Ready for the next Ice Age? Winter is coming.

Thwaites Glacier has an enormous cavity beneath it, melted by warm ocean waters
1 Feb, 2019 1:45pm
OCAN6VNOFNBGJNXYURJM2A4JAY.jpg

NASA's new study shows that Antarctica's glaciers aren't just melting around the edges. Warm water is melting them from beneath, speeding up the rate of sea level rise.
 
Very long article but pretty in-depth and well worth a read if you actually care whether the science is worth anything:
Climate change or “just the weather?” Here’s how to answer that
Some weather extremes are getting worse. Here's how scientists figure that out.

Every once in a while, a day comes along to remind you that weather is more than a trusty source of social lubrication for awkward elevator encounters. Severe weather can threaten property, homes, and even lives. If a statistically rare weather event happens to you rather than someone else, abstract ideas about low probabilities can become concrete, like the way the phrase "broken bone" means so much more when you're wearing a cast.

Climate is really just the probabilities of weather, so extreme weather is also the most attention-grabbing aspect of a region's climate. Thus, climate change includes a change in the probabilities of many weather extremes. As a result, each individual disaster now triggers a natural question: did humanity's history of greenhouse gas emissions make that disaster more likely or worse?

It's an inherently complex question for scientists to answer and gives people who reject climate science rhetorical room to loudly argue that you can't prove climate change was solely responsible for a storm.

For any storm, that's both true and completely irrelevant. Climate change's culpability is not an all-or-nothing proposition.
 
Climate change: World heading for warmest decade, says Met Office
The world is in the middle of what is likely to be the warmest 10 years since records began in 1850, says the Met Office.
It's forecasting that temperatures for each of the next five years are likely to be at or above 1C compared to pre-industrial levels.
There's also a small chance that one of the next five years will see global temperatures temporarily go above 1.5C.
That's seen as a critical threshold for climate change.
If the data matches the forecast, then the decade from 2014-2023 will be the warmest in more than 150 years of record keeping.
Click to expand...
But it was much colder than usual in Chicago for a few days so this is obviously a lie and the UK Met Office are part of the biggest Chin-garian Scoax in human history.
I1qUM6P.gif
 
2018 ranks as fourth-warmest year for globe
With US government shutdown over, the data finally gets released.
temp2018_nasamap-800x526.jpg

NASA's 2018 temperatures compared to the 1951-1980 average. (Numbers shown in K are identical to degrees Celsius.)

It’s that time of year again… or at least it was. NASA and NOAA normally release the final global temperature data for the previous year around January 18, but the government shutdown delayed that release. It finally happened on Wednesday, with both agencies finding that 2018 ranks at number four on the ever-changing list of the warmest years on record.

That matches the ranking from the independent Berkeley Earth dataset, which they released on January 24 by accessing raw US data during the shutdown. The UK Met Office also released its data today, ranking 2018 similarly.

So why 4th place? Last year settles in just behind 2016, 2017, and 2015 as part of a continuing and human-caused global warming trend toward record temperatures—that's the reason the top years are all quite recent. Whether a year wiggles into 5th or 1st depends primarily on short-term natural variability that's layered on top of the human-driven trend.
 
redrumloa said:
memba when I told you this was all about control? This was all about Communism? memba when you told me I was a paranoid conspiracy theorist? I was 100% correct.

Ocasio-Cortez Calls for ‘Massive Government Intervention’ to Combat Climate Change

Go ahead and read the bill. Among other things, buh-bye airplanes (for the unwashed only, of course). Buh-bye 24/7 electricity. Buh-bye cars. Buh-bye capitalism. Buh-bye 4th Amendment.
Click to expand...
Did YOU read the bill? Did you even read the npr article you linked?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Did YOU read the bill? Did you even read the npr article you linked?
Click to expand...

Yeah, really. I even found and searched the actual bill. Nowhere is air traffic, airplanes, jets, anything about travel even mentioned that I could find. Now, granted, there are a lot of other boneheaded things in there, like "upgrading all existing buildings to be energy efficient." Has she ever even looked at a city like Detroit? Energy efficient. Shit. First we'd need to upgrade most of them to having intact windows, roofs that don't leak like sieves, and broken pipes in the basement.

https://www.crainsdetroit.com/artic...ool-buildings-will-cost-500-million-to-repair

Hell, I forgot about this one. Even the Detroit water board flooded themselves with broken pipes!

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/n...detroit-water-board-building-closed/31991909/

Talk about having your head in the clouds... lol
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Did YOU read the bill? Did you even read the npr article you linked?
Click to expand...

It is clear you and Robert didn't read the bill. I didn't know I needed to link to the exact bill. Here you go.

It is very clear and in plain English a push for Communism. It pushed for zero emission cars, which do not exist. Electric cars have a greater carbon footprint than internal combustion engines. It pushes to eliminate airplane travel (Except for the elites of course).

This entire AGW scam has been in place for this moment. Luckily the poster child for it is a complete moron that almost no one takes serious. This one likely won't go anywhere, but it'll be back. That's why this scam is here in the first place.
 
ilwrath said:
Talk about having your head in the clouds... lol
Click to expand...

In a sense that is exactly what the bill is. It's a non-binding aspirational statement. It's a "wouldn't it be nice if we could do ..." kind of bill that sets a tone but doesn't do anything. It's mostly stuff like - wouldn't it be good if things were more efficient, and wouldn't it be good if we could use more renewables and be less dependent on oil. Of course, oil companies and the entire US foreign policy are like "we want people and the world to be dependent on oil - because we control oil".
 
redrumloa said:
It is very clear and in plain English a push for Communism.
Click to expand...

AOC Flip-Flops, Lies, And Squirms Over Government Takeover For Green New Deal

Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t seem to have any problem admitting the plan will require this full government takeover as she told a radio show host Steve Inskeep of NPR on Thursday.

“As you know, congresswoman, one reason that people who are politically conservative are skeptical of efforts to combat climate change is that it sounds to them like it requires massive government intervention which they just don’t like,” said Inskeep. “Are you prepared to put on the table that yes, they’re actually right, what this requires is massive government intervention?”

“It does,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “It does. Yeah, I have no problem saying that.”
 
redrumloa said:
It is clear you and Robert didn't read the bill. I didn't know I needed to link to the exact bill. Here you go.
Click to expand...
Yup. Read it.
It is very clear and in plain English a push for Communism.
Click to expand...
Please quote the plain English section that pushes for Communism. Pleas euse plain English form the document only. No "interpretation", no "metaphors". You said plain English so presumably you can back that up.
It pushed for zero emission cars, which do not exist. Electric cars have a greater carbon footprint than internal combustion engines.
Click to expand...
Pushing for things that don't exist is generally what legislation does - you don't really have to push for things that do exist. Do you have a problem with electric cars with zero emissions if you could get them?
The "carbon footprint" argument is contestable. A midrange electric pollutes 15% more to make than a gasoline powered car. It gets worse with extended range as batteries are polluting to build but over time with more batteries there will be more recyclable materials which should be cleaner to re-use than source from ore. Once the car is on the road it is significantly less polluting even if your electricity generator is "dirty" - but obviously this improves with the production of more electricity from solar, wind, even nuclear and perhaps fusion in the foreseeable future. Other fuel heavy inputs in manufacturing can be electrified and ground transportation by train can be efficiently electrified.
It pushes to eliminate airplane travel (Except for the elites of course).
Click to expand...
Show the language that says this.
This entire AGW scam has been in place for this moment. Luckily the poster child for it is a complete moron that almost no one takes serious. This one likely won't go anywhere, but it'll be back. That's why this scam is here in the first place.
Click to expand...
The scam is from those who say it isn't real because they want to protect their power.
 
redrumloa said:
AOC Flip-Flops, Lies, And Squirms Over Government Takeover For Green New Deal

Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t seem to have any problem admitting the plan will require this full government takeover as she told a radio show host Steve Inskeep of NPR on Thursday.

“As you know, congresswoman, one reason that people who are politically conservative are skeptical of efforts to combat climate change is that it sounds to them like it requires massive government intervention which they just don’t like,” said Inskeep. “Are you prepared to put on the table that yes, they’re actually right, what this requires is massive government intervention?”

“It does,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “It does. Yeah, I have no problem saying that.”
Click to expand...
Like going to the moon did, and like SDI did, and like the Iraq war(s) did and like the war in Afghanistan did and like protecting polluters from being sued by the people they poison did.

Similarly, changing the way things are done in government from funnelling your tax dollars to billionaires and their businesses so they can screw the people harder and instead funnelling it to entrepreneurs who are trying to make the world a better place for the people to live in IS intervention - but it's already intervening to back the banks and the industries that crush wages and hire overseas.

It looks like you are down to two news sources these days. I think that might be a problem.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
In a sense that is exactly what the bill is. It's a non-binding aspirational statement. It's a "wouldn't it be nice if we could do ..." kind of bill that sets a tone but doesn't do anything. It's mostly stuff like - wouldn't it be good if things were more efficient, and wouldn't it be good if we could use more renewables and be less dependent on oil. Of course, oil companies and the entire US foreign policy are like "we want people and the world to be dependent on oil - because we control oil".
Click to expand...

Very true. It is a wish list, and not much more. It's not a guideline, and certainly not an actions list.

I just found it really galling that she's all out there wanting us to update all existing buildings to be more efficient, when we can't even get money to make the damn buildings habitable.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Yup. Read it.

"It pushes to eliminate airplane travel (Except for the elites of course)."
Show the language that says this.
Click to expand...

Green New Deal

see FAQ

"We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast. we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top