Global Temp Changes

[gowlerk 1,918]

brenthutch

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=12rKlxlVKTw

Nearly a decade with a fever and we are still here. Can't be much of a fever.

Funny thing about fevers. They are usually caused by infections. They go away when the infection does. Either by the immune system alone or with treatment. If the infection does not get better then it gets worse. Many people die every day from the effects of fevers that are not or can not be treated. They all have something in common. They started out small and manageable.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Can't be much of a fever.

Nothing being discussed here can justify extracting $1 Trillion per year from the productive economy to be redistributed via UN agencies. That is sheer insanity.

We are all engines of karma

[gowlerk 1,918]

Quote

Nothing being discussed here can justify extracting $1 Trillion per year from the productive economy to be redistributed via UN agencies. That is sheer insanity.

Is someone asking for such an extraction and redistribution? And if that can not be justified then just what sort of investment can? This is the sort of fear of change I'm talking about.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Is someone asking for such an extraction and redistribution?

The Paris Agreement.

Quote

And if that can not be justified then just what sort of investment can?

Going full blown nuclear for the next 100 years while we sort out fusion. Full speed ahead.

We are all engines of karma

[gowlerk 1,918]

I will admit to not having the faintest clue what is actually in the Paris agreement. It's probably not insanity, but if you perceive it as taking money from your pocket and giving it to foreigners then I can see why you may feel that way.

I'm not even going to pretend I know what should be done about CO2 levels increasing. I'm too distracted arguing with deniers. That's my excuse for not doing my part. I just keep on driving my truck and complaining about fuel saving measures like speed limiters. Then on weekends I work with my partners running a DZ burning fuel for fun.

I'm just like Al Gore, jetting around the world to talk. All talk no action.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 388]

gowlerk

I will admit to not having the faintest clue what is actually in the Paris agreement.
I'm not even going to pretend I know what should be done about CO2 levels increasing. I'm too distracted arguing with deniers. That's my excuse for not doing my part.
I'm just like Al Gore, jetting around the world to talk. All talk no action.

Just like all of the other alarmist, (Kallend, Bill V, et al). Your candor is refreshing.

[billvon 2,417]

>Nearly a decade with a fever and we are still here. Can't be much of a fever.

We've had cancer as a serious disease for millennia and we are still here. It must mean nothing. Why are we wasting all this money researching it? After all, I don't have it.

[billvon 2,417]

>Since when?

Since 1950-1980.

>>Fortunately that is not the plan,...

>So, what is the plan?

Reduction in the use of high carbon fuels. Increase in the use of renewables. Implementation of next generation nuclear. Increase in grid-scale storage. High voltage DC transmission backbones. Alternate fuels for vehicles. Urban planning changes to allow city living without having to drive everywhere. Reforestation. Carbon sequestration. Improvements in vehicle/industrial process efficiency.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

And from a CREDIBLE source:


November 14, 2016

2016 is set to break even the temperature records of 2015.

It is very likely that 2016 will be the hottest year on record, with global temperatures even higher than the record-breaking temperatures in 2015. Preliminary data shows that 2016’s global temperatures are approximately 1.2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels, according to an assessment by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

Global temperatures for January to September 2016 have been about 0.88° Celsius (1.58°F) above the average (14°C) for the 1961-1990 reference period, which is used by WMO as a baseline. Temperatures spiked in the early months of the year because of the powerful El Niño event of 2015-16. Preliminary data for October indicate that they are at a sufficiently high level for 2016 to remain on track for the title of hottest year on record. This would mean that 16 of the 17 hottest years on record have been this century (1998 was the other one).

Long-term climate change indicators are also record breaking. Concentrations of major greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to increase to new records. Arctic sea ice remained at very low levels, especially during early 2016 and the October re-freezing period, and there was significant and very early melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/provisional-wmo-statement-status-of-global-climate-2016

Well this prediction has fallen into the shitter now hasn't it!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Here is a good time line/story line of the IPCC and how it works.
It is good to see how the bible of the alarmists is written.
Well, it is really more alarming than good

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/29/the-politicization-of-climate-science-is-not-a-recent-phenomenon/

Quote

The fact that the IPCC has focused all of their efforts on “understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change” is very important. The IPCC has never realistically tried to determine if natural factors could have caused most of the warming the Earth has experienced over the past century. For decades, they’ve worn blinders that blocked their views of everything other than the hypothetical impacts of carbon dioxide. The role of the IPCC has always been to prepare reports that support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels. As a result, that’s where all of the research money goes. The decision to only study human-induced global warming is a political choice, not a scientific one. And it’s a horrible choice.

As a result of that political choice, there is little scientific research that attempts to realistically determine how much of the warming we’ve experienced is attributable to natural factors. We know this is fact because the current generation of climate models—the most complex climate models to date—still cannot simulate naturally occurring ocean-atmosphere processes that can cause Earth’s surfaces (and the oceans to depth) to warm for multidecadal periods or stop that warming. Skeptics have confirmed those failings a number of times in blog posts. I even wrote a book about those failings, appropriately titled Climate Models Fail.

Quote

EVEN SHADIER: CHANGING THE SCIENCE TO SUPPORT POLICY

Were you aware that politicians revised the text of the IPCC’s second assessment report, drastically changing the draft written by the scientists? Once again, I’m reproducing a portion of my free ebook On Global Warming and the Illusion of Control – Part 1. It’s from the heading of THE EVOLUTION OF THE CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING MOVEMENT:

While there were early scientific studies that pointed to possible increases in surface temperatures associated with the emissions of man-made greenhouse gases, let’s begin this discussion with the formation of the report-writing wing of the United Nations called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). As discussed above, the primary task of the IPCC was to create reports that supported the politicians’ agendas. Limiting global warming was likely one of those focuses, but most assuredly there were many others.

The politicians found scientists to write those reports—so began the mutually beneficial relationship between climate scientists and politicians. The politicians wanted scientific support for their agendas and the scientists were more than willing to oblige because the politicians held the purse strings for climate research.

The first IPCC report in 1991 was inconclusive, inasmuch as the scientists could not differentiate between man-made and natural warming

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[winsor 187]

StreetScooby

Quote

Is someone asking for such an extraction and redistribution?

The Paris Agreement.

Quote

And if that can not be justified then just what sort of investment can?

Going full blown nuclear for the next 100 years while we sort out fusion. Full speed ahead.

Fusion we have wired.

We have installed a continuous cycle fusion reactor with radiant energy transfer, at a moderately safe distance from population centers. 93 million miles away, IIRC.

[gowlerk 1,918]

Quote

We have installed a continuous cycle fusion reactor with radiant energy transfer, at a moderately safe distance from population centers. 93 million miles away, IIRC.

Too dangerous. Causes melanomas.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[normiss 622]

Why live then?
It is proven to cause death.

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

The problem with your bullet-in-the-brain metaphor is that unlike a bullet, there is no evidence that warmer temperatures are deleterious, man made or otherwise.

You've got to be kidding me. There are ample examples of things that are severely affected just by a few degrees temperature difference. Do you fish? Do you chase the spawn? Do you know what temperature the water needs to be at a certain time of year for those eggs to live? How about temperatures that trigger seasonal changes in plants and trees or crops in Texas?

Do you understand the energy difference in a cup of coffee vs a bath tub at a given temperature degrees? What if that bath tub were the Atlantic Ocean at the beginning of hurricane season.

How about the difference in volume a liquid at two temperatures? Again....Atlantic Ocean.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[brenthutch 388]

billvon

>Since when?

Since 1950-1980.

>>Fortunately that is not the plan,...

>So, what is the plan?

Reduction in the use of high carbon fuels. Increase in the use of renewables. Implementation of next generation nuclear. Increase in grid-scale storage. High voltage DC transmission backbones. Alternate fuels for vehicles. Urban planning changes to allow city living without having to drive everywhere. Reforestation. Carbon sequestration. Improvements in vehicle/industrial process efficiency.

Cost: trillions
Benefit: zero

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CMpd9Z8Uugg

[airdvr 198]

Let me just go on the record once again; You all can get excited about climate change all you want. The simple truth of the matter is we won't do much about it because we won't destroy our current economic model to try and fix it.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[gowlerk 1,918]

airdvr

Let me just go on the record once again; You all can get excited about climate change all you want. The simple truth of the matter is we won't do much about it because we won't destroy our current economic model to try and fix it.

That's close to the way I see it. It is going to be too hard to completely quit emitting greenhouse gases. We don't really understand all the consequences, so that leads to indecision. Along with the related fact that we don't know what the goal for reduction needs to be.

That leaves us pretty much leaning on the "elites" who set public policy to do their best to figure it out and hope they get it right. Personally I'm going with the fact that I'll be long dead before it becomes a major problem. So far I have no grandchildren.

We will have to settle for slow technological advances in energy production and consumption, while the world population continues to increase and use more energy. The good news is that we only need to figure out better ways to harness the bountiful supply from the Sun. The bad news is that we will continue to burn a lot of fossil fuels in the meantime. And that could trigger a runaway situation, but we don't really know if it will or not.

What do you think you or I should do?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[DJL 232]

airdvr

Let me just go on the record once again; You all can get excited about climate change all you want. The simple truth of the matter is we won't do much about it because we won't destroy our current economic model to try and fix it.

I don't think we need to destroy it but I also know that any change will be too late. We already understand that micro-generation is easier in the long run than large coal plants and nuke energy is getting easier and safer. I PM at a commercial electrical contractor and we're seeing a huge change in energy consumption on lighting going to LED.

Anyway at this point it's just salvaging what we can. Hopefully the metaphor of the runaway reactor will be untrue and we won't end up in some Mad Max hellscape.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,417]

>Benefit: zero

So you oppose nuclear power, better electrical grids, replanting dead forests and efficiency improvements in cars and industry? OK then. I imagine somewhere out there is a version of 1940's America where you would not have so much evil, progressive change shoved down your throat.

[billvon 2,417]

> The simple truth of the matter is we won't do much about it because we won't
>destroy our current economic model to try and fix it.

Well, given that we've stopped increasing our CO2 emissions and we haven't destroyed our current economic model, I question that "simple truth."

In the 1880's it was unthinkable that we would destroy our economy based on railroad and horse in favor of unproven, dangerous and expensive private vehicles. Why put all those stables out of work? What would come of the stablehands, the people who shoveled horseshit (which was a huge industry in big cities BTW) and the people who raised and bred horses? Why rely on something only a millionaire could afford? If you switched to a transportation model where people DROVE themselves there'd be no jobs for anyone else.

That, of course, wasn't true. An entire industry grew up around the car. Then an entire industry grew up around petroleum. Now an entire industry is growing up around renewables, clean energy, energy efficiency, smart grids and hybrid/electric vehicles.

In 50 years, when D-T fusion finally becomes practical, we'll hear the same thing. "The simple truth of the matter is we won't change to fusion because we won't want to destroy our current renewables-based economy to try to use it."

[brenthutch 388]

billvon

>Benefit: zero

...where you would not have so much evil, progressive change shoved down your throat.

I would characterize it as stupid,wasteful, failure shoved down my throat.

[winsor 187]

normiss

Why live then?
It is proven to cause death.

[billvon 2,417]

>I would characterize it as stupid,wasteful, failure shoved down my throat.

Like I said, there are plenty of places out there that shun all that evil modern technology that has been shoved down your throat. The Amish gave it a good try.

Why are you posting on the Internet, BTW? That's another stupid, wasteful government failure that's been shoved down your throat - and one that's often used to avoid carbon-intensive travel.

[brenthutch 388]

billvon

>I would characterize it as stupid,wasteful, failure shoved down my throat.

Like I said, there are plenty of places out there that shun all that evil modern technology that has been shoved down your throat. The Amish gave it a good try.

Why are you posting on the Internet, BTW? That's another stupid, wasteful government failure that's been shoved down your throat - and one that's often used to avoid carbon-intensive travel.

Keep setting up that straw man to knock down as you seem to have difficulty with the real thing.

BTW the Amish are alive and well here in central PA.

[billvon 2,417]

>Keep setting up that straw man to knock down as you seem to have difficulty with
>the real thing.

No difficulty at all. I generate all my power from solar, and I use that solar to charge an EV. Not all that hard. It does involve use of that evil progressive agenda called 'technology' though.

>BTW the Amish are alive and well here in central PA.

Great! Will you be joining them?