Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 219. (Read 636458 times)

no, that won't fry

. . . It’s so cold that the National Weather Service in Miami has issued a freeze watch for the Everglades. You know, home of alligators and giant pythons. And even alligator-eating pythons. Sub-freezing air will also extend southward across the border of Texas into Mexico.

It’s so cold that in places like Chicago, high temperatures on Monday could break current record lows.

Sure, schools are accordingly shut across the Midwest, but when Atlanta’s schools close, you know something’s a little out of hand.

Simply put, this is the kind of cold you don’t want to mess around with.



As crazy as it sounds, global warming may be at least partly to blame.



This particularly aspect of climate change science is not yet definitive, but here’s what may be going on:

1) The Arctic rapidly warming: It’s always going to be colder at the North Pole than it is in Miami, but the difference in temperature between those two places may already be shrinking. The Arctic is quickly losing sea ice, which is being replaced by relatively warmer open ocean. Liquid water tends to trap heat more effectively than ice, which in turn discourages the future formation of ice. It’s a feedback loop that is not working in our favor, and as a result, the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world.

2) The jet stream is slowing down: The coldest air in the Northern Hemisphere is typically trapped in the far northern Arctic by the jet stream. However, with a little help from climate change, that barrier is starting to break down. As the temperature contrast between the warmer tropics decreases, the jet stream, whichexists due to that contrast, weakens and becomes more elongated and chaotic. Think of navigating a car through slow-moving traffic: it’s a lot less straightforward to find a quick route from point A to point B.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/06/thank-global-warming-for-freezing-you-right-now.html

"Excessively high temperatures" are "already" harming public health nationwide, Pres. Obama declared on Nov. 1, 2013, two months before today's assault by record low temperatures.

In his executive order on climate change, Obama warned that too much rain - and not enough rain - also dictated that executive action against climate fluctuations:

"The impacts of climate change -- including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise -- are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies, and public health across the Nation. These impacts are often most significant for communities that already face economic or health-related challenges, and for species and habitats that are already facing other pressures."

What's more, climate control "requires" action "by the Federal Government" (as opposed to the federal government), Obama declared:

"Managing these risks requires deliberate preparation, close cooperation, and coordinated planning by the Federal Government, as well as by stakeholders, to facilitate Federal, State, local, tribal, private-sector, and nonprofit-sector efforts to improve climate preparedness and resilience; help safeguard our economy, infrastructure, environment, and natural resources; and provide for the continuity of executive department and agency (agency) operations, services, and programs."

But, today's Accuweather.com forecast warns that the imminent danger in the U.S. is cooling, not warming:

"This brutal cold will bring danger to millions from the northern Plains to the Midwest and down into the Tennessee Valley. Overnight lows are forecast to dip well below the zero-degree mark in these areas, even dropping to 30 below zero in parts of Minnesota and North Dakota."

http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/executive-order-excessively-high-temperatures-already-harming-public#sthash.LCjkBU8h.dpuf
--------------------------------------
Jan. 6th 2014

Earth's mountains, while well understood in some ways, are poorly understood in others--especially when it comes to erosion. Now, scientists have taken a closer look at the coupling of climate and erosion on a global scale, revealing that under a cool climate, erosion rates increase significantly.

In order to learn a bit more about the effect of global cooling and glaciation on topography over the last three million years, the researchers compiled data from 18,000 rock samples. This allowed them to globally estimate temporal and spatial variations in erosion rates.
During mountain erosion, rocks travel from about 10 kilometers depth in the crust to the Earth's surface. During this process, the rocks cool from great depths to the surface. Thermochronology exploits small quantities of radioactive uranium contained in the rock decay in a time-dependent process. This data can converted into an erosion rate using computer models.
"On a global scale, erosion rates span four orders of magnitude in the last eight million years from one hundredth millimeter up to ten millimeters a year," said Todd Ehlers, one of the researchers in a news release.
The researchers found that six million years ago, increase of erosion rates was expressed at all latitudes, but was most pronounced in glaciated mountain ranges. This seems to suggest that glaciers played a significant role. They also discovered that erosion rates accelerated more in the last two million years with the most substantial changes at higher latitudes that have all been glaciated in the past few million years.
The findings have important implications for improving our understanding of the coupling between climate and erosion. More specifically, they show how a cooler climate can actually increase erosion rates.

The findings are published in the journal Nature.

http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/11893/20140101/mountain-erosion-accelerates-cooling-climate-impact-glaciers.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enough is enough! We need a new type of carbon tax. Now!

Oh but power-elite globalist CNN's owner Ted Turner wants a utopia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones#Inscriptions

And Monsanto's genetically engineered razor blade model for agriculture causes the growth of super-weeds which render the land incapable of production.

And we don't need to wonder why the agricultural land failed at the end of the Roman empire leading to a 600 - 1000 year Dark Age. It isn't amazing all the overcapacity and stupid shit people can do when they have an unlimited supply of debt to fund their activities.

lol, good one...

I'm thinking i don't agree with either....

but do the warmers have the better songs?  how can ice be fun?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bB5xL577r4

...wouldn't it be nice to just go back to the good old days before all the end of the world apocalyptic sliding forecasts of doom, always ten or twenty years off?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K38xNqZvBJI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=149jGeIlx3I

When you plant 5000 or 10000 trees in a region where trees were not missing to balance the human impact elsewhere, isn't that also an attack on Mother Nature? What about irrigation? What about the logistic behind those 5000 trees all the way to being adult? People with jobs, cars, restaurants feeding those people, containers with supply for those restaurants for the people taking care of the trees for years, tourists visiting the happy tree land, smiling people picking up the garbage behind them , dropping them in green bins with a "recycle" logo on, sponsored by the Coca Cola company
http://www.coca-colacompany.com/packaging/talking-trash-ocean-conservancy-and-coca-cola-help-keep-the-coast-clear

What is the carbon foot print of a counter carbon foot print enterprise anyway?

Yeah. And according to the deniers it's
http://youtu.be/d-diB65scQU

What???

But according to the Warmers, it is...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b26BD5KjH0

Not to worry! Those trees will be provided for free from the patented DNA banks of Monsanto...

Happy Days Are Here Again!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL0Qt7IF8Q4

call me suspicious but I'd like to know whose pockets get padded with that tree contract.

The hapless Australasian Antarctic Expedition is finally homeward bound - and thousands of trees will have to be planted to offset the carbon footprint from the prolonged rescue effort.

The Russian research vessel Akademik Shokalskiy became stuck in thick pack ice some 3000km southwest of Bluff on Christmas Eve.

The 52 passengers, including six New Zealanders, spent eight days trapped before a helicopter from the Chinese ship Xue Long transferred them to Australian vessel Aurora Australis, which will take them to Hobart.

Yesterday, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority said the Xue Long's attempt to manoeuvre through the ice had been unsuccessful and it was now also beset by ice.

The expedition had pledged to plant about 800 kauri trees in Northland to cover its carbon footprint. Environmentalists believe planting trees helps to offset the impact of burning fuels such as diesel.

But former Act Party leader and Herald on Sunday columnist Rodney Hide said that would have to increase to about 5000 trees to make up for the fossil fuels burned in the rescue.

Expedition leader Chris Turney said more trees would be needed than earlier estimated but he was yet to work out how many.

Meanwhile, expedition members were "in fine spirits", and the crews still on the Akademik Shokalskiy and the Xue Long were confident they would break free of the pack ice. The scientific team had been recreating the 1911-to-1913 voyage of Australian explorer Douglas Mawson to Antarctica.

In an interview with AFP yesterday director of the French Polar Institute Yves Frenot criticised the "pseudo-scientific expedition".

Because it had run into difficulties, it had drained resources from the French, Chinese and Australian scientific missions in Antarctica, he said.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11181470

The Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC Australia) has requested the US Coast Guard’s Polar Star icebreaker to assist the vessels MV Akademik Shokalskiy and Xue Long which are beset by ice in Commonwealth Bay.


The US Coast Guard has accepted this request and will make Polar Star available to assist.
The Polar Star has been en route to Antarctica since 3 December, 2013 – weeks prior to the MV Akademik Shokalskiy being beset by ice in Commonwealth Bay. The intended mission of the Polar Star is to clear a navigable shipping channel in McMurdo Sound to the National Science Foundation’s Scientific Research Station. Resupply ships use the channel to bring food, fuel and other goods to the station. The Polar Star will go on to undertake its mission once the search and rescue incident is resolved.

RCC Australia identified the Polar Star as a vessel capable of assisting the beset vessels following MV Akademik Shokalskiy being beset by ice overnight on 24 December, 2013. RCC Australia has been in discussion with the US Coast Guard this week to ascertain if the Polar Star was able to assist once it reaches Antarctica.

The request for the Polar Star to assist the beset vessels was made by RCC Australia to the US Coast Guard on 3 January, 2014. The US Coast Guard officially accepted this request and released the Polar Star to RCC Australia for search and rescue tasking at 8.30am on 4 January, 2014.

The Polar Star will leave Sydney today after taking on supplies prior to its voyage to Antarctica.

It is anticipated it will take approximately seven (7) days for the Polar Star to reach Commonwealth Bay, dependent on weather and ice conditions.

At 122 metres, the Polar Star is one of the largest ships in the US Coast Guard fleet. It has a range of 16,000 nautical miles at 18 knots. The Polar Star has a crew of 140 people.
The Polar Star is able to continuously break ice up to 1.8 metres (6ft) while travelling at three (3) knots and can break ice over six (21ft) metres thick.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/04/usa-to-the-rescue-us-coast-guard-ice-breaker-asked-to-assist-antarctic-rescue-vessels-trapped-in-ice-due-to-spiritofmawson-fiasco/

Well, that was sort of my point - maybe I did not explicitly state it.  There was no physics in 1-6.  Sometimes, of course, this is a purposeful simplification of a mathematical model of physical conditions done to may it readable to the lay public.  But, and unfortunately so, in the area of 'global warming' we such such words being strung together in ways which appear to make sense, but which do not represent a testable hypothesis in any sense whatsoever.

This means (well, it's just my take on the matter) that if you had salinity ranges, depths and range of thermoclimes and the variances thereof over the seasons, then on a first glance a you could have a testable hypothesis as to an explanation of ice levels at both poles, given the known behavior of water of various salinity levels in the temperature ranges involved.  

But an explanation for one pole, which does not work at the other pole, or for which the testing at the other pole is shrugged off as unnecessary, is obviously highly suspect.

Secondly, I remember that the sea ice coverage issues are poorly understood, and models don't work well, for reasons as simple as variance in wind.  

Short story, there was no physics stated.  I agree 1-6 is a possible cause either in whole or part, but have to reject it as a sure fire explanation.  I mean, it's like I feel I made the OBVIOUS objection, one that a first year grad student in the field would have came up with. 

The Arctic does not have enough tidewater glacier frontage for the meltwater effect to be anything like what it is in the Antarctic. You may verify this yourself by looking at a map. There are a few rivers draining into the Arctic Ocean, but they drain relatively modest watersheds and their contribution to any increase is likewise limited.  Thus, one would not expect much effect on sea ice from accelerated melt except right around Greenland (and that area has in fact lost less sea ice than the rest of the Arctic.) Much of the Arctic coast is tundra (polar desert) and has very little to contribute in the way of meltable ice.

And the "suggested method" is not mine. While I cannot tell you for certain who first articulated it, it has been quite widely discussed, and I find the physics of it difficult to refute.

Ban the banners!

Ban them from Reddit!

Yes! I wish I could have taken that pix with my old Nikon gear (that I do not have anymore)

Just this week we had dozens of Global Warming-believing scientists, who specialize in researching ice melt in Antarctica, run into a helluva lot more Antarctic ice than their research told them would be there. So much more ice that their ship and three ice-breaking rescue vessels were stuck in ten feet of it for days (two of the vessels are still stuck). As I write this, the big news of the weekend is a cold snap across much of the country with temperatures reaching 20 and 30-year lows. And yet, despite all of what should be good news, the Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change community is not celebrating. 
Not only are Climate Change Truthers not celebrating, they are hysterical with worry that unexpected Antarctic ice discoveries and American winters returning to the normalcy those of us of a certain age remember, might hurt their religion crusade. The media is so worried they have coordinated a cover-up of the news from Antarctica and those of us pointing to what one might call the "science" of colder temperatures and increased Arctic ice are being mocked for doing so.
Granted, more ice in one area of a vast South Pole is not empirical proof that all is well in the Antarctic, but it is a great way to call attention to the fact that according to NASA, "In late September 2013, the ice surrounding Antarctica reached its annual winter maximum and set a new record."

Who is anti-science now?



http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/04/ice-and-cold-global-warming-believers-are-todays-climate-deniers

well....

that's actually a really good question.  Solar requires a backbone power system, for night and cloudy days.   The best power system will always be somewhat site dependent.  One place has closeby coal, another has natural gas right there.  For example.  To bring an area into the 20th century you need real power, such as what drives our cities and their infrastructure - their refineries, their water system, their hospitals, their concrete plants, etc.

Then with that developed infrastructure and the wealth from it, if they want, they get some of the niceties - after the essentials.  Solar is in that 'nicety' category.  There are exceptions.  A remote located gate opener, some street lights, many applications it works fantastic in.