Global climate change warming stuff!

[CUSP82 Administrator Admin of the Month Dec 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close CUSP82]

I know I know last time I started one of these threads on this subject it got all rowdy and it got closed. No it wasn't my fault; it was everyone else! Anyway I found something that may interest you guys and maybe you should take a look and then come back and get all rowdy.

John Coleman, the founder of the Weather channel did a very good piece on it. It is found on youtube ( yes I know my favorite place). Just type in John Coleman global warming and watch. It is a bit long but very interesting. After some of you guys see it come back, we'll talk about it, and maybe we can get this thread closed in a just a few posts. Okay go look.

[stilltoosmall Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close stilltoosmall]

I am always happy to have an open minded debate with people who are open to allowing the evidence to dictate their views instead of allowing their views to dictate the evidence accepted.

So what do the climate scientists say?

Well, there have been some interesting recent information.

Arctic methane release has been one of the issues some people in the field have been warning.

Arctic methane release - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Land based permafrost melting, and sea based methane hydrates melting release methane.

The land based permafrost has been known to be melting and releasing methane for a while.

http://youtu.be/WKyRHDFKEXQ

Now; we have some new information, that methane hydrates are also being released.

At several places, the methane “bubbles“ even rose to the ocean surface. What’s more, results of preliminary analyses of seawater samples pointed towards levels of dissolved methane 10–50 times higher than background levels.

“While there has been much speculation about the vulnerability of regular marine hydrates along the continental slopes of the Arctic rim, very few actual observations of methane releases due to collapsing marine hydrates on the Arctic slope have been made,” writes Örjan Gustafsson.

Additional observations include the discovery of over 100 new methane seep sites in the shallower waters of the Laptev shelf (at 60–70m depth), a likely consequence of the thawing subsea permafrost.

SWERUS-C3: First observations of methane release from Arctic Ocean hydrates

The planet has been under much higher CO2 and methane levels; but not with human civilization dependent on agriculture. Hence, logic puts two and two together and sees trouble.

The process is entirely in the hands of planetary physics now. Our opinions are irrelevant.

[burtybasset Retired Moderator Member of the Month May 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close burtybasset]

I watched a video with that John Coleman on youtube, personally weather men might not be the most reliable sources of information, I mean they can't even get the weather right!

If I may counter with this about one of John Coleman's sources in his video:

http://youtu.be/JfA1LpiYk2o

There is part two to this video also.

Why not use greener technology though, if for no other reason than to save you money you would otherwise be paying to the energy companies?

[CUSP82 Administrator Admin of the Month Dec 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close CUSP82]

Aw what the hell. I was reading some old saved mail and I ran across something that an ole friend sent me a few years ago. He was around here for a while, hiding behind a white tiger. He'll probably get a kick out of it if I bring it up so why the hell not.

Hmmmm



Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne , professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide , and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.

Born - 12 Feb. 1946 (Age 67)






Residence / Nationality - Australia
Fields - Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering
Institutions - Univ. of New England , Univ. of Newcastle , Univ. of Melbourne , Univ. of Adelaide
Alma Mater(s) - Univ. of New South Wales , Macquarie Univ.
Thesis - The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in Eastern Australia
Notable Awards - Eureka Prize (1995), Centenary Medal (2003), Clarke Medal (2004)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------









Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?

PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.










Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it's that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.










I know..it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.










The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon.









And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.










I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.









Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over One year - think about it.










Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.










And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.










Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.









Hey, isn't it interesting how "they" don't mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just 'Climate Change'.









You know why?









It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.









And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.









But, hey, relax......give the world a hug and have a nice day!"

For you John!

[Party Senior Member Member of the Month August 2016 Find all posts View Profile Close Party]

It’s 33 degrés here. Last year, 75, sunny, driving the convertible, top down, Ugh.

[Dr Nemo Senior Member Member of the Month May 2018 Find all posts View Profile Close Dr Nemo]

I'm honestly surprised whenever I discover that in the real world - outside of the institutional structures that have been built up around pushing the AGW agenda - AGW is still taken seriously. I still meet people who do. And I ask them: do you believe in the importance of scientific evidence? Yes? Good: let's go over the evidence. And by the time we're done they're either quite angry (because we're up against a belief system, an ideology), or they relent and their minds are changed.

For some reason, people always want to believe in ideas like this. In Ancient Greece there was a constant worry about overpopulation; another perennial hysteria that isn't based on anything but hysteria.

But people want to believe; and I submit to you that AGW is an ersatz religion.









.

[Dr Nemo Senior Member Member of the Month May 2018 Find all posts View Profile Close Dr Nemo]

Why not use greener technology though, if for no other reason than to save you money you would otherwise be paying to the energy companies?

Because most of that "green" technology isn't "green" at all; do you realize how much fossil fuel it takes to make solar panels, for example?

I'm all for using new energy technology; but so far, nothing - and I mean NOTHING - rivals the amazing resource that is fossil fuel. Thus far, anyway.









.

[CUSP82 Administrator Admin of the Month Dec 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close CUSP82]

Funny but before too long someone will get on here and say the matter is settled. They will say there is a consensus among global scientist that we are screwing up the planet. Well in their surveys to get their consensus they really only surveyed those they knew thought global warming or what ever it is called today was in deed fact.

I'll leave you with a quote from a guy who may be pretty smart. Hell he might even be up there as one of the smartest guys on the planet; just read his curriculum vitae;




Look way down

cause I screwed up

the copy
'
N
and paste

can you


tell?

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

Micheal Crichton












About Dr Michael Crichton (1942–2008): Educated at Harvard University A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964–65. Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Graduated Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969–1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988. The books he has authored have sold over 200 million copies. Source: michaelcrichton.com/aboutmichaelcrichton-biography.html.

[Dr Nemo Senior Member Member of the Month May 2018 Find all posts View Profile Close Dr Nemo]

Yes, exactly: three questions that always go unanswered:

1. What exactly is a "climate scientist" and who gets to determine who is included on that moniker?

2. Since when is "consensus" - even if it were true - a measure of scientific veracity?

3. what exactly is meant by the "average temperature" of the globe?



Anyway, it's cocktail time.









.

[Party Senior Member Member of the Month August 2016 Find all posts View Profile Close Party]

Yep, Consensus science. Another example. Second hand smoke, it terrible for the non smoker. The media judge and jury, 80% of the population of non smokers complicit since it doesn’t affect them. But...the facts...not that they matter....no, no evidence...none....period. Two studies, same result. And now fine standing high, high tax payers are ridiculed and forced to smoke outside. Second class citizens. Careful folks the PC police mite be coming for you soon.

[CUSP82 Administrator Admin of the Month Dec 2014PEGym Hero Find all posts View Profile Close CUSP82]

Yes, exactly: three questions that always go unanswered:

1. What exactly is a "climate scientist" and who gets to determine who is included on that moniker?

2. Since when is "consensus" - even if it were true - a measure of scientific veracity?

3. what exactly is meant by the "average temperature" of the globe?



Anyway, it's cocktail time.











.

Holy shit Dick we agree on something. Have one on me and we'll fight about Assad tomorrow! ( oh I can say holy shit around here- you can't )

[Dr Nemo Senior Member Member of the Month May 2018 Find all posts View Profile Close Dr Nemo]

Holy shit Dick we agree on something. Have one on me and we'll fight about Assad tomorrow! ( oh I can say holy shit around here- you can't )

LOL.


H#

L
e
e
e
e


Shhhhhh!








it.







Sure I can, lol:





.