Posted on Oct 22, 2014
Global warming - ostriches in the sand while the earth dies.
15.5K
192
158
1
1
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 86
As a defacto climatologist and astute observer of weather for over 35 years, I find the topic to be political and there are sites that virtually debunk the Goreites. I am pretty sure that those who think AGW is a big time threat are not worried about it tonight. Some are out wasting fuel in their big cars, houses and boats.
And who really besides weather people see the net effect of weather upon anything? Not many!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
And who really besides weather people see the net effect of weather upon anything? Not many!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Oh, sorry, totally thought you were trolling. Funny site but I prefer my humor more like College Humor.
(0)
(0)
Global Warming being caused by humans is REAL. It is science FACT. Look to history when the oil and auto industries persecuted a scientist who proclaimed what is known to be true. Gas fumes, vapors, residue etc, is HARMFUL.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Pollution is indeed horrible, however we are mixing pollution and creating a crisis based on a belief not on science.
(0)
(0)
Assuming the science is correct (remains to be seen), the proposed solutions seem ineffectual and likely to cause greater disruption than what they are intended to prevent.
(1)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
What would you consider to be the level of affected climate to be "seen"?
Of the proposed solutions what do you foresee as the ill effects?
Of the proposed solutions what do you foresee as the ill effects?
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SFC Stephen P. Considering as you live in a place that had a pre-existing water shortage and hot climate. your insight is interesting.
(1)
(0)
SFC Stephen P.
PO3 (Join to see) By remains to be seen, I mean demonstrated rather than modeled. I mean supported by real world evidence that does not rely on mere correlation as proof.
From what I've heard and read, it is a sound theory. Unfortunately it employes suspicious assumptions and ignores pertinent variables. My standard of proof is too high to take this as prescient.
Potential ill effects from the proposed solutions:
Death and injury from cold
Death and injury from heat
Death and injury from fire and smoke
Death and complication from insufficient medical resources (e.g. power outage at a hospital)
Shortages in food and other goods, especially in large cities
Civil unrest resulting from shortages, especially in cities
Stunted development in emerging economies
Severe environmental damage through logging and mining (unregulated or illicit)
Economic impacts due to reduced productivity and market manipulation.
Elaboration available on request.
LTC (Join to see), I often hear from climate change advocates that we are 'destroying the systems that sustain us'. The systems that sustain human life in this dessert are irrigation, power transmittion, and transportation.
Humans live in harsh environments. Technology, largely based on fossil fuel, is what has enabled us to thrive there in the first place.
Interestingly enough, I've noticed the dessert is especially green lately. Some (more qualified than I) believe this is resultant from increased CO2 levels in the air. Of course, this is completely anecdotal.
From what I've heard and read, it is a sound theory. Unfortunately it employes suspicious assumptions and ignores pertinent variables. My standard of proof is too high to take this as prescient.
Potential ill effects from the proposed solutions:
Death and injury from cold
Death and injury from heat
Death and injury from fire and smoke
Death and complication from insufficient medical resources (e.g. power outage at a hospital)
Shortages in food and other goods, especially in large cities
Civil unrest resulting from shortages, especially in cities
Stunted development in emerging economies
Severe environmental damage through logging and mining (unregulated or illicit)
Economic impacts due to reduced productivity and market manipulation.
Elaboration available on request.
LTC (Join to see), I often hear from climate change advocates that we are 'destroying the systems that sustain us'. The systems that sustain human life in this dessert are irrigation, power transmittion, and transportation.
Humans live in harsh environments. Technology, largely based on fossil fuel, is what has enabled us to thrive there in the first place.
Interestingly enough, I've noticed the dessert is especially green lately. Some (more qualified than I) believe this is resultant from increased CO2 levels in the air. Of course, this is completely anecdotal.
(1)
(0)
First of all, the media creates a misnomer as to the concept of "global warming". That's all they talk about.....global warming this, global warming that. However, what they fail to explain in a majority of these articles is that it does not mean that the planet will CONTINUALLY grow warmer.
One concept that I have seen that does tend to support the scientific claims of ozone depletion/destruction is the retreating ice caps on both fronts. There are receding glaciers in Alaska, and concerns that they will be gone in the next 20-30 years from an article that I'd read in the past. I've also noticed that up until last year we had a spell of dry weather that could have potentially been attributed, which led to some crops suffering.
Additionally, the aspect of global warming regarding temperature, means that you will likely see more extremes in weather, and weather pattern changes in areas that aren't usually affected. One such change is that they are seeing an increase in severe weather activity in various aspects of Africa that have never experienced them before, including tornadoes.
Now.....I didn't see an option for what I'm thinking. Although I do believe that aspects of global warming are true, and the destruction of the ozone layer can eventually occur, I'm not 100% sure that people have the willpower to stop it. The United States is one of the few nations that is actually attempting cleaner burning fuels and other technologies. China produces more ozone pollution than several other industrialized nations combined, and shows zero interest in investing money into a cleaner air solution, because quite frankly there's no money in it. Consumers care about what is in their pocket or in their hands, and if the price of the TV set that you want goes up another $100, you're more likely to buy a competitors TV.
I'm not 100% sure on what is going on, but I do agree with some in the scientific community that the fuels/pollution that we are generating has to have some adverse actions on the planet itself.
v/r,
CPT Butler
One concept that I have seen that does tend to support the scientific claims of ozone depletion/destruction is the retreating ice caps on both fronts. There are receding glaciers in Alaska, and concerns that they will be gone in the next 20-30 years from an article that I'd read in the past. I've also noticed that up until last year we had a spell of dry weather that could have potentially been attributed, which led to some crops suffering.
Additionally, the aspect of global warming regarding temperature, means that you will likely see more extremes in weather, and weather pattern changes in areas that aren't usually affected. One such change is that they are seeing an increase in severe weather activity in various aspects of Africa that have never experienced them before, including tornadoes.
Now.....I didn't see an option for what I'm thinking. Although I do believe that aspects of global warming are true, and the destruction of the ozone layer can eventually occur, I'm not 100% sure that people have the willpower to stop it. The United States is one of the few nations that is actually attempting cleaner burning fuels and other technologies. China produces more ozone pollution than several other industrialized nations combined, and shows zero interest in investing money into a cleaner air solution, because quite frankly there's no money in it. Consumers care about what is in their pocket or in their hands, and if the price of the TV set that you want goes up another $100, you're more likely to buy a competitors TV.
I'm not 100% sure on what is going on, but I do agree with some in the scientific community that the fuels/pollution that we are generating has to have some adverse actions on the planet itself.
v/r,
CPT Butler
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) I concur. I think China has stepped up their effort in producing cleaner energy. When people have to wear mask to walk around the city and the air pollution is as bad as LA before, they can't ignore the problem anymore. People do get sick and develop chronic medical conditions from pollution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
(1)
(0)
I'm not sure there is a whole lot of risk that the Earth will die, just that most or all of the life on earth might die. This might seem like an insignificent distiction, however I'm not sure were helping our arguement by focuing on the planet instead of billions of human lives.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I suspect they would be indifferent to the risk, much like those who deny climate change today. My point was that climate change will likely bring on the displacement and starvation of billions of people, and that we should be focusing on that instead of the earth dying. The earth survived the extinction of the dinosaurs just fine, I’m sure she will do the same when we wipe ourselves out.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) The Dinosaurs had more like large asteroids pummeling the earth or an atmosphere that was not stabilized enough. In the end, the tipping point is really unknown.
(2)
(0)
Don't we have a drug test in the military? How can this NOT register:
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for September 2014 was the highest on record for September, at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F).
The global land surface temperature was 0.89°C (1.60°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F), the sixth highest for September on record. For the ocean, the September global sea surface temperature was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average of 16.2°C (61.1°F), the highest on record for September and also the highest on record for any month.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–September period (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F), tying with 1998 as the warmest such period on record.
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for September 2014 was the highest on record for September, at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F).
The global land surface temperature was 0.89°C (1.60°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F), the sixth highest for September on record. For the ocean, the September global sea surface temperature was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average of 16.2°C (61.1°F), the highest on record for September and also the highest on record for any month.
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–September period (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F), tying with 1998 as the warmest such period on record.
(1)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
Major are you suggesting that anyone opposed to your point of view is "on drugs?" Who the hell do you think you are? I'm personally offended by your tone.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
"Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period, warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up. Some recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down"
Not where we thought it would be but still there..
Not where we thought it would be but still there..
(0)
(0)
Global warming can be a touchy subject ...
http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/americans-don%e2%80%99t-talk-about-global-warming-very-often/ar-AAbnDw0
http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/americans-don%e2%80%99t-talk-about-global-warming-very-often/ar-AAbnDw0
Americans Don’t Talk About Global Warming Very Often
Global warming can be a touchy subject—and many Americans would rather not talk about it. A whopping 74 percent of Americans "never" or "rarely" discuss global warming, while just 26 percent of Americans talk about it "often" or "occasionally," according to a national survey from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication released Monday. And 25 percent of Americans say people they know never talk about global warming at all, despite the...
(0)
(0)
DON'T DRINK THE KOOL AID
For sure, the media jumps on the “global warming” story every time there is a heat wave and each time a hurricane hits the East Coast.
But how much has the world really warmed?
Well, according to NASA’s own data, the world has warmed .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979).
I think you would agree that a .36 degree increase in temperature over the last 35 years is hardly anything to get in a panic about.
Granted, that does mean the world is warmer, right?
The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . we’ve actually had temperatures DROPPING ever since!
The reality is this: The world is 1.08 degrees cooler than it was in 1998.
Just take a look at this chart from Remote Sensing Systems, which provides data to NASA, NOAA, and other scientific organizations.
If you’re like me, this makes a lot of sense.
We’ve had cooler summers and longer winters.
Again, take one more look at the chart above — global warming reversed its rise in 1998. In the dossier John handed me, he explains exactly why this happened . . . and what’s going to happen next.
But for now, just keep this fact in your back pocket: the case for “global warming” is dead in its tracks.
“Global warming” proponents have said for a long time we’d see a heating of the oceans.
This proposition is necessary, since it means all those big chunks of ice are supposed to melt, killing off polar bears and causing states like Florida to get swallowed up by water.
In 2007, while accepting his Nobel Prize for his “global warming” initiative (and quietly pocketing millions of dollars), Al Gore made a striking prediction . . .
“The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely
gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.”
The arctic ice caps have increased in size by 43% to 63%.
It is seven years later, and recent satellite images show that not only have the icecaps not melted . . . but they’ve expanded in size by 43% to 63%.
Here’s what a Globe and Mail article had to say: “An area twice the size of Alaska — America's biggest state — was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice.”
I think we know who’s using actual science, and who’s fear-mongering their way to wealth and fame.
Since 2002, the ocean temperatures have fluctuated less than 1 degree Fahrenheit. There is no warming.
Again, there is nothing to get hysterical about here.
You’ve heard for years how climate change has been caused by . . . well, you!
Al Gore and his liberal friends have stood onstage blaming you and your “gas-guzzling” car, standard four‑bedroom house, and the factory downtown.
Al Gore spreads “Global Warming” propaganda for his own profit.
Shame on you, right?
Of course, the hypocrisy of the claim is that Al Gore himself racks up annual electric and gas bills of $30,000, more than 20 times the national average.
Now, while I am all for keeping the environment clean (I recycle, drive a fuel-efficient car, and reuse materials), humans have not caused “global warming” . . . nothing can be further from the truth.
Indeed, “global warming” alarmists and their allies in the liberal media are famous for saying that scientists agree that man has caused “global warming.”
President Obama even tweeted on May 16, 2014, “97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” John Kerry, Al Gore, and a host of others have championed this statistic.
NOTE: I’ve shared a quick snapshot of the facts in John’s controversial 164-page document. Truth be told, John has 33 scientifically reviewed reasons that “global warming” is more than just a farce . . . it’s the product of bad, botched science. In John’s own words, the research in this document is “something you have not been allowed to hear for almost 20 years.” That is, the truth about our climate, the politicians manipulating the science, and the real key that controls our planet’s temperature — the sun.
As The Wall Street Journal reported, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.”
When further review was done, it was discovered that a mere 1% of scientists believe human activity is causing most of the climate change.
In outrage, a petition was signed by more than 31,000 scientists that states “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
Indeed, even a founding father of the man-made “global warming” theory — Claude Allegre — recently came out and renounced his position by admitting, “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”
For sure, the media jumps on the “global warming” story every time there is a heat wave and each time a hurricane hits the East Coast.
But how much has the world really warmed?
Well, according to NASA’s own data, the world has warmed .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979).
I think you would agree that a .36 degree increase in temperature over the last 35 years is hardly anything to get in a panic about.
Granted, that does mean the world is warmer, right?
The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . we’ve actually had temperatures DROPPING ever since!
The reality is this: The world is 1.08 degrees cooler than it was in 1998.
Just take a look at this chart from Remote Sensing Systems, which provides data to NASA, NOAA, and other scientific organizations.
If you’re like me, this makes a lot of sense.
We’ve had cooler summers and longer winters.
Again, take one more look at the chart above — global warming reversed its rise in 1998. In the dossier John handed me, he explains exactly why this happened . . . and what’s going to happen next.
But for now, just keep this fact in your back pocket: the case for “global warming” is dead in its tracks.
“Global warming” proponents have said for a long time we’d see a heating of the oceans.
This proposition is necessary, since it means all those big chunks of ice are supposed to melt, killing off polar bears and causing states like Florida to get swallowed up by water.
In 2007, while accepting his Nobel Prize for his “global warming” initiative (and quietly pocketing millions of dollars), Al Gore made a striking prediction . . .
“The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely
gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.”
The arctic ice caps have increased in size by 43% to 63%.
It is seven years later, and recent satellite images show that not only have the icecaps not melted . . . but they’ve expanded in size by 43% to 63%.
Here’s what a Globe and Mail article had to say: “An area twice the size of Alaska — America's biggest state — was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice.”
I think we know who’s using actual science, and who’s fear-mongering their way to wealth and fame.
Since 2002, the ocean temperatures have fluctuated less than 1 degree Fahrenheit. There is no warming.
Again, there is nothing to get hysterical about here.
You’ve heard for years how climate change has been caused by . . . well, you!
Al Gore and his liberal friends have stood onstage blaming you and your “gas-guzzling” car, standard four‑bedroom house, and the factory downtown.
Al Gore spreads “Global Warming” propaganda for his own profit.
Shame on you, right?
Of course, the hypocrisy of the claim is that Al Gore himself racks up annual electric and gas bills of $30,000, more than 20 times the national average.
Now, while I am all for keeping the environment clean (I recycle, drive a fuel-efficient car, and reuse materials), humans have not caused “global warming” . . . nothing can be further from the truth.
Indeed, “global warming” alarmists and their allies in the liberal media are famous for saying that scientists agree that man has caused “global warming.”
President Obama even tweeted on May 16, 2014, “97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” John Kerry, Al Gore, and a host of others have championed this statistic.
NOTE: I’ve shared a quick snapshot of the facts in John’s controversial 164-page document. Truth be told, John has 33 scientifically reviewed reasons that “global warming” is more than just a farce . . . it’s the product of bad, botched science. In John’s own words, the research in this document is “something you have not been allowed to hear for almost 20 years.” That is, the truth about our climate, the politicians manipulating the science, and the real key that controls our planet’s temperature — the sun.
As The Wall Street Journal reported, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.”
When further review was done, it was discovered that a mere 1% of scientists believe human activity is causing most of the climate change.
In outrage, a petition was signed by more than 31,000 scientists that states “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
Indeed, even a founding father of the man-made “global warming” theory — Claude Allegre — recently came out and renounced his position by admitting, “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”
(0)
(0)
Just another tax scheme in my book. Throughout the eons there have been warming and cooling cycles. I wonder how manmade the warming cycle was all those millions of years ago... In any event, let's say the US buys this BS and decides to tax 'big oil' or 'big coal' or 'corporate farmer'- really decides to punish them. Who do you suppose will really pay the tax, MAJ (Join to see)? Do you suppose 'big oil', 'big coal' and the 'corporation farm' will?
The answer is no. Those of us with our nose to the grindstone every day, eeking out a living to provide for our families, playing by all the rules will end up paying for it.
The answer is no. Those of us with our nose to the grindstone every day, eeking out a living to provide for our families, playing by all the rules will end up paying for it.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next

Science
Analysis
Climate Change
