TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Slartibartfast wrote:
So Miktay (I noticed you answered without addressing anything that was said so I'm posing a direct question), what do you think is the best option? It is also OK if you propose an option that is not one of the two that I pointed out.
With that said, we can make Earth pretty uncomfortable for life.
We see record setting temperatures
Global warming ‘hiatus’ debate flares up again
Researchers now argue that slowdown in warming was real.
The latest salvo in an ongoing row over global-warming trends claims that warming has indeed slowed down this century.
An apparent slowing in the rise of global temperatures at the beginning of the twenty-first century, which is not explained by climate models, was referred to as a “hiatus” or a “pause” when first observed several years ago. Climate-change sceptics have used this as evidence that global warming has stopped. But in June last year, a study in Science claimed that the hiatus was just an artefact which vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected1.
and [record setting] hurricanes year after year.
Just about every type of extreme weather event is becoming less frequent and less severe in recent years as our planet continues its modest warming in the wake of the Little Ice Age. While global warming activists attempt to spin a narrative of ever-worsening weather, the objective facts tell a completely different story.
New Records for Lack of Tornadoes
New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show the past 12 months set a record for the fewest tornadoes in recorded history. Not only did Mother Nature just set a record for lack of tornado activity, she absolutely shattered the previous record for fewest tornadoes in a 12-month period. During the past 12 months, merely 197 tornadoes struck the United States. Prior to this past year, the fewest tornadoes striking the United States during a 12-month period occurred from June 1991 through July 1992, when 247 tornadoes occurred.
The new tornado record is particularly noteworthy because of recent advances in tornado detection technology. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is able to detect more tornadoes in recent years than in prior decades due to technological advances. Even with such enhanced tornado detection capability, the past 12 months shattered all prior records for recorded tornadoes.
NOAA posted a list of the five “lowest non-overlapping 12 month counts on record from 1954-present.” Notably, each of these low-tornado periods occur since 1986, precisely during the time period global warming alarmists claim global warming is causing more extreme weather events such as tornadoes. According to NOAA, the lowest non-overlapping 12 month counts on record from 1954-present, with the starting month, are:
197 tornadoes – starting in May 2012
247 tornadoes – starting in June 1991
270 tornadoes – starting in November 1986
289 tornadoes – starting in December 2001
298 tornadoes – starting in June 2000
Now here are the assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong. We are also using oil up at a much faster rate than it was created/being created. Our demands are also increasing every year. Increasing demand and usage at a faster rate than production means that eventually oil will run out.
Now I see two options, replace our energy sources from oil to "green energy" or reduce the amount of energy we use to match our current "green energy" production. The same argument can be made for any energy resource that is being used faster than it can be produced.
Miktay wrote:Smash...what school u went hoss?
Anybody with basic 3rd form phyz...chem...bio...could poke nuff holes in the theory of man-made global warming 2 make it apparent that it iz based on nothing but pseudoscience.
Yuh not thinking straight.
sMASH wrote:Miktay wrote:Smash...what school u went hoss?
Anybody with basic 3rd form phyz...chem...bio...could poke nuff holes in the theory of man-made global warming 2 make it apparent that it iz based on nothing but pseudoscience.
Yuh not thinking straight.
Ey, global warming iz real.... u eh see how many people have air conditioning now?
Hope ur third former could count.
Even pioneer had to leggo chunna, too much air condition contracts.
Miktay wrote:Now here are the assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong. We are also using oil up at a much faster rate than it was created/being created. Our demands are also increasing every year. Increasing demand and usage at a faster rate than production means that eventually oil will run out.
Now I see two options, replace our energy sources from oil to "green energy" or reduce the amount of energy we use to match our current "green energy" production. The same argument can be made for any energy resource that is being used faster than it can be produced.
Peak oil iz only a theory. There are other sources of fuel that are more efficient that the over-hyped 'green energy'.
Nat gas & ethanol 2 name a couple.
Read what I wrote leading up to this. My point is that all this "save the planet" talk is not about saving the planet. The planet will be here after a nuclear fallout (which we are capable of). The aim is real conservation of the life currently on the planet and keeping it comfortable for us. High temperatures and frequent hurricanes to name a few makes life uncomfortable for those affected IMO based on complaints I've heard from just about everywhere my ears have been. Maybe you like extremely hot days and hurricanes. Anyway, that was just a side note, not really relevant.Miktay wrote:Will answer ur question in a bit...but first youve said somethings that require vetting.With that said, we can make Earth pretty uncomfortable for life.
How did u arrive at this conclusion? Based on what?
Miktay wrote:We see record setting temperatures
Really? not according to Nature
You should read the articles you reference them[/quote]Fyfe uses the term “slowdown” rather than “hiatus” and stresses that it does not in any way undermine global-warming theory...
...There is no evidence for a change in the long-term warming trend, he says, and there are always a host of reasons why a short-term trend might diverge — and why the climate models might not capture that divergence.
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warmi ... in-1.19414
Forbes - http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2015/03/30/research-confirms-that-carbon-dioxide-led-to-higher-temperatures-in-the-past/#2b74ca6b4f12 wrote:Over the past 400,000 years, the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere has periodically fluctuated, and along with it, so have global temperatures. When the concentration of CO2 has increased, global temperatures have also seen an increase – and vice versa.
...The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now exceeds any concentration seen during that period of time. And the results are predictable – the past few decades have seen increased average temperatures. Last year, 2014, was the hottest year on record since 1880.
The consequences of those increased temperatures can be seen at the polar ice caps. 2015 saw the Arctic ice cap reach its lowest maximum extent since satellites began monitoring the size of that ice. Additionally, a study published last week in Science demonstrated that over the past two decades, Antarctica’s ice sheets have been diminished in thickness by as much as 18%....
desifemlove wrote:shogun wrote:The women's accounts sound credible though.
so if some old woman came now and said "shogun groped me 30 years ago!!" with no proof or evidence, and any marks would have healed or no evidence he caused them, what then? pretty convenient, probably some old woman on benefits looking for a monetary fix.
teems1 wrote:Can't have a climate change denier in the White House.
Today Australia's Great Barrier Reef, which was 25 million years old was declared dead due to climate change.
http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/the-great-barrier-reef-is-dead-at-25-million-years-old/
Sh!tWith that said, we can make Earth pretty uncomfortable for life. We see record setting temperatures and hurricanes year after year.
Climate is the statistics of weather, usually over a 30-year interval.[1][2] It is measured by assessing the patterns of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate differs from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.
EFFECTIC DESIGNS wrote:All this talk about Climate Change and places like China and Russia and all these other countries doesn't give a flying fck, they burn as much dirty energy as possible for the most profit, everybody want to eat ah food, it eh matter if Americans go back to living in caves, climate change is going to happen.
Miktay wrote:EFFECTIC DESIGNS wrote:All this talk about Climate Change and places like China and Russia and all these other countries doesn't give a flying fck, they burn as much dirty energy as possible for the most profit, everybody want to eat ah food, it eh matter if Americans go back to living in caves, climate change is going to happen.
That iz correct. Who will make the Chinese or Russians live up to the obligations of the Paris Treaty?
teems1 wrote:Can't have a climate change denier in the White House.
Today Australia's Great Barrier Reef, which was 25 million years old was declared dead due to climate change.
http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/the-great-barrier-reef-is-dead-at-25-million-years-old/
Great Barrier Reef Obituary Goes Viral, To The Horror Of Scientists
“The message should be that it isn’t too late ... not we should all give up.”
Dead and dying are two very different things.
If a person is diagnosed with a life-threatening illness, their loved ones don’t rush to write an obituary and plan a funeral. Likewise, species aren’t declared extinct until they actually are.
In a viral article entitled “Obituary: Great Barrier Reef (25 Million BC-2016),” however, writer Rowan Jacobsen proclaimed ― inaccurately and, we can only hope, hyperbolically ― that Earth’s largest living structure is dead and gone.
“The Great Barrier Reef of Australia passed away in 2016 after a long illness,” reads the sensational obituary, published Tuesday in Outside Magazine. “It was 25 million years old.”
There’s no denying the Great Barrier Reef is in serious trouble, having been hammered in recent years by El Niño and climate change. In April, scientists from the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies found that the most severe coral bleaching event on record had impacted 93 percent of the reef.
But as a whole, it is not dead. Preliminary findings published Thursday of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority surveys show 22 percent of its coral died from the bleaching event. That leaves more than three quarters still alive ― and in desperate need of relief.
Two leading coral scientists that The Huffington Post contacted took serious issue with Outside’s piece, calling it wildly irresponsible.
Stay informed with the latest news and video. Download HuffPost’s news app on iOS or Android.
Russell Brainard, chief of the Coral Reef Ecosystem Program at NOAA’s Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, told HuffPost he expects the article was meant to highlight the urgency of the situation. But those who don’t know any better “are going to take it at face value that the Great Barrier Reef is dead,” he said.
And judging by comments on social media, many did just that.
The Spokesman-Review, in Spokane, Washington, fueled the myth Thursday, when it published a blog with the headline: “Great Barrier Reef pronounced dead by scientists.”
Brainard told HuffPost the recent bleaching event was a “severe blow” that resulted in serious mortality. Still, “we’re very far from an obituary,” he said.
Slartibartfast wrote:BTW, for the record I want Trump to win. I think they are both deplorable but Hillary has the backing and connection to properly hide it. She has also done enough good to use as a distraction from the bad.
This is a good example
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary- ... ts-2016-10
Trump on the other hand is not only as rotten to the core as Hillary, but he is too stupid to hide it.
If Hillary gets voted in, it would be another 4 years of the same old wall street running things in a way that nobody can prove. If Trump wins he will bring to light the flaws in the voting system they have set up as well as highlight all the problems regarding the decision making power of the president as he continuously tries to make idiotic decisions. In his stupidity I believe he is the only person that has a chance of bringing the issues to the forefront.
I heard that the way to get the best answer is not by asking the best question, but by giving the wrong answer. It's easier to make people react than act. Donald Trump is the wrong answer that we need.
Miktay wrote:The best option IMHO iz Trump. Iz he a loudmouth braggard...yes.
The media has been against him from day one. And the media iz owned by the 1%. So as I am not in the 1%...i find that encouraging.
Trump iz the only candidate who has identified the problems of the common man. That iz why he has such loyal supporters.
That iz not 2 say he can fix the issues. He would ostensibly have a hard time in DC should he get elected. Trump iza businessman not a politician. Thiz could go either way.
Hilary has more experience. But she has dropped the ball quite a few times. People died on her watch as Sec State. That said good men and women have died 4 less.
But her health iz questionable. Thiz could go either way.
But the #1 reason im 4 Trump iz that I believe he iz less likely 2 go 2 war.
Say what u want about either candidate's politics or economic plans.
The recession could worsen. But we will survive that.
I could loss mih wuk. But I could survive that.
Am not sure I would survive a head to head confrontation b/t USA and Russia.
That iz where Hilary appears 2b taking the USofA.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 77 guests
