitely.   I only question how much.  

And if it's not that much, rushing into potential solutions is a fools errand.   Working towards zero emissions?   Great, no problem but do it thoughtfully and not over-reactively.   I bristle at the pontifications of people like AOC and Gore.  

They are more or less clueless in this regard IMO.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.14  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.13    5 months ago

First of all, I wish all of you would stop talking to me (at least me) about Al Gore or AOC. I never refer to them and I don't consider them in any way shape or form. 

And if it's not that much, rushing into potential solutions is a fools errand.

See the problem with that is that we don't know how much. It may be a little or it may be a lot... so basically, this is a gamble and it's not one I am willing to make since I have kids. 

The problem I have with this issue is that there seems to be too extreme sides (shocking... I know!) and so it's hard to have a conversation on any rational level. Nothing that I have presented is extreme and yet I am still getting push back and from my POV, I know there are reasonable actions we can take to reduce what we do to the environment as a whole.

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.15  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.14    5 months ago

Well, we agree on more than we disagree on.  

And I only use those two names as examples of one of the extreme views.   Not really sorry about it since they do illustrate that extreme very well.   So, not sure why it would bother you but since it clearly does, i'll stop using them.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.16  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.12    5 months ago
Of course we're making it worse.  There has never been 7.5+ BILLION people AND the requisite supporting infrastructure in "recorded" history.

Of course, that is true. Most of the growth is from 3rd world nations. Most western nations and China are in negative growth. All the more reason to try and find ways not to impact the earth with things we can control. When I talk about things we can control, I am talking totally, like plastics waste, not just greenhouse gases. 

btw.. here is an interesting site that is very interactive about population growth:

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Please note that the trend is worldwide that the population rate is going down. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.17  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.15    5 months ago
So, not sure why it would bother you but since it clearly does, i'll stop using them.

Because when you combine them into a discussion we are having it gives the impression that I agree with them and I don't. I don't even respect them. 

Just fyi.

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.18  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1.17    5 months ago

Ah, roger that.     Not my intention in the least.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1.19  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.18    5 months ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.1.20  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1    4 months ago

I stopped taking Gore seriously after the man/bear/pig thing.  He swore this creature was half man, half pig, and half bear.  Math was obviously not his forte.  South Park really stuck it to him about it.

 
 
 
cjcold
6.2  cjcold  replied to  Sparty On @6    5 months ago

Since the planet should actually be cooling slightly due to Milankovitch cycles, Humans are causing ALL of the excess warming and have been for the past 100+ years or so.

No it is not debatable.

Why shouldn't people profit from running environmentally sustainable businesses?

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.2.1  Sparty On  replied to  cjcold @6.2    5 months ago
Since the planet should actually be cooling slightly due to Milankovitch cycles

Unbiased link please.

, Humans are causing ALL of the excess warming and have been for the past 100+ years or so.

Unbiased link please

No it is not debatable.

Yes it is.   Very debatable actually.

Why shouldn't people profit from running environmentally sustainable businesses?

Lol, Al Gore loves you.    Give him a call .... maybe he'll make you a pitchman.

 
 
 
cjcold
6.2.2  cjcold  replied to  Sparty On @6.2.1    5 months ago

Try going to NASA and NOAA and every other climate science organization on the planet.

Only a very few paid fossil fuel industry propagandists still deny the reality of AGW.

Not sure why you keep bringing up Al Gore.

What does Al Gore have to do with what every climatologist on the planet is studying?

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.2.3  Sparty On  replied to  cjcold @6.2.2    5 months ago
Try going to NASA and NOAA and every other climate science organization on the planet.

For what?   What's your point?

Only a very few paid fossil fuel industry propagandists still deny the reality of AGW.

Irrelevant.   Show me where i've denied global warming even once.

Not sure why you keep bringing up Al Gore. What does Al Gore have to do with what every climatologist on the planet is studying?

You been living under a rock the last 10-15 years?

 
 
 
WallyW
6.2.4  WallyW  replied to  cjcold @6.2    5 months ago
No it is not debatable.

Science is always debatable, and only rarely 'settled'.

To say otherwise shows ignorane

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.3  MrFrost  replied to  Sparty On @6    5 months ago
Blind faith in people profiting from this like AL Gore is very shortsighted IMO.

Al Gore isn't a climatologist, he is a politician. Listen to climatologists if you want clear and accurate data regarding the climate. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.3.1  Sparty On  replied to  MrFrost @6.3    5 months ago

And yet, Gore is the one making money off of it.   Which was my point in the first place when it came to Gore.

That said, Gore has been the spokesman for the Global Warming issue since his documentary in 2006.   And yes, he's made millions off of it.

But i agree, listen to the climatologists.   All of them.   Not just the ones who agree with a specific narrative.   Most agree there is Global Warming.   Fewer agree that man is the main cause for the current state of Global Warming.   There is a reason for that.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.3.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.1    5 months ago
Fewer agree that man is the main cause for the current state of Global Warming. 

And even fewer agree that we should do all we can to maintain the fragile balance. Stewardship, not another partisan and thus economic issue, must be the the prime consideration in defining policy. Hard for man to continue to thrive, much less survive, without clean air, fresh water, and the responsible use of natural resources. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.3.3  Sparty On  replied to  r.t..b... @6.3.2    5 months ago

Couldn't agree more.   Problem is we need to be proactive looking forward not reactive looking back.   E.g. the hasty destruction of entire industries here in the US like Coal, makes little sense in that regard.

What's done is done.   We need to work diligently to minimize known causes of Global Warming as fast as reasonably possible but not at the expense of civilization.   Unless of course all the people for that want to turn off their refrigerators and AC.   Or want to pay 3 to 5 times more for renewable energy forced upon them in a reactive manner.

It's not as simply as many of the talking heads want you to believe.   Like our buddy Al Gore.   When he came out with his documentary telling everyone they need to go to renewable energy.   While his personal carbon footprint was massive compared to most Americans.  

What a hypocrite and typical.

 
 
 
katrix
6.3.4  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.3    5 months ago

But the coal industry isn't being destroyed because of environmental policies, for the most part. It's primarily being destroyed because natural gas (which is also destroying the environment and causing earthquakes, and ruining groundwater - there is no harmless source of power, but natural gas is cleaner than coal) is cheaper to produce. Hillary was right about that and Trump was wrong, although the way Hillary phrased it was stupid. Trump can't bring coal back.   https://qz.com/1061246/a-new-department-of-energy-report-explains-why-coal-is-dying-in-the-us/

Regulations to make coal cleaner were necessary, though.  Have you ever seen firsthand the devastation that's caused by mountaintop removal?  The devastation to the ecosystem caused by coal companies dumping waste directly into streams?

And while we should focus on renewable energy, making (and getting rid of) all those solar panels has a pretty big impact as well ... battery manufacturing and disposal does for electric cars... it's not as though renewable energy has no environmental impact. And recycling actually seems to be decreasing; other countries are refusing to take our recycling waste and apparently there's no profit in it.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.3.5  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @6.3.4    5 months ago

Your comments about solar panel disposal and such just reinforces what a complicated problem it is.   There are no pat answers.

That said coal is being destroyed by aggressive emissions regulations.   It happened in such a manner.   It would be like requiring 100 MPG from all cars built in the USA in just a few years.   It's possible but not fiscally feasible.   It would cost too much to the end user.   So coal is forced out.   Natural gas and renewables are in.   Certainly not a bad thing in the end but i chafe whenever the Fed aggressively over-regulates business like that.

Meanwhile developing countries like China and India burn more coal each year.   Significantly accelerating their own carbon emissions as ours are being significantly reduced.

One wonders how you propose to fix that problem while Americans continue to pay more and more for cleaner, renewable energy each year.

 
 
 
katrix
6.3.6  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.5    5 months ago
One wonders how you propose to fix that problem while Americans continue to pay more and more for cleaner, renewable energy each year.

Me? What gave you the idea that I have a proposal to fix the problem? As I pointed out, there are no harmless sources of energy. I think it's worth spending money to research renewal energy so that it DOES become more affordable, and obviously the damage the natural gas fracking is causing is a huge issue, just as are the problems with coal.

In the long run .. the Earth is still recovering from the last Ice Age. While I think human activity is definitely speeding it up, we're in a warming trend - and eons from now, we'll have another ice age. And the continents will all merge into a single continent again, as they have in the past.

At some point, humans are screwed long before our sun turns into a red dwarf, IMO.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.3.7  r.t..b...  replied to  katrix @6.3.6    5 months ago
there are no harmless sources of energy. I think it's worth spending money to research renewal energy so that it DOES become more affordable,

As always, it comes down to economics. When renewable energy sources are developed to the point where they become profitable, the gas and oil industry will go the way of the dinosaur (ironic, that). Until that day, I agree that spending dollars in research and development is money well spent, rather than the current system of subsidizing those industries that are ultimately unsustainable and demonstrably deleterious to the environment. If we can somehow address the waste issues, nuclear power could be the ticket. Complex issues that our children's children will wrestle with.

 
 
 
katrix
6.3.8  katrix  replied to  r.t..b... @6.3.7    5 months ago
If we can somehow address the waste issues, nuclear power could be the ticket.

And not just waste issues anymore - think of San Onofre and some of the other power plants which will be affected by rising sea levels, earthquakes, etc.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.3.9  r.t..b...  replied to  katrix @6.3.8    5 months ago
which will be affected by rising sea levels, earthquakes, etc.

Never a fool-proof guarantee, but we are fortunate here to have the resource of wide-open spaces, far removed from flooding, earthquake, tornado and tsunami zones. Power transmission would be more expensive, but worth it in mitigating the risk of natural disaster. Put our best minds on it and it seems to be a viable alternative, but as you previously and correctly said, there are no harmless sources of energy. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.3.10  Sparty On  replied to  r.t..b... @6.3.7    5 months ago
If we can somehow address the waste issues, nuclear power could be the ticket.

Cold Fusion will address it.   Not if, but when it get perfected.   Hopefully in our lifetimes but who knows.   Last i looked they are way off being able to perfect it on a Power Transmission scale.

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.3.11  MrFrost  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.1    5 months ago
And yet, Gore is the one making money off of it.  

Capitalism is a great model, isn't it. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.3.12  MrFrost  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.1    5 months ago
Most agree there is Global Warming.   Fewer agree that man is the main cause for the current state of Global Warming.   There is a reason for that.

Most climatologists, (more than 50%), agree that man made global warming is a reality. 

Think about it... 7 billion people is a LOT of people. It's fantasy to think that 7 billion people have no effect on the environment. It's really very simple...

.

Co2 is a greenhouse gas. What removes it from the atmosphere? Plant life, (trees, grass, etc..). What do humans do as we expand? Cut down the trees to build places to live. So we are INCREASING the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere, but reducing the way it is removed, which means more greenhouse gasses which leads to higher global temps that are not part of the natural heating and cooling of the Earth.

And when the oceans get warmer, even a tiny bit, they rise. Why? Because heat makes things expand, including water. 

The ice sheets begin to melt, which means that the dirt, (I know this is going to sound stupid but it's a fact), that is in the ice is left on top of the ice, and since it's darker? It gathers more heat, increasing the rate at which the ice melts. For lack of a better term? Snowball effect, (no pun intended).  

Basic science my friend. 

Up until about 15 years ago, I thought GW was all bullshit myself, but the more I read and study, the more convinced I am that man, (humans), are playing a significant role in GW/CC. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.3.13  MrFrost  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.10    5 months ago
Cold Fusion will address it.

That would be bad ass. 

Solar works, but for it to be truly effective, it needs more research to make the panels more efficient. 

Interesting statistic? 

If you add up all the power mankind has ever generated, from the first camp fires, to nuke power plants, it doesn't even add up to what our sun puts out in just one second. 

To put it another way? If we could harness all the energy the sun puts out for just 1 second, we would have enough power to last us over 10,000 years. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.3.14  Sparty On  replied to  MrFrost @6.3.11    5 months ago

Lol yeah, funny when a guy like Gore profits from it, its good but when a more conservative person does it’s bad.

Not saying you feel that way but a lot of people do.

Pretty damn funny!

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.3.15  Sparty On  replied to  MrFrost @6.3.12    5 months ago

You’ve never seen me say man doesn’t contribute to GW.     I only question how much.   If you’ve really studied GW you know there are many other natural sources that man has nothing to do with

Sunspot activity, seabed methane release and natural nitrous oxide oxide emissions throughout the earth are a few examples

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.3.16  r.t..b...  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.14    5 months ago
funny when a guy like Gore profits from it

Your examples are worthy of discussion if you only would leave the Gore analogies out of it. He is meaningless to the context and only deter from the otherwise cogent points you have brought up. Just my thoughts as being apolitical on this most serious of subjects, but maybe I just choose to ignore the partisan ramifications. As citizens of the world, we're all in this together, regardless of country, party, or ideology.

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.3.17  Sparty On  replied to  r.t..b... @6.3.16    5 months ago
He is meaningless to the context and only deter from the otherwise cogent points you have brought up.

I agree.    If only more people felt that way.    Gore defined the issue for a lot of the lemmings out there.    That makes him cogent to the discussion at hand imo.    YMMV but there you go.

 
 
 
cjcold
6.3.18  cjcold  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.17    4 months ago

Pretty sure that the lemmings all parrot anti-science fossil fuel industry propaganda.

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.3.19  Sparty On  replied to  cjcold @6.3.18    4 months ago

Nah, but the real lemmings on the left do turn a blind eye towards gatherings of hypocrites like Google organized in Italy this summer.

Global warming crusaders, one and all.   Generating carbon emissions by the tons because they can.   Telling the little people they better air dry their laundry and drive electric cars while they tool around in mega yachts, private jets and gas chugging SUV's.  

What a joke.

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.3.20  MrFrost  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.15    4 months ago
You’ve never seen me say man doesn’t contribute to GW.     I only question how much.   If you’ve really studied GW you know there are many other natural sources that man has nothing to do with

Oh I am aware. The thing is that humans can change their behaviors and adapt. Volcano's, forest fires, acts of nature? Nothing we can do about it, but piling onto the problem isn't helpful either. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.3.21  MrFrost  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.14    4 months ago
Lol yeah, funny when a guy like Gore profits from it, its good but when a more conservative person does it’s bad.

Not at all. People are going to find ways to make money, how? I don't care, as long as it's legal. I mean, if Gore is making millions off the GW...there is clearly money in it. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.3.22  Sparty On  replied to  MrFrost @6.3.20    4 months ago

Again, i agree but destroying our economy and people budgets won't fix the problem.   Time and time again the Fed does the right thing but gets it wrong via over-reaction and over-regulation.   I've experienced that directly twice in my business.   First with asbestos abatement and next with CFC's.   Both had crazy over-reaction/regulation and both were ultimately pulled back to more reasonable rules.   And it worked .... we're still here.

A slow steady approach is the ticket.   This 10-12 year deadline nonsense being spewed by some is just crazy.   If it truly is 10-12 years there is NOTHING we can do about at this point about it.    The damage is done.

But i don't believe that for one minute.   The 10-12 year thing.

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.3.23  Sparty On  replied to  MrFrost @6.3.21    4 months ago

Yours is a minority view when it comes to conservatives in those circles and you know it.

One might not like how someone makes their money but if they make it legally, it matters not what they think.   Not if it's done legally.   For example, bankruptcy sucks but it's a legal instrument in this country.   I've been saying for years that our corporate bankruptcy laws are entirely too liberal.    My company has burnt by it more than once.   And in one case by the same principles more than once via different companies.

Reform that and enact major tort reform.   Two things that would help this country immensely.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.3.24  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  katrix @6.3.4    4 months ago

Trump can't bring coal back.  

Do you mean he lied to all of those gullible miners?   Color me so shocked.

 
 
 
 
 
Kathleen
9  Kathleen    5 months ago

It’s cooler here after the storms. 

Here is a shot I took the other day before the storms, it just started raining.

This is in Ocean City.

512

 
 
 
cjcold
9.1  cjcold  replied to  Kathleen @9    5 months ago

That's not a rainbow , It's a death star! We're all going to die!!!

 
 
 
Kathleen
9.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  cjcold @9.1    5 months ago

Hope not. I want to squeeze in one more Disney trip.

 
 
 
katrix
9.2  katrix  replied to  Kathleen @9    5 months ago

Wow, I haven't been to Ocean City in several years! 

We had a beautiful rainbow after our storms yesterday too - nice break from the heat wave we'd been having.

 
 
 
Kathleen
9.2.1  Kathleen  replied to  katrix @9.2    5 months ago

I live 5 miles from there now. I just moved there a month ago.  

I thought that a rainbow would brighten things up.

 
 
 
The Old Breed Marine
10  The Old Breed Marine    5 months ago

This old yarn... global warming is a farce.

I can't believe that some people still buy this nonsense.

Maybe phrenology will make a comeback. 

 
 
 
cjcold
10.1  cjcold  replied to  The Old Breed Marine @10    5 months ago

Seems that those who think logistics have a better handle on this than those who think politics.

 
 
 
katrix
10.2  katrix  replied to  The Old Breed Marine @10    5 months ago

Willful ignorance is alive and well, as your comment proves.

 
 
 
Gordy327
10.3  Gordy327  replied to  The Old Breed Marine @10    5 months ago

Did you tell NASA or the NAS that global warming is a farce? I'm sure they might be interested to know that.

 
 
 
katrix
10.3.1  katrix  replied to  Gordy327 @10.3    5 months ago
Did you tell NASA or the NAS that global warming is a farce?

It's rather surprising that a Marine isn't aware that our military has determined that global warming is a major security threat for which our military needs to be prepared.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10.3.2  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  katrix @10.3.1    5 months ago

He's just messing with you. He loves to do that. btw.. before more rumors start that is NOT OSM. 

 
 
 
katrix
10.3.3  katrix  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.3.2    5 months ago
before more rumors start that is NOT OSM

Hah, I was trying to think of who his name reminded me of!

 
 
 
Gordy327
10.3.4  Gordy327  replied to  katrix @10.3.3    5 months ago

I was thinking the same thing, lol

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
10.3.5  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.3.2    5 months ago

I thought he was the blonde haired, blue eyed genius in Utah. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
10.3.6  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dean Moriarty @10.3.5    5 months ago

I'm only attracted to the rifle.

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.3.7  MrFrost  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10.3.2    5 months ago
before more rumors start that is NOT OSM. 

Wonder what happened to him, he's a good guy. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
10.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  The Old Breed Marine @10    4 months ago

For those who don't know what it means.

Phrenology - the detailed study of the shape and size of the cranium as a supposed indication of character and mental abilities.

 
 
 
MrFrost
11  MrFrost    5 months ago
 
 
 
Kavika
12  Kavika     5 months ago

Ocala Florida, where I live, experienced the hottest June on record (going back to 1880)....July looks like it will be a repeat of record high temps.

 
 
 
Sparty On
12.1  Sparty On  replied to  Kavika @12    5 months ago

Yes, going back to 1880 ...... nearly 140 years.  

Not even a blink of the eye in the life of earth.

One needs to look back further, much further, if one wants to begin to understand Earths very complicated climate trends.   A good start is reading up on Milankovitch cycles.

 
 
 
Kavika
12.1.1  Kavika   replied to  Sparty On @12.1    5 months ago
A good start is reading up on Milankovitch cycles.

I've read them...

The state of Florida is investing millions of dollars in protecting some of the areas in south Florida from rising sea levels. Florida is a perfect case study in the changing environment.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
12.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Kavika @12.1.1    5 months ago
Florida is a perfect case study in the changing environment.

Well then, so is San Antonio Texas.  Obviously nowhere near any ocean or gulf waters, yet during virtually any construction activity in this area, they continually find fossilized sea life.  Clams and other types of sea life fossils are quite abundant.  It simply proves that the seas once covered this area.

So, which state is the true fundamental state of the area?  Under water, or arid and dry?   Is nature simply reclaiming what was?

 
 
 
Sparty On
12.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Kavika @12.1.1    5 months ago
Florida is a perfect case study in the changing environment.

It is.   It's also a great case study of where not to build.   A swampy Peninsula, barely above sea level.    Not the best choice in hindsight.  

It's not the worst though.   New Orleans is much worse off in general.   Building below sea level?

What could go wrong?

 
 
 
Kavika
12.1.4  Kavika   replied to  XDm9mm @12.1.2    5 months ago

Of course going back in time we can find that many areas of the world are quite different today than in ancient times. 

The fact is that we are living in today and have to deal with what is changing today...

That is why Florida is investing in the future and trying to protect the areas in question.

 
 
 
Kavika
12.1.5  Kavika   replied to  Sparty On @12.1.3    5 months ago

South Florida and NO are only two of many that have major populations centers and will be effected with rising seas...That, and in many areas, people are building on barrier islands. They are called barrier islands for a reason. 

We also built in areas that have flooded for centuries...Mississippi River and my favorite the Red River in Grand Forks and East Grand Forks...I can't count how many times the town (s) have been flooded...It's a frickin river folks, they flood. 

 
 
 
katrix
12.1.6  katrix  replied to  Kavika @12.1.5    5 months ago

And the flood controls are keeping the silt from rebuilding the land ...

I have a friend who has a beach house on a barrier island in NC. After the hurricane decimated the dunes last year, she still doesn't know what's going to happen and if she should completely fix the house. I want to feel sympathy but it's hard to. Barrier islands are supposed to move - they are not supposed to be developed!

 
 
 
Sparty On
12.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  Kavika @12.1.5    5 months ago

I know and the rest of us are paying for it.

Hopefully, if FEMA ever gets its act together (yeah right) and they get their Flood Insurance mapping all done, the burden will be where it belongs.   On the people who chose to live in such high risk areas.

I got my river property on the FEMA map.   Certified above the Hundred Year Flood Plain.   It cost me up front but now i'm not required to have flood insurance.

Which is about 3k a year nice.

 
 
 
cjcold
12.1.8  cjcold  replied to  Kavika @12.1.1    5 months ago

Florida is a lost cause due to the porous nature of its substrate and height above sea level.

I advise divesting of all Florida investments before the next hurricane.

 
 
 
MrFrost
12.1.9  MrFrost  replied to  cjcold @12.1.8    5 months ago

There are companies in S. Florida already refusing to give 30 year home loans because the land the homes are being built on will be under water in less than 30 years. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
12.1.10  MrFrost  replied to  Sparty On @12.1.7    5 months ago

I am on top of a hill, 600 feet above the local town, (which is 230 feet above sea level)... Literally no risk at all of flooding. :)

 
 
 
tomwcraig
13  tomwcraig    4 months ago

What is being ignored here by the so-called Climate Scientists is the fact that the Earth teemed with life when it was much hotter than it is now.  Have you read what the world's plant life and animal life was in the Jurassic Period?  Tropical rainforests all over the planet along with dinosaurs.  We're approaching, not there yet, but approaching the halfway point of this current interglacial period.  That means the NATURAL warming is at or approaching its greatest rate of acceleration, and we still are not going to be even close to how temperatures were in the Jurassic Period.  I suggest EVERYONE learn about the geological and paleontological history of the world and then learn basic physics because the current climate cycle is actually more of a pendulum between glacial periods at the "high" points of the swing while the midpoint of interglacial periods is the "low" point of the swing.

 
 
 
cjcold
13.1  cjcold  replied to  tomwcraig @13    4 months ago
so-called Climate Scientists

Which means everything in your post is fossil fuel industry propaganda.

There were no humans in the Jurassic period.

Due to Milankovitch cycles the world should actually be cooling slightly. It's not.

Many scientists posit we are no longer in the Holocene and have jumped into the anthropocene.

Anthropogenic global warming is ignoring the effects of Milankovitch cycles and is blowing right past them.

 
 
 
WallyW
13.1.1  WallyW  replied to  cjcold @13.1    4 months ago

Nothing you say is proven fact.

 
 
 
Tessylo
13.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @13.1.1    4 months ago
Nothing you say is proven fact.

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @13.1.2    4 months ago
Nothing you say is proven fact.
 
 
 
tomwcraig
13.1.4  tomwcraig  replied to  cjcold @13.1    4 months ago

Actually, you are positing a theory that is actually only focused on the state of Earth's orbit.  Remember, the first Ice Age glacial period started not because of changes in orbit but from an asteroid collision and the resulting volcanic eruptions.  The climate is far more than just orbit.  Is another planet blocking some of the solar radiation needs to be considered as well.  See, that is where your argument falls flat, because Climate Science is all about taking a photograph and claiming it is an entire movie.

 
 
 
cjcold
13.1.5  cjcold  replied to  WallyW @13.1.1    4 months ago

All you have to do is go to the NASA or NOAA or NSIDC or NAS or any other pure science site to find the proof you need. But you won't be doing that will you?

Most AGW deniers don't go to these sites because they never took or understood a science class. In fact most science deniers never even graduated high school much less graduated top of their class Like I did in grade school, high school and every one of my college classes.

I have a masters degree in environmental science and I specialize in climate science. 

Every satellite, aircraft, ship at sea and submarine collects data that says paid AGW deniers aren't smart enough to pour water out of a boot even if the instructions were printed on the heel.

 
 
 
TᵢG
13.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  WallyW @13.1.1    4 months ago
Nothing you say is proven fact.

First, nothing (short of man-made formalisms such as arithmetic) can be truly proven fact.   In reality, where we do not make the rules, we can at best approximate proven fact but must always stop short of declaring absolute truth.   This means that it is not a proven fact that stars generate light and heat through a process of nuclear fusion.  Similarly, in Newton's time it was considered a  proven fact that gravity is an attractive force.   That explanation was sufficient to explain reality.   Later, based on Einstein, we learned that Newton was not quite correct on this proven fact of gravity as an attractive force.

Second, do you operate only on extremes?   If something is not a 'proven fact' does that mean it is bullshit?   

 
 
 
tomwcraig
13.1.7  tomwcraig  replied to  cjcold @13.1.5    4 months ago

And, then they manipulate the raw data to "fix" it.  Remember Error, Accuracy, and Precision, cjcold.  Plus, remember that straight up world-wide temperature data is less than 100 years of what is several thousand years of an interglacial.  Essentially, the entirety of AGW Theory is a couple of snapshots of the middle of the movie being used to define the plot of the entire movie.

 
 
 
JBB
13.1.8  JBB  replied to  tomwcraig @13.1.7    4 months ago

Wrongo! Not True! FALSE! By studying ancient records much is known plus combined with sediment layers and core ice and tree rings and many other evidence-based sources of quantifiable data climate scientists have massive amounts of data going back tens of thousands of years. Of course, know nothing flat earth "The Earth is 6,000 years old" fundamentalist crackpots do not even believe that could even be possible. So, instead, they often spout nonsense and repeat all the misinformation they ever heard as if it were some sort of enlightened truth. It is not...

 
 
 
tomwcraig
13.1.9  tomwcraig  replied to  JBB @13.1.8    4 months ago

JBB, let me point this out to you...I HAVE SCIENTIFIC TRAINING AS A CHEMIST!  GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.  95th Percentile is the goal of TRUE SCIENCE to be even considered ACCEPTABLE.  Climate Science is at best 90TH PERCENTILE, therefore is really in the category of JUNK SCIENCE.  I am spouting not religious belief but what my Chemistry teachers in high school and at Juniata College taught me.  Throw in my fascination with geology, I think I am more well versed in the study of Earth and Science compared to most people here on NT.

 
 
 
TᵢG
13.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  tomwcraig @13.1.9    4 months ago

Do you consider yourself more qualified than professional climate scientists?   Are your personal credentials superior to the collective knowledge of NASA  (one of many organizations)?

Your opinion is certainly valuable but the credentials you offer are substantially less than those of an entry level scientist.   What you offer and what you can support through verified facts and reason is far more important than your basic undergraduate education in Chemistry and what you have learned as a Geology aficionado.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
13.1.11  tomwcraig  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.10    4 months ago

One thing you are failing to grasp TiG is that much of Climate Science has been taking a theory and fitting the facts to the theory rather than fitting the theory to the facts.  Science is all about questioning the facts, the theories, and the conclusions of every other scientist.  Skeptics should be celebrated since they are really the people that drive scientific discoveries as people try to prove them wrong.

Where would we be if everyone just accepted Newton's Laws of Motion without first conducting multiple experiments to disprove them?  Where would we be if Copernicus didn't follow through with his observances of the Earth orbiting the sun?  What if Galileo did not drop the balls off the tower in Pisa to prove gravitational acceleration?  These are all people who question previously held theories or came up with new ideas that were later proven through actual experimentation.

What we have with Climate Science is the youngest science that has very little hard evidence.  Proxy evidence is mainly localized evidence.  Tree rings only state what the environment was like in that particular area at an estimated time.  Ice cores can trap gases, but the ice itself can again only be estimated.  Estimates introduce huge amounts of error into the actual factual results, since at best they are educated guesses rather than hard measures.  That is why I harp on the 95th Percentile as that is what hard science expects for the most accurate and precise data and results.

 
 
 
TᵢG
13.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  tomwcraig @13.1.11    4 months ago
One thing you are failing to grasp TiG is that much of Climate Science has been taking a theory and fitting the facts to the theory rather than fitting the theory to the facts. 

Back up your claim.   

It is not as if instrumental temperature measurements have been fabricated since the late 19th century.   The correlation of CO2 to the sharp rise in temperature since the 1950's is also not made up.   The greenhouse effect is not some wild speculation;  it is hard science.   Thus we know our planet is warming, we know the effects of factors such as volcanos, the sun, etc. are minimal and we know the effects of CO2 are substantial.   You, however, put forth a claim that this is all non-science — a religious approach of speculating the conclusion and applying confirmation bias to affirm it.   A worldwide conspiracy of anti-science that is pissing on the scientific method.   Come on man.  If you are going down the worldwide conspiracy path you need to do more than simply make a claim.

Skeptics should be celebrated since they are really the people that drive scientific discoveries as people try to prove them wrong.

But skeptics have to do more than dismiss; they need to demonstrate that the theories are wrong.

What we have with Climate Science is the youngest science that has very little hard evidence. 

Do you consider the instrumental temperature readings (worldwide local measured temperatures) for the past 150 years to not be hard evidence of global warming?

Show me why the temperature readings are wrong.   Show me how the CO2 levels are wrong.   Show me why the temperatures correlated with rising CO2 levels should be ignored as mere coincidence.

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.1.13  Sparty On  replied to  tomwcraig @13.1.9    4 months ago

Those that never went through such training would never understand what you’re saying Tom.    

The scientific training we went through in Engineering school was well rounded as well but I think the most important concept one can grasp in a technical field (or not because not everyone does) is a successful scientific approach to problem solving.    That will take most Engineers and Scientists far.

Book smart doesn’t automatically get you that in my experience.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
13.1.14  tomwcraig  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.12    4 months ago

The instrument values indicate warming, but they are a snapshot of the entire movie being presented as the entire movie.

If the Climate Change supporters are really interested in stopping warming, they would be regulating Water Vapor rather than Carbon Dioxide as Water Vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas.  But, BOTH Carbon Dioxide and Water Vapor are necessary for life to exist and as I stated before the Earth was much warmer and completely tropical during the Jurassic Period, which ended with the asteroid collision that started the first glacial period.

No, skeptics are about QUESTIONING the science to cause the supporters to improve their methods and increase the data sets.  The greater the data set the more accurate the hypothesis resulting from that data set.  Statistics are usually questionable (particularly polling data statistics), because they use a small data set to extend a hypothesis to a large group.  What most skeptics, like myself, want to see is the increase of the data set, so we can be absolutely sure that what is being proposed to combat the situation is actually workable and the proposed end result is achievable.

Remember, TiG, degrees are not always indicative of whether someone is well trained or really knowledgeable about any given subject.  What are your credentials, TiG?  I stated mine, because my credentials are central to the knowledge I have and the amount of time I had it hammered into my head about Precision, Accuracy, and Error.  And, ALL three of those concepts are central to the debate and are being ignored by the supporters.  The IPCC for YEARS pointed out that their data was only of 90% reliability aka the 90th Percentile and I was taught that to be good and acceptable science the data HAS TO BE in the 95th Percentile aka 95% reliability or better yet in the 98th Percentile to be the most reliable.

 
 
 
TᵢG
13.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  tomwcraig @13.1.14    4 months ago
If the Climate Change supporters are really interested in stopping warming, they would be regulating Water Vapor rather than Carbon Dioxide as Water Vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas. 

CO 2 levels have been rising (and with a chemical signature showing they arise from fossil fuels) and are most responsible for the greenhouse effect.   Water vapor is responsive to temperature, it is not causing the increase in temperature.   In short, less CO 2 means less greenhouse effect which means less water vapor as well.

Remember, TiG, degrees are not always indicative of whether someone is well trained or really knowledgeable about any given subject. 

I agree.   And by that logic, simply stating you have studied Chemistry, etc. as an undergraduate is meaningless.   My recommendation is to never, in a social forum, claim credentials.   ( Especially if the credentials are limited to high school and undergraduate studies. )   It is far better to make a solid argument and back up same with sources whose credentials can actually be verified.

For example, here is an article that directly supports what I just posited (with links you can follow).   It does not matter if you tell me that this article is wrong because you have credentials.  What matters is your ability to demonstrate that this is wrong.  In particular, note this quote from the ACS embedded in the article:

The American Chemical Society's ACS Climate Science Toolkit cuts right to the chase in an excellent analysis on its website, ...water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect...However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature... If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide), the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.

—or—

The atmosphere is self-limiting in terms of water vapor. If a parcel or volume of air becomes saturated as it is cools, a cloud forms. Professor Adam Sobel of Columbia University provides a nice analogy, Saying water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide is like saying the amplifier in a sound system is more important than the volume dial for producing the sound. It's true, in a literal sense, but very misleading. CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases are the volume dial on the climate, and the water vapor amplifies the warming that they produce.
 
 
 
WallyW
14  WallyW    4 months ago

I specialize in climate science. 

So why are 'experts' like you not solving the problem?

Instead of just endlessly talking about it. jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

Just admit it's unsolvable

 
 
 
cjcold
14.1  cjcold  replied to  WallyW @14    4 months ago

It would be solvable were it not for decades of fossil fuel industry paid deniers.

 
 
 
Sparty On
14.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  cjcold @14.1    4 months ago

There is some truth in that statement but I suspect not nearly as much as you believe it to be.

 
 
 
Tacos!
15  Tacos!    4 months ago

Could be a good thing. Lots of land in the north going unused because it was too cold.

 
 
 
Larry Hampton
15.1  Larry Hampton  replied to  Tacos! @15    4 months ago

Huh?

I live "in the north", and there is nothing but farmland broken by occasional shelter belts and towns. Where is this unused land? What are these agricultural; products not grown because of cold?

Inquiring minds want to know!

 
 
 
Tacos!
15.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Larry Hampton @15.1    4 months ago

I guess it depends on your definition of "the north"

 
 
 
Heartland American
16  Heartland American    4 months ago

Man caused global warming is a hoax and man caused climate change consensus is a fraud.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
16.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Heartland American @16    4 months ago
Man caused global warming is a hoax and man caused climate change consensus is a fraud.

Yes, yes, and the earth is only 9,000 years old and rests on the back of an ancient cosmic turtle...

The rest of us will continue to believe facts and science instead of listening to nitwits fantasize about how their God doesn't have to abide by the rules of science and physics so anything is possible like the monumental moron Ken Hamm. The lie being told by religious conservatives about climate science isn't because they don't see the rapid change, they just happen to believe its all a sign of Armageddon coming and thus is actually a good thing because God will fix everything for them anyway so pissing in the pool while their here doesn't really matter.

 
 
 
TᵢG
16.2  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @16    4 months ago

Another well considered opinion, eh?   

Go ahead HA, show us what you understand of this topic.   Explain why you think AGW is a worldwide hoax.   Explain what you think AGW is and why the anthropogenic factors have nothing to do with the rising temperature of the planet.

 
 
 
 
cjcold
16.2.2  cjcold  replied to  Heartland American @16.2.1    4 months ago

Pretty sure that anybody who uses the term "climate change alarmist" works for the fossil fuel industry.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
16.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  Heartland American @16    4 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
17  Paula Bartholomew    4 months ago

I believe that all planets capable of sustaining any form of life have a shelf life.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
17.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @17    4 months ago

Of course they do. You can only fuck with a system so much before that system will either self-correct or breakdown. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
18  Thrawn 31    4 months ago

Temperatures, records, and data are all Chinese hoaxes. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Ronin2
arkpdx


31 visitors