Why is climate science political?

[Katzndogz]

Pot solves all! The whole nation should be required to smoke pot, it's so good for people.

Stick with legal bath salts, it's a better high.

 

[Big Fitz]

Bob & Fitz -

No, green energy isn't cost-effective. It is hamstrung, by fuck-tards.

Then please look at the model of tidal energy provided earlier and explaim how it is not cost effective.

Again - one single project can provide enough electricity for 4 million people.

It is entirely invisible.

It requires an initial investment of less than a hydro dam or nuclear power station.

Most of the parts required can be produce locally.

[whisper]Ummm... I'm mocking the stoner and ecofascists who think this is a viable solution.

True story.
[/whisper]

 

[Big Fitz]

Pot solves all! The whole nation should be required to smoke pot, it's so good for people.

Stick with legal bath salts, it's a better high.

Replace the word Alcohol with Pot.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUVwR0rw5fk"]To Alcohol! The cause of... and solution to... all of life's problems. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Saigon]

Fitz -

Asking for the second time now - WHY do you oppose tidal power?

Please be specific.

 

[bobgnote]

Bob & Fitz -

No, green energy isn't cost-effective. It is hamstrung, by fuck-tards.

Then please look at the model of tidal energy provided earlier and explaim how it is not cost effective.

Again - one single project can provide enough electricity for 4 million people.

It is entirely invisible.

It requires an initial investment of less than a hydro dam or nuclear power station.

Most of the parts required can be produce locally.

Hey, preach to the choir. I support tidal energy. We need to know it.

My statement was rhetorical, to explain why we have not enough green energy, starting with biomass, not ending with biomass. But the cost structure, which incorporates nuclear and petroleum options with a huge prison industry hamstrings development, of any business, in the US. Our deregulated energy deals, in the several states pass costs, around the world, driven by the residual strength, of our staggering economy.

So when Solyndra and companies like that cannot compete with aggressive Chinese companies, which do not pay for a drug and every other war or US intrigue and energy deregulation-related middlemen in the US, wingnuts cite Solyndra's failure, and then they block review of all AGW issues, to prevent not only the development of biomass and tidal energy, but also the re-greening media, people need, like fatties needing to lose weight. We re-green, or we eat shit, and die. Proliferating fat people will stay fat, and die.

Who will die, first? Solyndra. Bad cost-structure, failing real estate in the US from inflation due to unrestricted immigration for years, and idiocy by our leaders meant Solyndra not only died, but it started a scandal, on the way. Tidal power can help the US avoid nuclear energy proponents' scams, but another nuke plant just went online, in Georgia, I'm told.

Remember my story, about Mr.A!

 

[Saigon]

Hey, preach to the choir. I support tidal energy. We need to know it.

My statement was rhetorical, to explain why we have not enough green energy, starting with biomass, not ending with biomass. But the cost structure, which incorporates nuclear and petroleum options with a huge prison industry hamstrings development, of any business, in the US. Our deregulated energy deals, in the several states pass costs, around the world, driven by the residual strength, of our staggering economy.

So when Solyndra and companies like that cannot compete with aggressive Chinese companies, which do not pay for a drug and every other war or US intrigue and energy deregulation-related middlemen in the US, wingnuts cite Solyndra's failure, and then they block review of all AGW issues, to prevent not only the development of biomass and tidal energy, but also the re-greening media, people need, like fatties needing to lose weight. We re-green, or we eat shit, and die. Proliferating fat people will stay fat, and die.

Who will die, first? Solyndra. Bad cost-structure, failing real estate in the US from inflation due to unrestricted immigration for years, and idiocy by our leaders meant Solyndra not only died, but it started a scandal, on the way. Tidal power can help the US avoid nuclear energy proponents' scams, but another nuke plant just went online, in Georgia, I'm told.

Remember my story, about Mr.A!

Ok, good comments - I agree with basically all of that.

 

[Big Fitz]

Fitz -

Asking for the second time now - WHY do you oppose tidal power?

Please be specific.

I don't. I know that it is not a reliable backbone to any power grid like standard hydro electric (by far the best) followed by Nuclear and Coal as the cheapest, most reliable forms to exist. Therefore I am skeptical with anyone who claims we should all move to as much unproven, under performing, hardly reliable forms of energy generation. It's called rational caution.

 

[Saigon]

Fitz -

Asking for the second time now - WHY do you oppose tidal power?

Please be specific.

I don't. I know that it is not a reliable backbone to any power grid like standard hydro electric (by far the best) followed by Nuclear and Coal as the cheapest, most reliable forms to exist. Therefore I am skeptical with anyone who claims we should all move to as much unproven, under performing, hardly reliable forms of energy generation. It's called rational caution.

Fair enough.

I have nothing against nuclear or hydro - I think it is a case of each country and state choosing options which suit their local conditions.

Coal I think is a woefully outdated method of producing electricity, and should be phased out anyway, entirely regardless of climate change emissions.

 

[Big Fitz]

Fitz -

Asking for the second time now - WHY do you oppose tidal power?

Please be specific.

I don't. I know that it is not a reliable backbone to any power grid like standard hydro electric (by far the best) followed by Nuclear and Coal as the cheapest, most reliable forms to exist. Therefore I am skeptical with anyone who claims we should all move to as much unproven, under performing, hardly reliable forms of energy generation. It's called rational caution.

Fair enough.

I have nothing against nuclear or hydro - I think it is a case of each country and state choosing options which suit their local conditions.

Coal I think is a woefully outdated method of producing electricity, and should be phased out anyway, entirely regardless of climate change emissions.

Problem is, malthusian ecofascists don't want ANY of these three safe, proven and effective power sources made. One floods too much land, the other might meltdown, and the last can never be 'clean enough'.

So we're left with jokes, science projects and the continuously failed ideas of kooks and weirdos to be the backbone of society.

 

[Saigon]

Problem is, malthusian ecofascists don't want ANY of these three safe, proven and effective power sources made. One floods too much land, the other might meltdown, and the last can never be 'clean enough'.

So we're left with jokes, science projects and the continuously failed ideas of kooks and weirdos to be the backbone of society.

I don't agree with that at all.

I support nuclear myself, because other forms of energy (hydro, wind, solar, tidal) simply aren't viable here in Finland, and we get -25C in winter.

But it has to be said - the case against nuclear is fairly strong. Disposal of the waste is an issue which has never been solved, and may not be in our lifetime. I totally respect those who oppose it.

Hydro likewise is a sensible option in many countries, but it is environmentally devastating. Again, I understand the case against it.

Any group insisting on any form of energy can seem a bit fascist, and there are environmental fascists, but it is easy to assume from them that green energy is not viable, whereas in many cases it is safe, clean and practical. It just isn't always effective, depending on local conditions.

 

[bobgnote]

I support nuclear myself, because other forms of energy (hydro, wind, solar, tidal) simply aren't viable here in Finland, and we get -25C in winter.

But it has to be said - the case against nuclear is fairly strong. Disposal of the waste is an issue which has never been solved, and may not be in our lifetime. I totally respect those who oppose it.

Hydro likewise is a sensible option in many countries, but it is environmentally devastating. Again, I understand the case against it.

Any group insisting on any form of energy can seem a bit fascist, and there are environmental fascists, but it is easy to assume from them that green energy is not viable, whereas in many cases it is safe, clean and practical. It just isn't always effective, depending on local conditions.

When you support nuclear power, out of re-greening order, you invite battle, with the usual media-zombies, who support no bridge, between petroleum abuse and development of nuclear power, by hustlers, making money, without safety.

When you are out of battle order, you will let the media zombies do whatever they need to do, to keep the subject off re-greening, for as long as they need, to kill humans.

Order of public agendas has been distorted, in favor of prison, petroleum, and nuclear energy, and for war. Who do YOU think is a fascist? Not eco-freaks or re-greeners. Take a look at all the spam, from AGW skeptics, trying their best, to avoid re-greening. Those are fascists, or tools. AGW theory is irrelevant to social order, since we must re-green, or we will die off. So don't vacillate, in between all the fascist-spammers.

We don't re-green because the fascists will do anything they can, to stop this or sensible evolution, of any public agenda.

 

[Saigon]

We don't re-green because the fascists will do anything they can, to stop this or sensible evolution, of any public agenda.

I agree.

Already on this thread we have seen people complain that climate change is based on cherry-picked data - and then use 2 out of 130,000 glaciers to back up their claims.

We've seen people claim that there is no climate change because storms killed more people a century ago than they do today - and then ignore data showing there are more serious storms today.

We've even seen people claim glaciers melted faster a century ago - despite a dozen scientific reports proving the exact opposite.

Although the sceptics like to point out sloppy science - they don't seem averse to it themselves.

 

[Big Fitz]

The cold is the reason? Pfft. Coal and Nuclear are perfect for the environment you're in. Why? Because in winter in WI, we hit -25 to -30 celcius REGULARLY on your typical winter. I've had streaks of temps down to almost 40 below for multiple days.

Hydro electric is not effected, for I live in the birthplace of commercial Hydro-electricity. Water levels matter, not temperature. What we do lack is tidal. Okay that's out because no tide. Wave? Maybe but we have mostly days of less than 2 foot waves. Solar? DOesn't work at night anyway and anything with less than 300 fully sunny days is a joke. Wind? Oh they're trying it. Eye sore blights causing increases in seizures and those with illnesses and handicaps affected by flickering light are increasing.

It is not fascist to insist that your electricity be based on something that works unless you have a problem also with mathematics being based on correct answers.

 

[Big Fitz]

OH.... and have you my answer you've failed to deliver on now, lo these many days?

 

[RollingThunder]

Your whole existence is irrelevant. That point aside what does your website have to say about the holocene thermal maximum when the temps were much higher than they are today? Hmmmm? What was the state of the glaciers on Kilimanjaro then?
Nice attempt to cover up your compatriots idiotic response. You fail as usual.

Oh walleyed, why do you cling so tightly to your debunked denier cult myths? Oh right, you're retarded.

I just spanked you yesterday on another thread over your idiotic holocene thermal maximum myth.

Get a grip, little retard, your lies and nonsense won't fly here.

Oh wow, walleyedretard, your denier cult myths are just too funny for words. You must be an absolute idiot to believe in those anti-science fantasies and lies.

Holocene climatic optimum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P.. This event has also been known by many other names, including: Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal. This warm period was followed by a gradual decline until about two millennia ago.

Global effects

The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia).[1] The northwest of Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the south.[2] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less than 1 °C; the tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef ~5350 years ago was 1 °C warmer and enriched in 18O by 0.5 per mil relative to modern seawater.[3] In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns). While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average.[4]

"What was the state of the glaciers on Kilimanjaro then?" - the state of the glaciers during the htm was that they were probably doing fine since they are in the tropics and the "tropics were colder than average".

What was that troll boy?

HOLOCENE THERMAL MAXIMUM UP TO 3°C WARMER THAN TODAY

Early Holocene climate variability and the timing and extent of the Holocene thermal maximum (HTM) in northern Iceland

Abstract
The magnitude and timing of Holocene maximum warmth in the Arctic and sub-Arctic...
The amount of warming for July was therefore at least 1.5 °C, but possibly up to 2-3 °C higher than the 1961-1990 average on the basis of the tree-line data.


Or from one of your sites....

Quantitative estimates of mid-Holocene warmth (COHMAP, 1988) suggest that the Earth was perhaps 1 or 2°C warmer than today. Most of this warmth may primarily represent seasonal (summer) warmth rather than year-round warmth.

Or....

The Holocene thermal maximum and late-Holocene cooling in the tundra of NE European Russia

To investigate the Holocene climate and treeline dynamics in the European Russian Arctic
...a stable Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) at 8000–3500calyr BP when summer temperatures in the tundra were ca. 3°C above present-day values.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you are such a cretin, walleyed.

You make the ridiculous and scientifically unsupported claim that the Holocene Thermal Maximum was 6 degrees C hotter than today globally and so I post well referenced scientific material saying that: "The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole...The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes.
...and you respond by citing a few papers that talk about
1.) a temperature increase of "at least 1.5 °C, but possibly up to 2-3 °C higher than the 1961-1990 average" "in northern Iceland".
2.) "estimates of mid-Holocene warmth (COHMAP, 1988) suggest that the Earth was perhaps 1 or 2°C warmer than today. Most of this warmth may primarily represent seasonal (summer) warmth rather than year-round warmth."
3.) "The Holocene thermal maximum in the tundra of NE European Russia...the Holocene climate in the European Russian Arctic....a stable Holocene Thermal Maximum when summer temperatures in the tundra were ca. 3°C above present-day values.

ROTFLMAO....to 'prove me wrong', you cited some stuff that agrees with my post. Your idiotic examples are talking about 1 to 3 degree increases in summer temperatures in areas near the Arctic, you deluded retard.

I can go on and on

Yeah, you usually do go on and on with illogical, unscientific, demented nonsense.

and bitchslap you

Never happened and never will. You lose every time but you're too retarded and lost in your own fantasy world to comprehend that fact.

 

[code1211]

My thoughts exactly.

Denying physical evidence that many of us have seen with our own eyes is not a very rational defence.

The trick is not to prove warming and it is not to prove CO2 increase. The trick is to prove that one causes the other. Historically, there is a causal link between the rise of temperature and the resulting rise of CO2. There is no such histoical link the other way.

Rocks, spare the Permian Extinction diatribe from millions of years ago. You cannot demonstrate a link of about 5 to 800 years across millions of years of geological digging.

Given there is no historical evidence, you need to demonstrate the modern link and beyond that the link that CO2 is so primary that adjusting it will, with no uncertainty produce the effect that you predict.

There is uncertainty.

Gosh, I guess 97% of the glaciers are not receding.

Gee, I imagine methane isn't really issuing, from melted glacial ice, warming bodies of water, and from land areas, formerly covered by permafrost, before Bossy the cow even farts once! I guess human fossil fuel consumption isn't anywhere near related to this.

Well now, that means the 'hockey-stick' of accelerating global warming must be for dropping on the ice, right before a fight, or it might be hooking or cross-checking.

I now am absolutely certain the Holy Father's fuck-tards are correct, about how we in the USA should keep importing oil, from OPEC and Russians and whoever holy papists can blow, under the covers.

Those wingnutskis sure are smart, with their accents and all. They don't believe in AGW, and look at all the oil they export! I'm not going to watch anything, but Russia Today News, but what's that shit about Bashar Assad, I guess his boys don't kill Syrian citizens wholesale, at all, after all!

We might as well all forget about the carbonic acid, building up in the oceans. Somebody tell those assholes at the beach to quit spilling their sodas, dammit!

Golly creepers, I thought Old Rocks was smarter than everybody, but now that wingnuts zombie'd on over and ate my brains, we can't possibly be headed for Mass Extinction Event 6, and I'd better get myself over to some whorehouse I mean church and pray for Rocks' immortal soul, so he doesn't come up with hard-to-sell ideas, about the Permian Extinction coming to see us, eat the wafer, shut the fuck up, blood of Jesus, save my faithful ass.

Still waiting for the proof.

Whatcha got?

 

[code1211]

Yeah.....so? You have quite a talent for irrelevancies.

The important points are these:
"An examination of ice cores taken from the North Ice Field Glacier indicate that the "snows of Kilimanjaro" (aka glaciers) have a basal age of 11,700 years."
"The period from 1912 to present has witnessed the disappearance of more than 80% of the ice cover on Kilimanjaro."
"Of the ice cover still present in 2000, 26% had disappeared by 2007."
"At the current rate, Kilimanjaro is expected to become ice-free some time between 2022 and 2033."





Funny, that's exactly what everyone with more than half a brain asks about you and the other denier cult dingbats.

Your whole existence is irrelevant. That point aside what does your website have to say about the holocene thermal maximum when the temps were much higher than they are today? Hmmmm? What was the state of the glaciers on Kilimanjaro then?
Nice attempt to cover up your compatriots idiotic response. You fail as usual.

Oh walleyed, why do you cling so tightly to your debunked denier cult myths? Oh right, you're retarded.

I just spanked you yesterday on another thread over your idiotic holocene thermal maximum myth.

Get a grip, little retard, your lies and nonsense won't fly here.

Sooooo, what happened during the Holocene Thermal maximum when temps were at least 6 degrees warmer than today. Why didn't the world end back then?

Oh wow, walleyedretard, your denier cult myths are just too funny for words. You must be an absolute idiot to believe in those anti-science fantasies and lies.

Holocene climatic optimum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P.. This event has also been known by many other names, including: Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal. This warm period was followed by a gradual decline until about two millennia ago.

Global effects

The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia).[1] The northwest of Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the south.[2] The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less than 1 °C; the tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef ~5350 years ago was 1 °C warmer and enriched in 18O by 0.5 per mil relative to modern seawater.[3] In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns). While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average.[4]

"What was the state of the glaciers on Kilimanjaro then?" - the state of the glaciers during the htm was that they were probably doing fine since they are in the tropics and the "tropics were colder than average".

There were glaciers in the tropics between 8000 and 5000 years ago?

Cue the circus music.

 

[code1211]

Did someone mention physical evidence?

Snow adorns the crown of Kilimanjaro

TANZANIA (eTN ) - Constituting the highest mountain in Africa, Mount Kilimanjaro is slowly building up its snow cover, allaying the fears of prominent scientists who had predicted witnessing the eminence lose its famous white hat. The drifts are slowly thickening on the top point of this summit, giving new hopes to Mount Kilimanjaro environmental watchdogs and tourists that the peak may not lose its beautiful snowy cap, as scientific experts have long been warning.

Most tourist-attractive site in Tanzania Snow adorns the crown of Kilimanjaro - eTurboNews.com

The glacier atop Kilimanjaro was never the victim of warming, but rather of lower precipitation.

Another disingenuous "proof" offered by the warmers.

The glaciers atop Kilimanjaro are just a few out of the many thousands of glaciers worldwide, most of which are melting and receding or else melting and slipping faster into the oceans. The few on Kilimanjaro are not that significant and they are not being used as "proof" of anything in the world scientific community. There are other factors besides AGW that can influence the growth or decline of glaciers but nevertheless to say that any current glacial decline is not caused by warming but rather by less precipitation is just kind of stupid. Global warming is causing climate changes which include shifts in rainfall patterns so a pattern of "lower precipitation" over time could easily be a result of global warming. The fact is, you have no idea what you're talking about because you don't really understand this subject at all. For political reasons, you parrot the anti-scientific lies and misinformation you pick up off of denier cult blogs and FauxNews. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are unable to comprehend the science involved in this issue.

Still waiting for that causal link that proves the increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming on the planet.

You can start by explaining why it was warmer 8000 years ago than it is now.

Also, why now is about as cool as the planet has been in millions of years. We have very high CO2 right now, comparatively, and very low temperature right now, comparatively.

Have the physical properties of CO2 changed over the last 65 million years?

 

[code1211]

can someone please tell me how the continued retreat of glaciers is evidence of manmade global warming? is the retreat before 1950 (or whatever cutoff you want to use) different than post 1950?

YES!


World's glaciers melting at accelerated pace, leading scientists say
The Guardian
Suzanne Goldenberg
20 January 2010
(excerpts)

From the Alps to the Andes, the world's glaciers are retreating at an accelerated pace, leading climate scientists said today. Lonnie Thompson, a glaciologist at Ohio State University, said there is strong evidence from a variety of sources of significant melting of glaciers - from the area around Kilimanjaro in Africa to the Alps, the Andes, and the icefields of Antarctica because of a warming climate. Ice is also disappearing at a faster rate in recent decades, he said. "It is not any single glacier," he said. "It is very clear that these glaciers are behaving in a similar fashion." He said only about 800 of the 46,000 glaciers in the Himalayas are being monitored by scientists. Data from those under observation suggests that 95% of glaciers are in retreat, but it is still unclear how much mass the glaciers are losing without knowing the depth of the affected places. "Those changes - the acceleration of the retreat of the glaciers and the fact that it is a global response - is the concerning part of all this. It is not any single glacier," he said

Scientists now had evidence collected over a long period of that decline from samples of the ice core and even collections of plants from mountains that were left ice-free for the first time in more than 5,000 years, Thompson said. The World Glacier Monitoring Service shows a similar picture. In a 2005 survey of 442 glaciers, 398 - or 90% - were retreating, 18 were stationary and 26 were advancing. Glacier melt is also threatening water supplies, the UCS said, pointing to a 2008 study in the Himalayas which showed less water flowing from the glaciers to the great rivers such as the Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra that sustain the Indian subcontinent. Thompson, who has been studying glaciers in the Andes for more than 30 years, said he had watched the loss in his own lifetime. A number of the region's glaciers have disappeared. Venezuela, which had six glaciers when he first began as a graduate student in the early 1970s, now has only two small ice masses which Thompson thought would be gone within ten years. An Andean glacier that had been melting at a pace of six metres a year 40 years ago is now disappearing at a rate of 60 metres a year, he said.

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

The first time in 5000 years.

What does this tell you about global climate 5000 years ago?

 

[code1211]

Oddball -

And THAT is your example? And why on earth would you think this was relevent?

Kilimanjro doesn't even have glaciers, genius!

As you must be aware - 97% of the world's glaciers (and 99% of Alaskan glaciers) are in retreat.

Some 1% are growing.

So, yes, if you spend another hour looking, you will find evidence that backs your cause, and you can prevent it as evidence that everything is fine.

How old are the glacial fields that are melting?

If 97% of the world's glaciers are declining, and largely at double the rate they were declining - what age would you think they are?

I'm asking because the ice cores that are useful in tracking CO2 are drilled from Greenland and from Antarctica.

A few years ago a glacier receded to the point that a murder victim from 5000 years ago was revealed, mummified and on the dry ground under the glacier. There is ample evidence to show that we have cooled during this interglacial from a high point of about 8000 years ago and it may be assumed that the glaciers melting today are formed after that time.

You are saying that this is cause for panic and I am wondering if these glaciers are relatively young and just receding to a point that they were at 8000 years ago when there was the absolute perfect level of CO2 according to the warmers.

If the glaciers are returning to a level from which they have grown in the recent geological past, what is the problem? Sounds pretty natural to me.

In the graph in the link, you can note that there have various times in the Halocene that we have increased in temperature at this rate.

File:Holocene Temperature Variations Rev.png - Global Warming Art