Please Don't get angry. it's intended to be for a good chuckle. 
-
Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!
Learning Global Warming facts and fiction
- Thread starter Stormlover
- Start date
- Status
Rosie
Member
snowlover91
Member
The DMI Arctic volume comparing 2018 vs 2019. Which looks better?
2018
2019
2018
2019
snowlover91
Member
Also for those interested, there is a forum that analyzes in detail the Arctic ice extent and other things as well. Here is a link to the thread. It's interesting that this year has been a solid bounce back from the lows seen in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 (4 of the 5 lowest for Feb 19th).
BHS1975
Member
So what the trend is still down with the lowest just last year. One blip don’t mean the climate is back to normal. We should have gotten off oil decades ago. It’s too late now. We’re living in some crazy times. It seems like crazy weather is in the headlines constantly now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unfortunately there is no perfect energy resource yet. Unless we decide to go back to the pre 1800's anything we do for energy to run our modern era is gonna effect the earth one way or another.
I am sure that if we had the money and the fortitude we might figure out a way to do it, but as is stands right now all current alternate power sources will have a major negative impact on the earth in one form or another.
For windmill and solar farms you need vast amount of open land to build them in and to keep up with the current demand. This will effect habitat for animals. Windmills also effect birds and there migratory routes.
Nuclear power though more efficient still has harmful waste products and could cause major problem if there is ever a natural disaster or equpment failure. This Threat will only rise with the more we build and operatorate at any given time.
With most forms of altenate energy prodution you need a way to store the energy for use when needed. That means batteries made out chemicals and elements that could be harmful to the Earth as they will need to be disposed of at some point.
Using ocean waves will have its own negative effect to the habitat of marine life. The list can go on and on. These are just a few examples I can come up with off the top of my head. I am not saying not to explore these other options but all forms of energy prodution will have a negative effect on our plant in one form or another. It not going to be an easy fix.
Just my 2 cents(probable worth less)
I am sure that if we had the money and the fortitude we might figure out a way to do it, but as is stands right now all current alternate power sources will have a major negative impact on the earth in one form or another.
For windmill and solar farms you need vast amount of open land to build them in and to keep up with the current demand. This will effect habitat for animals. Windmills also effect birds and there migratory routes.
Nuclear power though more efficient still has harmful waste products and could cause major problem if there is ever a natural disaster or equpment failure. This Threat will only rise with the more we build and operatorate at any given time.
With most forms of altenate energy prodution you need a way to store the energy for use when needed. That means batteries made out chemicals and elements that could be harmful to the Earth as they will need to be disposed of at some point.
Using ocean waves will have its own negative effect to the habitat of marine life. The list can go on and on. These are just a few examples I can come up with off the top of my head. I am not saying not to explore these other options but all forms of energy prodution will have a negative effect on our plant in one form or another. It not going to be an easy fix.
Just my 2 cents(probable worth less)
Last edited:
snowlover91
Member
And is the long term downtrend since 1979 due to natural variation or global warming? Since satellite records only go back to 1979 and other data has to be derived from sparse ship reports, proxy data and other reconstruction techniques, who is to say what is "normal" for the Artic ice extent? Back in the 1930s and 40s scientists were concerned about rapid ice loss which later reversed itself and peaked around 1979, coincidentally, around the same time the satellite era started. Within the context of thousands of years and the earth's climate naturally changing on it's own, what is "normal" for ice extent?
My point still stands that the gains we are seeing is interesting and significant... something has caused the Arctic to make up significant ground this year both in volume AND extent. We are now the 12th lowest.
And ice extent is significantly above the 2010s average and WELL above 2018... in fact we are already higher than the peak of the 2010s average with 2-4 weeks to go before hitting the peak extent. This year's gain is anomalous compared with recent years.
Last edited:
snowlover91
Member
I agree 110% with this and alluded to some of the major problems with the "clean energy" that the AGW advocates want us to move to. Every single option has some significant drawbacks or issues. Solar and wind farms as you mention require vast amounts of land, impact wildlife and kill birds/bats, some studies show humans can be adversely affected, not to mention they are dependent upon wind and sun energy which is not always constant.
Nuclear power is a pretty good option but as you mentioned any failure from it and the waste are concerns that need to be addressed.
Electric cars require vast amounts of batteries. To get these batteries you have various materials needed all of which must be mined and that produces plenty of CO2 and other waste... not to mention the electric cars have to be recharged (is the electricity used to recharge the car "green"?) and when the batteries are past their useful lifespan they need to be recycled and new batteries put in place.
Then there is the issue of the cost of clean energy. Advocates say not only is it cleaner but it is "cheaper." There is research out there indicating renewable energy is actually more costly especially as subsidies and other things wear off. Here is a good article detailing some of the challenges and the lack of transparency by the mainstream media (no surprise there) when it comes to clean energy.
BHS1975
Member
This is just another extinction cycle on the planet but this time it’s our own damn fault.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That very well may be true, or we are killed by a cosmic or volcanic or massive earthquake. One way or another we are at the mercy of the vast cosmos or our own stupidity. There is no quick fix for either. We will evolve to the changes or die out completely?
Sent from my LGL64VL using Tapatalk
Last edited:
snowlover91
Member
What evidence do you have for this statement? The evidence out there indicates that cold weather mortality rates are much higher AND that extreme weather event deaths have been on the decline. Read below for some studies that were done on this.
Here's another article for reference.
"Excess winter mortality has been reported in medical journals for about 150 years,1 and most countries suffer from 5% to 30% excess winter mortality."
And this study provides cold hard facts rather than fear mongering and unsupported claims. Read them here, excerpts below.
That same study makes this important note.
BHS1975
Member
Oh look crazy weather in the news again.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ice-tsun...e-erie-as-thousands-without-power-across-east
Doesn’t look like a decline to me. Definitely has been an uptick in the last few years.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ice-tsun...e-erie-as-thousands-without-power-across-east
Doesn’t look like a decline to me. Definitely has been an uptick in the last few years.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BHS1975
Member
Why can’t you understand that if you put more energy into the climate system you’ll get more extreme weather. It’s only going to get worse as we continue to increase ghg emissions.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
snowlover91
Member
Again I ask you, what evidence do you have for your claims that extreme weather is increasing and how warming is harmful to humans? I have posted some scientific studies done on the subject, please read them. Here's a key statement from a study done specifically on the impact of extreme events on human mortality, "In fact, even though reporting of such events is more complete than in the past, morbidity and mortality attributed to them has declined globally by 93%–98% since the 1920s. In the U.S., morbidity and mortality from extreme weather events peaked decades ago. Depending on the category of extreme weather event, average annual mortality is 59%–81% lower than at its peak, while mortality rates declined 72%–94%, despite large increases in the population at risk. Today, extreme weather events contribute only 0.06% to global and U.S. mortality... According to CDC data, extreme cold, on average, claims more lives than extreme heat, tornados, floods, lightning, and hurricanes combined."
So the evidence and conclusion presented in this study is that the mortality attributable to extreme events has significantly declined and that cold weather is actually more detrimental to human life than warm weather and other events.
You also need to recognize that with greater data density (satellites, increasing human population, weather instruments, etc.) there is a much greater capacity to observe weather events and extremes that previously would be unknown.
Finally, that Fox News article you linked is a typical click bait and exaggerated piece of "journalism." Extreme weather and click bait articles get lots of clicks, that's one way these news websites make money is by generating clicks with these types of articles that bring in additional site traffic. Don't believe everything you read on these sites; do intensive research to find the TRUTH which is more important than exaggerated stories and twisted "facts" you typically see in the news media.
BHS1975
Member
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-global-temperature-attributable-external-factors.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
pcbjr
Member
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from the Consulate at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.
DANG! I apologize. I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922 , as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post 96 years ago. This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly from horse and cattle farts.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.
DANG! I apologize. I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922 , as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post 96 years ago. This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly from horse and cattle farts.
pcbjr
Member
You can find said whatever you want to hear ... ^^^^^^^^^^^
snowlover91
Member
It’s interesting the alarmist rhetoric nearly 100 years ago is identical to what we see today. I find it enlightening to see how the news media portrays extreme weather events past and present. The only difference today is we have internet and social media to quickly spread the “news” and put it in front of people whereas 100 years ago people heard either via word of mouth or reading a good old fashioned newspaper.
I read an interesting article a few months ago about how the Sahara Desert used to be a vast forest but due to natural climate changes it became the extensive desert it is today. The article went on to mention that the warming climate is actually starting to shift rain north into the southern portions of it and the Sahara is shrinking again.
What was this interesting article? I see a lot bias and assumptions replies here. Many written by some darn smart folks on both sides of this very controversial topic. Cherry picked up examples for whatever point is trying to be made.
Do science. Be skeptical. Always. Question everything. The very things that make you uncomfortable is exactly what you need to be scientific about. It’s not about winning an argument/being right. It’s about what is logical and can be measured and proven with the tools we have.
It is not science to use examples of folks freaking out in the 1920’s. We just have proof that some folks freaked out in the 1920’s. Were there were folks freaking over the opposite?
Einstein’s biggest blunder might be true?
Let’s say I’m skeptical of both sides and just want to know which one is right. I’ve seen zero that makes me any less skeptical of the other. Stop trying to tell a side. Try instead to discover the truth.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
pcbjr
Member
just want to know which one is right[/QUOTE]
Can't speak for all ... but some do want to know ... problem is that the topic is so polluted with politics and blinders that what you get is emotion and not the the Holy Grail of objectivity you suggest ... plus, we're not yet sophisticated enough at any level to really know for sure ...
- Status