mnealtx 0 #26 July 15, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's not just about tornados. We also have droughts, blizzards, etc. in N. America and Europe, along with rise in temperatures of the great lakes (largest freshwater body in the world), arctic ice on a clearly declining trend over decades... Blizzards in Europe...wasn't that where snow was going to be a thing of the past? Antarctic ice on a clearly increasing trend over decades. Negative. You get too much of your information from Rupert Murdoch. www.nasa.gov/images/content/416688main_20100108_Climate_1_th228x164.jpg NOAA disagrees Davis et al 2005: QuoteSatellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003. Comparisons with contemporaneous meteorological model snowfall estimates suggest that the gain in mass was associated with increased precipitation. A gain of this magnitude is enough to slow sea-level rise by 0.12 ± 0.02 millimeters per year. QuoteAccording to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". Shouldn't make so many ASSumptions, perfesser.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #27 July 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIt's not just about tornados. We also have droughts, blizzards, etc. in N. America and Europe, along with rise in temperatures of the great lakes (largest freshwater body in the world), arctic ice on a clearly declining trend over decades... Blizzards in Europe...wasn't that where snow was going to be a thing of the past? Antarctic ice on a clearly increasing trend over decades. Negative. You get too much of your information from Rupert Murdoch. www.nasa.gov/images/content/416688main_20100108_Climate_1_th228x164.jpg NOAA disagrees Davis et al 2005: ***Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003. Nice bit of selective reporting there, Mike. There's more to the Antarctic than the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #28 July 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIt's not just about tornados. We also have droughts, blizzards, etc. in N. America and Europe, along with rise in temperatures of the great lakes (largest freshwater body in the world), arctic ice on a clearly declining trend over decades... Blizzards in Europe...wasn't that where snow was going to be a thing of the past? Antarctic ice on a clearly increasing trend over decades. Negative. You get too much of your information from Rupert Murdoch. www.nasa.gov/images/content/416688main_20100108_Climate_1_th228x164.jpg NOAA disagrees Davis et al 2005: ***Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003. Nice bit of selective reporting there, Mike. There's more to the Antarctic than the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S. You mean like SELECTIVELY only talking about Arctic ice or the Great Lakes, John?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #29 July 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIt's not just about tornados. We also have droughts, blizzards, etc. in N. America and Europe, along with rise in temperatures of the great lakes (largest freshwater body in the world), arctic ice on a clearly declining trend over decades... Blizzards in Europe...wasn't that where snow was going to be a thing of the past? Antarctic ice on a clearly increasing trend over decades. Negative. You get too much of your information from Rupert Murdoch. www.nasa.gov/images/content/416688main_20100108_Climate_1_th228x164.jpg NOAA disagrees Davis et al 2005: ***Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003. Nice bit of selective reporting there, Mike. There's more to the Antarctic than the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S. You mean like SELECTIVELY only talking about Arctic ice or the Great Lakes, John? Taken AS A WHOLE, the Antarctic is also losing ice. As is Greenland.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #30 July 18, 2011 QuoteTaken AS A WHOLE, the Antarctic is also losing ice. As is Greenland. Better let NSIDC know their info is wrong, they show a +1.2%/decade trend. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.pngMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #31 July 18, 2011 QuoteQuoteTaken AS A WHOLE, the Antarctic is also losing ice. As is Greenland. Better let NSIDC know their info is wrong, they show a +1.2%/decade trend. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png Still having a little trouble there with selective reporting? Sea ice is NOT total ice. Your continual need to cherry pick shows that you don't have a point.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #32 July 18, 2011 QuoteTaken AS A WHOLE, the Antarctic is also losing ice. As is Greenland. Wrong. Taken as a whole, the Antarctic is gaining ice. The peninsula is losing ice. As recently as 1995, Phil Jones published a paper about Antarctic temperatures showing no warming. The rest of Antarctica is gaining ice. The Antarctic Peninsula is 1/50 of Antarctica. The ice of Greenland is in stasis. The coastal areas are losing ice and the interior portion is gaining. The southeast is losin ice and the southwest is gaining. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #33 July 18, 2011 QuoteQuoteTaken AS A WHOLE, the Antarctic is also losing ice. As is Greenland. Wrong. Not according to NASA's GRACE satellite which makes a direct measurement of the gravitational mass distribution over the entire continent. www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html "Meanwhile, measurements from the Grace satellites confirm that Antarctica is losing mass 11. Isabella Velicogna of JPL and the University of California, Irvine, uses Grace data to weigh the Antarctic ice sheet from space. Her work shows that the ice sheet is not only losing mass, but it is losing mass at an accelerating rate. "The important message is that it is not a linear trend. A linear trend means you have the same mass loss every year. The fact that it’s above linear, this is the important idea, that ice loss is increasing with time," she says. And she points out that it isn’t just the Grace data that show accelerating loss; the radar data do, too. "It isn't just one type of measurement. It's a series of independent measurements that are giving the same results, which makes it more robust." For more information about this topic, visit NASA's Global Climate Change website." Greenland.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #34 July 18, 2011 QuoteSea ice is NOT total ice Sea ice is not even sea ice. Arctic sea ice and Antarctic sea ice are different mechanisms. Arctic is ice formed over open water. Antarctic sea ice forms around a large land mass. So Antarctic ice cannot move south. It moved north into warmer waters where almost all of it melts during the Antarctic summer. (Watch March of the Penguins to see how Penguins walk a hundred miles of ice to the breeding ground, only to finally swim away from that breeding ground at the end of the season. Either the Penguns have been doing this for a long time or they are evidence of the adaptibility of critters). According to the NSIDC, "The area covered by Antarctic sea ice has shown a small (not statistically significant) increasing trend." Which makes sense because the mechanisms affecting sea ice in the Arctic are so different. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #35 July 18, 2011 More on Greenland... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #36 July 19, 2011 Greenland ice melt most in half century? If it seems odd that I am not particularly alarmed by ice loss that was worse when you were a wee bairn (and the only temperature histories we have of Greenland indicate that the 30's and 40's were warmer than now) then I apologize. No greater indication of the folly is seen than with that headline. Make something seem scary. The headline could have read, "Greenland Ice Melt Better Than Fifty Years Ago." But that doesn't alarm. Your headline is contradictory. Re: GRACE [Url]http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N29/C1.php[/url] Note: the link is a peer reviewed study. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Misternatural 0 #37 July 22, 2011 Ahhh the climate change debate, regardless of the truth, Cheney's Halliburton knows how to cash in on government foreign and domestic policy using the "known unknown's" as Rumsfeld once put it. CO2 maybe odorless but you can really smell the money here. mmmm this takes me back to the WMD debate- conflation be damned; http://www.halliburton.com/ps/default.aspx?navid=1333&pageid=2768Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires. D S #3.1415 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #38 July 22, 2011 Quote Ahhh the climate change debate, regardless of the truth, Cheney's Halliburton knows how to cash in on government foreign and domestic policy using the "known unknown's" as Rumsfeld once put it. CO2 maybe odorless but you can really smell the money here. mmmm this takes me back to the WMD debate- conflation be damned; http://www.halliburton.com/ps/default.aspx?navid=1333&pageid=2768 Poor Marc ... I guess his company did not put that one in the newsletter....hmmm wonder why Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weekender 0 #39 July 22, 2011 QuoteAhhh the climate change debate, regardless of the truth, Cheney's Halliburton knows how to cash in on government foreign and domestic policy using the "known unknown's" as Rumsfeld once put it. CO2 maybe odorless but you can really smell the money here. mmmm this takes me back to the WMD debate- conflation be damned; http://www.halliburton.com/ps/default.aspx?navid=1333&pageid=2768 you can smell the money. is that a bad thing?? who works for free? how many jobs will be created by companies like Halliburton? it hink its good. who cares if they believe or not. Why do you think the investment banks wanted the cap and trade law passed? because they believed in global warming? they saw a huge over the counter(read unregulated) new market. they were going to create complex derivatives around the Carbon Credits. Its done in Europe now but the US market would have been huge. Why do you think GE and Walmart support CFL's? Because they are green? maybe because there is not alot of money in 30cent lightbulbs. How about builders building LEED buildings? is it to create green buildings or possibly because you can charge more for the construction? So are they all evil because they see an opportunity to make money? I dont think so. they see a need and fill it. the entire world works this way. if all these evil companies decided to not seek new opportunities and make money, where would everyone work?"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #40 July 22, 2011 Quote Quote Ahhh the climate change debate, regardless of the truth, Cheney's Halliburton knows how to cash in on government foreign and domestic policy using the "known unknown's" as Rumsfeld once put it. CO2 maybe odorless but you can really smell the money here. mmmm this takes me back to the WMD debate- conflation be damned; http://www.halliburton.com/ps/default.aspx?navid=1333&pageid=2768 Poor Marc ... I guess his company did not put that one in the newsletter....hmmm wonder why I love it You just repost one of the reasons the kooks push this shit It is going to be a great week end Thanks "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #41 July 22, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Ahhh the climate change debate, regardless of the truth, Cheney's Halliburton knows how to cash in on government foreign and domestic policy using the "known unknown's" as Rumsfeld once put it. CO2 maybe odorless but you can really smell the money here. mmmm this takes me back to the WMD debate- conflation be damned; http://www.halliburton.com/ps/default.aspx?navid=1333&pageid=2768 Poor Marc ... I guess his company did not put that one in the newsletter....hmmm wonder why I love it You just repost one of the reasons the kooks push this shit It is going to be a great week end Thanks Do you get a kickback from Koch Industries for reposting things their words from on high on DIZZIE DOT COM when you find their denier missives they put in your company newsletter???I was just curious... you do seem to be somewhat vociferous in posting their party line..... you should be getting paid for all your hard work Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #42 July 22, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Ahhh the climate change debate, regardless of the truth, Cheney's Halliburton knows how to cash in on government foreign and domestic policy using the "known unknown's" as Rumsfeld once put it. CO2 maybe odorless but you can really smell the money here. mmmm this takes me back to the WMD debate- conflation be damned; http://www.halliburton.com/ps/default.aspx?navid=1333&pageid=2768 Poor Marc ... I guess his company did not put that one in the newsletter....hmmm wonder why I love it You just repost one of the reasons the kooks push this shit It is going to be a great week end Thanks Do you get a kickback from Koch Industries for reposting things their words from on high on DIZZIE DOT COM when you find their denier missives they put in your company newsletter???I was just curious... you do seem to be somewhat vociferous in posting their party line..... you should be getting paid for all your hard work It is all just a big old WHOOSH for you isn't it Its all good Thanks again"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #43 July 22, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Ahhh the climate change debate, regardless of the truth, Cheney's Halliburton knows how to cash in on government foreign and domestic policy using the "known unknown's" as Rumsfeld once put it. CO2 maybe odorless but you can really smell the money here. mmmm this takes me back to the WMD debate- conflation be damned; http://www.halliburton.com/ps/default.aspx?navid=1333&pageid=2768 Poor Marc ... I guess his company did not put that one in the newsletter....hmmm wonder why I love it You just repost one of the reasons the kooks push this shit It is going to be a great week end Thanks Do you get a kickback from Koch Industries for reposting things their words from on high on DIZZIE DOT COM when you find their denier missives they put in your company newsletter???I was just curious... you do seem to be somewhat vociferous in posting their party line..... you should be getting paid for all your hard work It is all just a big old WHOOSH for you isn't it Its all good Thanks again BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Thanks for that laugh... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Misternatural 0 #44 July 22, 2011 >>So are they all evil because they see an opportunity to make money? Where did I use the subjective word evil? I was merely supplying some irony as food for thought. I invite you to scroll through the Halliburton website in the link provided and see for yourself how ironic though genius it is for Halliburton corp to be involved in carbon sequestration as a form of revenue. Almost as genius as it were for them to be involved in both military and oil industry services simultaneously while their former CEO was running the white house led war initiative in Iraq. The connection of course being oil, one prime source for hydrocarbon fuel today part of which may or may not be the cause for the supposed climate change. Ultimately corporations, to return to your argument for generating revenue as being "Good", are finding that the use of govt. programs and policies which can tap into the ultimate cash cow being the taxpayer, are doing "gods work" as LLoyd Blankfein put it, to rape the general population financially into submission rather than generating revenue by way of free market enterprise. By your parameters they can no more be demonized for that than for Halliburtons push for WMD via Cheney to send thousands of people to their death in a foreign nation for no other reason than to grab resources to burn wastefully in clunky inefficient vehicles with no alternative fuel in sight. But hey it's all about job creation right? Given the oil industry record on trashing the environment, poisoning aquifers in the name of hydrofracking , the explosion at Macondo etc. can you honestly classify their method of revenue generation as "good"? However If Halliburton et al could figure out how to extract oil from green sea turtles I'm sure there would be hatcheries everywhere. Right? Too bad we cant extract energy from quote mining; "The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is." and later- "The American standard of living is non negotiable."- Dick CheneyBeware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires. D S #3.1415 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #45 July 23, 2011 QuoteBut hey it's all about job creation right? No, evidently it's all about the looney left talking points; you've certainly espoused enough of them.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Misternatural 0 #46 July 23, 2011 "looney left" yeah, that's not a conservative talking point. Yes well even a nut can find a blind squirrel once in a while. Engage my argument otherwise the relative wind that goes up yer ass in the sky is proportional to the amount coming out of your cranium on the ground.Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires. D S #3.1415 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #47 July 23, 2011 Quote"looney left" yeah, that's not a conservative talking point. "Cheney Halliburton War for Oil", yeah, that's not a lib talking point. QuoteEngage my argument You need to present one, first. "ZOMG Halliburton!!!!11" isn't an argument.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #48 July 23, 2011 Quote Quote We should follow Germany's lead here! Quote Germany to fund new coal plants with climate change fund cash http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110713-36277.html Wish we could still build the plant here to send emissions Chicago way Ah.. I see your company newsletter for July has come out.... Sponsored by the Kock Brothers You progressives think you are so smart ...lets get the politicians to dictate which direction to take this country In place of the free market. gee good idea , let the lawyers and politicians and big business run the country.. ill take the little guy instead. What do i mean you ask? Big government = big businesses get bailouts. big government= waste, fraud and abuse big government= big brother Who has help the mom and pop stores? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #49 July 23, 2011 Quote Quote Quote We should follow Germany's lead here! Quote Germany to fund new coal plants with climate change fund cash http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110713-36277.html Wish we could still build the plant here to send emissions Chicago way Ah.. I see your company newsletter for July has come out.... Sponsored by the Kock Brothers You progressives think you are so smart ...lets get the politicians to dictate which direction to take this country In place of the free market. gee good idea , let the lawyers and politicians and big business run the country.. ill take the little guy instead. What do i mean you ask? Big government = big businesses get bailouts. big government= waste, fraud and abuse big government= big brother Who has help the mom and pop stores? You do not live in reality do you...Under the rePUBIClown regimes since 1981 when smaller governemnt was promised... and balanced budgets were promised we have seen NO fiscal responsibility... and massive government growth and waste. They have made sure that the people like the Koch brothers can do as they please.... and have made sure they can afford to buy politicians ... by restructuring the tax code to give them damn near everything they want. We should just not bother having elections anymore. The only people who matter are those sitting on corporate boards who have bought and paid for all the politicians. You guys put the current situation in place with all the deficit spending since 1981 and the current rate of growth of the debt is directly attributable to the assclowns you put into office in 2000. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Misternatural 0 #50 July 23, 2011 meh, It's too hot out to cut oats, so we might as well argue today- "ZOMG etc."...C'mon man, all I ask is that people examine the evidence concerning the connection between Halliburton, KBR, Cheney and the war in iraq. That connection is the fossil fuel resource there and the lucrative government contracts involved. If you served in the military or are active duty I understand how it would be difficult to admit that perhaps you got used. You folks dedicate your lives to the concept of "Freedom" and "Duty to ones country" That's a tough one to overcome. I can't alter your belief system any more that you can mine but at least LOOK at the information. I just can't understand how people can deny the connection. Read Cheney's 1998 manifesto please when you get a chance and we can break it down piece by piece. Maybe you or someone can offer some insight that I refuse to see. ; http://www.cato.org/speeches/sp-dc062398.html The guy talks a good game about liberty and democracy but the underlying hawkish getting corporate hands on global resources message is right there, in Halliburton's case,liquid and gas fossil fuel raw material and military service contracts. Motive-clearly explained in that speech Means- US Vice presidency Opportunity- The attack on 911 and rumor of WMD in iraq That bloody shit storm was all about the oil why can't anyone just SAY IT. Billions of dollars spent, thousands of lives burned, all that destruction. all those disabled vets that now need support. The result In part; a massive deficit, continued reliance on foreign resources, refusal to move to alternative energy resources. a perpetual warfare foreign policy. OK foreign policy aside I see no future except for a recalcitrant and entrenched fossil fuel industry. I posit that all of our energy problems currently involve the RATE of fossil fuel burn and deforestation. -solve that and all this cap and trade climate change crap becomes obsolete! We can talk about the implications of coal fired power plants in a bit.Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires. D S #3.1415 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
