Register ICMag Forum Menu Features Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
You are viewing our:
in:
Forums > Talk About It! > Toker's Den > Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

Thread Title Search
Post Reply
Have you looked at the North Pole lately? Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-31-2018, 09:36 PM #921
trichrider
THEORETICAL

trichrider's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between CB1 and the singularity.
Posts: 7,144
trichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond repute
Climate Change Saves Tuvalu!

The study's introduction took a surprising turn:

Sea-level rise and climatic change threaten the existence of atoll nations. Inundation and erosion are expected to render islands uninhabitable over the next century, forcing human migration. Here we present analysis of shoreline change in all 101 islands in the Pacific atoll nation of Tuvalu. Using remotely sensed data, change is analysed over the past four decades, a period when local sea level has risen at twice the global average (~3.90 ± 0.4 mm.yr−1). Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%), despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls.
In other words, Tuvalu has been growing this whole time. Over the past 40 years Tuvalu has added roughly 181 acres of new land—all while sea levels were rising at twice the global average.
The results "challenge existing narratives of island loss," the scientists said—something frequently repeated in the pages of the New York Times.
Since at least 2007 the Times has trumpeted fears that the Pacific island was sinking, running a Reuters blurb in its print edition with the headline, "Tuvalu: A Cry for Help." The article predicted the "ocean will swallow the country in 30 to 50 years."
In July 2011, the Times ran an opinion piece in entitled, "Life After Land." The editorial argued for a United Nations resolution to protect the people of Tuvalu once it "loses its permanent population and territory to rising seawater."
"If the international community cannot or will not slow global warming, the least it can do is help those states prepare for life after land by recognizing a new category of state—the deterritorialized state," the editorial stated.
A cartoon of an island sinking into the sea accompanied the piece.
The paper's Green Blog predicted again in October 2011 Tuvalu would "become unlivable within 50 years."
In its news pages the next year, the Times wrote, "many scientists say [Tuvalu] is getting smaller." The goalposts had moved slightly, and Tuvalu's "very existence" was threatened by the year 2100, when global sea levels could rise by 55 inches.
The Times has been quiet about Tuvalu in recent years—and recent days. So far, the paper has neglected to report on the latest Tuvalu climate change news.
The new study, however, should provide rich material for the Times since the researchers found that a growing Tuvalu in the midst of oppressive climate change allows for "vastly more nuanced" options for the future of climate change adaptation.
The study dispelled "flawed assumptions that islands are static landforms, which will simply drown as the sea level rises." In all, the scientists found only a small subset of islands that had lost any area, with over 73 percent of the islands actually expanding in land area, some as high as 113 percent.
"Results challenge perceptions of island loss, showing islands are dynamic features that will persist as sites for habitation over the next century," the scientists said, a slightly longer timeline than the Times told us.
The scientists aren't exactly sure why the islands are growing—it could be extreme storm waves. But they do know it is driven by "environmental rather than anthropogenic processes."
__________________
"I'm not always a dick...but when I am, I drink cheap beer".

trichrider is offline Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Click to visit Venus Vapes
Old 04-03-2018, 05:29 PM #922
trichrider
THEORETICAL

trichrider's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between CB1 and the singularity.
Posts: 7,144
trichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond repute


Delingpole: Finally ‘Climate Change’ Gets Its Scopes Monkey Trial–and the Bad Guys Are Gonna Lose


by James Delingpole
31 Mar 2018

Judge William Alsup has laughed off suggestions that he’s currently presiding over the “global warming” equivalent of the Scopes Monkey Trial.


But like it or not this is essentially what is being played out right now in a U.S. federal court in San Francisco.
The climate alarmists have finally got their day in court against those pesky free-thinking intelligent people they call “climate deniers.”
Big mistake. The overconfident alarmists appear to have bitten off more than they can chew. They imagined that they’d fool the world into thinking that this was a case about ordinary, wronged citizens – specifically the cities of San Francisco and neighboring Oakland – taking on the evil, sea-level-raising, planet-destroying might of Big Oil.
In reality, as is becoming clearer by the day, it’s the “science” of climate change which is really on trial here. And given that the “science” of climate change is so shaky that it might as well be called “witchcraft” this is not a discussion that’s likely to end well for the shysters who are promoting it…
advertisement


Background
The origins of this case lie in #Exxonknew. Its purpose is to attack the fossil fuel industry using much the same methods once employed against the tobacco industry. The plan was dreamed up in 2012 by a small group of climate activists meeting in La Jolla, California.
The cities of San Francisco and Oakland are suing five Big Oil firms – Chevron, Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Royal Dutch Shell – alleging that they have conspired, Big-Tobacco-style, to conceal the harm of their products. Apparently, these oil majors ought to be compelled to pay billions of dollars in compensation for the damage they have done, inter alia by causing sea levels to rise.
The Judge
Already, the plaintiffs have run into a major problem. Judge William Alsup – who by rights really ought to have been one of their guys, given that he’s a Clinton appointment who lives in California – turns out to be the real deal. As this excellent overview by Tony Thomas in Quadrant notes, he has a reputation for not just taking anybody’s word for it:
advertisement
While presiding in Uber v. Waymo, for example, he asked for a tutorial on self-driving car technology. In Oracle v. Google, he taught himself some Java programming language, to help understand the case.
The very last thing the plaintiffs needed was a judge who does his homework. They needed one who would take their junk science at face value.
Already, Judge Alsup has pretty much dismissed the Exxonknew conspiracy theory. “From what I’ve seen, and feel free to send me other documentation, but all I’ve seen so far is that someone [from an oil major] went to the IPCC conference and took notes. That’s not a conspiracy,” he saidl.
This does not augur well for the plaintiffs.
Big Oil
The oil majors have been about as helpful as a chocolate fireguard in this case. You’d think that with all those billions, they’d have a little to set aside to make a decent fight in defense of their own industry. But in fact, for reasons ranging from cowardice to convenience to cynicism, most of them are heavily invested in the alarmist cause. Exxon’s Rex Tillerson wanted the U.S. to stay in the Paris Climate Accord; Shell’s CEO Ben Van Beurden is a veritable Uriah Heep when it comes to grovelling about the evils of his industry; BP once tried to rebrand itself “Beyond Petroleum” lest anyone confuse it with a company whose business model depended on extracting sticky black stuff from the ground.
advertisement


When the judge asked the various parties to give him a tutorial on climate change, only Chevron bothered to do so. Instead, most of the best scientific arguments have been made for them by skeptics offering amicus curiae – ‘friends of the court’ – briefs. Despite what you hear claimed by climate alarmists, skeptics receive little if any financial support from the oil industry because the oil industry just doesn’t want the flak – and it knows that skeptics are so committed to their cause they’re prepared to say this stuff for free, so why bother?
The Skeptics
One amicus curiae team, supported by the Heartland Institute, comprises Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates and William Briggs. Here is a transcript of their brief. And here – courtesy of Quadrant – is a short summary:
There is no “consensus” among scientists that recent global warming was chiefly anthropogenic, still less that unmitigated anthropogenic warming has been or will be dangerous or catastrophic …
Even if it be assumed [for the sake of argument] that all of the 0.8 degC global warming since anthropogenic influence first became potentially significant in 1950 was attributable to us, in the present century little more than 1.2 degC of global warming is to be expected, not the 3.3 degC that the IPCC had predicted.
The other team comprises William Happer, Steven Koonin and Richard Lindzen. Here is a summary of their argument:
  1. The climate is always changing; changes like those of the past half-century are common in the geologic record, driven by powerful natural phenomena
  2. Human influences on the climate are a small (1%) perturbation to natural energy flows
  3. It is not possible to tell how much of the modest recent warming can be ascribed to human influences
  4. There have been no detrimental changes observed in the most salient climate variables and today’s projections of future changes are highly uncertain
The Alarmists
advertisement


These people have two major problems: a) they’re not intellectually in the same league as the skeptics and b) the science just doesn’t support them.
The Warmist team’s leading academic is Professor Myles Allen of the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford University. This sounds impressive. But he didn’t do himself many favors when at one point, he told the court “Now oxygen is almost 29 percent of the atmosphere.” OK, so perhaps he was just having a Condor moment (the correct figure is 21 percent). His bigger difficulty is that his argument for the existence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory is riddled with omissions and inaccuracies which are cruelly exposed here.
Allen’s presentation, for example, made much of Svante Arrhenius, the Swedish chemist who posited that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations would cause “global warming” (though Arrhenius considered this to be a good thing, not a bad thing). But our understanding of climate change has moved on since then, not least in the recognition that water vapor is a far more significant greenhouse gas than CO2.
As his anonymous demolisher notes on the blog:
Dr. Myles Allen points out that CO2 is potent relative to the non-GHGs of O2 and N2, but fails to address H2O. That is like claiming an aspirin cured the pain AFTER being given a huge dose of morphine, and never mentioning the morphine.
There is much more in this scathing vein, such as this dismissal of Allen’s claim to the court that carbon dioxide is rising to levels not seen for 20 million years:
Cherry picking at its best. CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm and NEVER caused catastrophic warming or ocean acidification. Life has thrived through all levels of atmospheric CO2. Coral Reefs formed during periods where there was much higher CO2. The globe fell into an ice age when CO2 was 4,000 ppm, 10x what it is today. BTW, plants die when CO2 falls below 180 ppm. We are near the lowest level in geological history for CO2, and we are dangerously close to the level where plants starve to death. Warming is infinitely preferable to an ice age. Funny how Dr. Myles Allen forgot to include the longer-term CO2 graphic. BTW, that CO2 graphic follows standard of living far better than temperatures.
The bottom line is, if you’re going to duke it out on the science, you’d better make damn sure that your science is better than your opponent’s science. In the Alarmists’ case this just isn’t an option.
Never Get Into A Fight You Can’t Win
Up till now the Alarmists have understood this. It’s why they roll the way they do, preferring to use the Appeal to Authority (and underhand bullying and smearing attacks) rather than engage skeptics in public debate. Whenever they’ve done the latter, they’ve tended to lose – as Tony Thomas notes at Quadrant.
“Do not debate!” has been warmist policy ever since their talent was trounced by the sceptic team in a two-hour New York public debate at Radio City Hall in 2007.[7]The audience initially polled 57.3% to 29.9% for a “Global Warming Crisis”, but after the debate that flipped 46.2% to 42.2% in favour of the sceptics.
US warmist “experts” subsequently refused even to share platforms with sceptic rivals if informed critics of their shtick are given equal standing. In March, 2013, Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA/GISS climate group, fled the TV interview room (from 6.20 mins) when he learned Roy Spencer, an expert on earth temperature readings from satellite, was arriving and would subject him to questions. A year later Dan Weiss, the director of climate strategy at the liberal Center for American Progress, did an equivalent runner rather than face sceptic Marc Morano in debate, as did Hollywood icon and “Titanic” director James Cameron in 2010.
In a recent exception, warmist Jon Christensen (UCal LA) and sceptic Willie Soon (Harvard) went head to head at a Comedy Club in Los Angeles in January. The result was not scored but the audience jeered whenever Christensen denied California’s soaring power prices were hurting low-income families.
This attempt by alarmists to take on five oil majors smacks of hubris. Or desperation. Or suicidal complacency. Or perhaps a mix of all three. Because the alarmist position happens also to be the longstanding establishment position, it’s possible that they have been lulled into forgetting just how weak their case actually is.
The Exxonknew trial belongs to another era: the one before Donald Trump came along and drove a coach and horses through the so-called climate “consensus.”
This cannot end well for the Alarmists who brought this dishonest, vexatious, and expensive case.
__________________
"I'm not always a dick...but when I am, I drink cheap beer".

trichrider is offline Quote


Old 04-03-2018, 11:35 PM #923
igrowone
Senior Member

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 4,307
igrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant future
Quote:
Originally Posted by trichrider View Post
Climate Change Saves Tuvalu!
...
interesting situation in Tuvalu
in short, sea levels rising(as measured)
Tuvalu is growing by sand accumulation, etc., basically the process that created the island
this article does seem to show agreement with current climate change science
__________________
current grow: www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=7872194
igrowone is online now Quote


Old 04-04-2018, 02:39 AM #924
CaptainDankness
Member

Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 698
CaptainDankness has much to be proud ofCaptainDankness has much to be proud ofCaptainDankness has much to be proud ofCaptainDankness has much to be proud ofCaptainDankness has much to be proud ofCaptainDankness has much to be proud ofCaptainDankness has much to be proud ofCaptainDankness has much to be proud ofCaptainDankness has much to be proud ofCaptainDankness has much to be proud ofCaptainDankness has much to be proud of
I can't wait until Antarctica thaws, it can become New America.
CaptainDankness is online now Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 04-04-2018, 02:49 AM #925
igrowone
Senior Member

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 4,307
igrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant futureigrowone has a brilliant future
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainDankness View Post
I can't wait until Antarctica thaws, it can become New America.
that would be 'interesting'
if all the ice melted there, changes in seal level by 100's of feet
i suppose survivors will be in an acquire territory mindset
that's how it has always worked before though without the presence of nuclear weapons
__________________
current grow: www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=7872194
igrowone is online now Quote


Old 04-04-2018, 06:33 PM #926
trichrider
THEORETICAL

trichrider's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between CB1 and the singularity.
Posts: 7,144
trichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond reputetrichrider has a reputation beyond repute
Cool

Gov. Inslee's Carbon Tax Dies in State Senate



by John Stang • Mar 2, 2018 at 10:33 am




Not this time, Jay. Office of the Governor

The main plank of Gov. Jay Inslee’s efforts to fight climate change died late Thursday afternoon in the Washington State Senate.
“We were one or two votes short,” said Sen. Reuven Carlyle, D-Seattle, the sponsor of the bill to create the nation’s first pure carbon emissions tax. Inslee and Carlyle counted the votes Thursday afternoon and learned they had fewer than the 25 senators needed to pass the bill.
Carlyle acknowledged that the likely 8-cent-per-gallon state gas tax increase due to the proposed tax was a big factor in the vote count falling short. Carlyle declined to say which Democrats did not support the bill. He said the bill had some Republican votes, but declined to identify those senators as well.

All this leads to the specter of a public initiative on a potential carbon tax in November—a measure that would likely be less comprehensive and nuanced than Carlyle’s bill.

The proposed $12-per-ton-of-carbon-emissions tax would have focused on trimming carbon pollution and its ripple effects, with the money going to help people deal with global warming. The bill’s intention was to trim Washington’s carbon emissions to 25 percent of 1990 levels by 2035.
Inslee was not available for comment late Thursday. The failure dealt a blow to Inslee’s image as the nation’s leading governor on environmental matters Rumored to be eyeing a presidential run, a carbon tax would’ve been a major piece of pioneering climate legislation to tout to the country. This has been the first session in six years that Inslee did not have a GOP Senate majority dedicated to killing any climate change-oriented bill.

“We came close but there were a handful of votes that kept it from moving forward. The governor is pleased to see how far it progressed this year. It had broad support from a variety of legislators, and leaders from the business, labor, tribal and environmental communities, as well as people from all over the state. There is a real appetite for addressing climate change in our state, and the governor looks forward to continuing this crucial conversation with the legislature and with Washingtonians,” said governor’s spokeswoman Tara Lee.
Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon would have shepherded the bill through the House if it had passed the Senate.
“I can’t tell you it was a big surprise. It was going to be difficult … We got some traction that we didn’t have before (in previous years) ” he said. Fitzgibbon had not done a vote count in the House, waiting to see what the Senate wold have passed.

“It made it further than an carbon system in the United States. Nobody expected it to get this far,” Carlyle said. Oregon and California have types of carbon emissions caps, but not straight-out taxes on carbon emissions.
Both Carlyle and Fitzgibbon said major bills frequently take a couple years for legislators to become comfortable with a new concept. Carlyle speculated that Washington will have a carbon tax in one or two years.
Senate Republican leaders were low-key about the failure of a bill they strongly opposed.
Senate Minority Leader Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, declined to comment beyond saying “everybody knows my opinion”. Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale and the lead GOP legislator on environmental issues, said he would wait until the end if the session on March 8 before believing the bill is dead.

Carlyle’s bill had 67 exemptions or tax breaks to numerous industries because they use lots of energy and will face out-of-state and foreign competitors who don’t have to factor a carbon tax into their costs. Some of the proposed tax breaks in Carlyle’s bill would go to the oil refineries, steel and aluminum industries, pulp mills and many agriculture-related facilities.
Starting July 1, 2019, Carlyle’s bill would have raised the carbon tax by $1.80-per-ton-per-year until it hits a maximum of $30 a ton in 2031. The bill would have generated $637 million in revenue in 2019-2021 and $872 million in 2021-2023, according to Washington Department of Revenue’s calculations.
That money was supposed to go exclusively to carbon reduction and climate change-oriented measures.
Those would have included supporting clean energy ventures, helping facilities trim their carbon emissions, helping agriculture deal with the ripple effect of the tax, boosting wetlands, dealing with forest fires, providing financial help to the poor to deal with their energy needs, improving water supplies, helping workers displaced by carbon-cutting measures, increasing electric transportation in rural areas, and boosting broadband services in rural areas.
Most scientists accept that carbon emissions contribute to global warming, which has ecological ripple effects.
Carbon emissions are linked to global warming, which influences how snow packs melt, which in turn affects how much water is available for farming. Carbon emissions are also a factor in the increasing acidity of the water along Washington's shores, including Puget Sound, which has begun killing baby oysters and harming other shellfish harvested in the Northwest. Also, global warming is blamed for the increase in Washington’s forest fires.
The controversy is largely over whether forcing smokestack industries to significantly trim emissions will chase lots of jobs and business profits from Washington. The affected industries argue this will happen.

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/201...n-state-senate
__________________
"I'm not always a dick...but when I am, I drink cheap beer".

trichrider is offline Quote


Old 04-04-2018, 07:13 PM #927
Hermanthegerman
Dont fake the funk!

Hermanthegerman's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,125
Hermanthegerman is a survivorHermanthegerman is a survivorHermanthegerman is a survivorHermanthegerman is a survivorHermanthegerman is a survivorHermanthegerman is a survivorHermanthegerman is a survivorHermanthegerman is a survivorHermanthegerman is a survivorHermanthegerman is a survivorHermanthegerman is a survivor
Just yesterday I saw a documentation about Norway, the tree frontier goes up North. Foxes come in, Lemmings are in danger. Of Course not the biggest Problem, but I think you can see the climate Change in Little Things like that.
Hermanthegerman is offline Quote


Old 04-05-2018, 01:38 PM #928
Ununionized
Guest

Posts: n/a
Since the worldwide physical, calibration and regulatory standard called the International Standard Atmosphere

declares the temperature of the planet hasn't changed since 1864 - or else

every astronaut
every pilot
every scuba diver
every welder
every air conditioner tech
every radio man

* * *would have to have part of their EDUCATION set aside to * * *

* * *explain how the LAWS OF PHYSICS CHANGED* * *

ALL YOU WHO wish THE CLIMATE CHANGED or CAN or IS changing

are OUT of LUCK: the LAWS of PHYSICS DECLARE that FAKERY to be just THAT.
Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 04-05-2018, 01:41 PM #929
Ununionized
Guest

Posts: n/a
And the answer is YES: I DO not just believe but I KNOW government employees will run an international CHEMISTRY SCAM claiming pot is just like heroin

and that magic has made the cold nitrogen atmosphere a "GiantiNy Magical Heedur! YaW!"

You're all being systematically CONNED.

The way your GRANDPA was CONNED about "Pot being a GATEWAY to HEROIN."

No,
those OPIOIDS the SAME PEOPLE feed you are THE
gateway
to
HEROIN.

You've all been scammed by people who told you a hockey stick generator program was a "whole new field of math, ...climate math!!''

YaW.
Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 04-05-2018, 07:51 PM #930
Phaeton
Speed of Dark

Phaeton's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Interior Alaska
Posts: 1,612
Phaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud ofPhaeton has much to be proud of
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermanthegerman View Post
Just yesterday I saw a documentation about Norway, the tree frontier goes up North. Foxes come in, Lemmings are in danger. Of Course not the biggest Problem, but I think you can see the climate Change in Little Things like that.
Alaska's interior is predominately Black Spruce. As a child in the 1950's it rivaled the Cottonwood. Spruce beetles had been on the edges and along the coast for millennia, keeping the Black Spruce to the interior.
In the 1990's the tipping point was crossed and the Spruce Beetles began surviving winters further north.
In 2003 an area larger than four New England states combined burned in southern Alaska, whole forests of dead trees killed by the beetles.
Still moving north.

Squirrels are waking up before the rabbits and now their take is 40% of the rabbit population yearly. The squirrels eat the babies still in the nest. This affects the Fox population.

This will all balance out in the end, but it will not be what it was.
That is gone.
Phaeton is offline Quote


4 members found this post helpful.

Post Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:39 AM.




This site is for educational and entertainment purposes only.
You must be of legal age to view ICmag and participate here.
All postings are the responsibility of their authors.
Powered by: vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.