Greetings! From Beautiful Lake Dallas Texas!
Wish You Were Here!
January 16th, 2015
and we're STILL re-building New Orleans?
"since a landmark report in 2001 published under UN auspices. That report confirmed that temperatures were rising and pinned the blame on carbon emissions disgorged mainly by the burning of oil, gas and coal."
That report contains the utterly debunked "hockey stick" graph.
When Blair and his dumbnut scientists invest all their money into a houseboat manufacturer, then I'll pay attention.
Where's Leonard Nemoy when we need him?
Haven't the enviroTerrorists been saying the ice is already largely melted? Why does the story keep changing?
I thought ice coverage was increasing in the Antartic
And Kyoto, if fully implemented, signed by the US and kept in place for the next 94 years would reduce global temperatures by 4/100ths of a degree.
.04 of a degree.
And that's assuming the models are correct.
What comment is necessary? You see it.
The forsythia bushes are blooming in East Tennessee...
Global warming is awful, awful I tell you.
I can't wait to see this!
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
Meanwhile...down here in antarctica we have not seen the bay open up from the ice that it is for over 6 years now because the ice sheets GREW!
Can someone explain to me how melting of the sea ice will raise the levels of the oceans? Most of the ice in the Arctic, and a good deal of it in the Antarctic, is sea ice, not on land.
A simple experiment can make one wonder - fill a glass with ice so that the ice is over the top of the glass. Add as much water as you can, then leave it in a warm spot. When the ice melts, does the glass overflow?
1. I seem to recall that at one time, the overwhelming consensus amongst scientists was that the Earth was the center of the universe, all other heavenly bodies being in rotation around it. Those who believed otherwise were deemed heretics and as risk of being burned at the stake.
2. Science is not a discipline driven by consensus. An hypothesis is advanced and defended by experimentation and stands or falls on its merits. Most significant scientific advances have been made by those considered to be heretics (see above). In my own field, earth science, the notion that the continents are in motion was considered to sheer folly during my lifetime. I don't know of anyone who today thinks otherwise.
3. If all of the sea ice in the world (all of the Arctic, much of Antartica) were to melt tomorrow, sea level would not rise (except for the difference in specific gravity of sea water and fresh water). I believe that this principle was illustrated by Archimedes.
4. This is not science, it is political baloney.
The Sun and Global Warming
Of the many trends that appear to cause fluctuations in the Sun’s energy, those that last decades to centuries are the most likely to have a measurable impact on the Earth’s climate in the foreseeable future. Many researchers believe the steady rise in sunspots and faculae since the late seventeenth century may be responsible for as much as half of the 0.6 degrees of global warming over the last 110 years (IPCC, 2001). Since pre-industrial times, it’s thought that the Sun has given rise to a global heating similar to that caused by the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If the past is any indication of things to come, solar cycles may play a role in future global warming.
Of course, even NASA has to be politically correct. Further down the article:
Though complex feedbacks between different components of the climate system (clouds, ice, oceans, etc.) make detailed climate predictions difficult and highly uncertain, most scientists predict the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels will continue to block a larger and larger percentage of outgoing thermal radiation emanating from the Earth.
Further down the article they again point fingers at the sun:
The Sun’s affect on global warming can mostly be attributed to variations in the near-infrared and visible wavelengths of solar radiation. As previously stated, these types of radiation are absorbed by the lower atmosphere, the oceans, and the land. UV radiation, on the other hand, interacts strongly with the ozone layer and the upper atmosphere. Though UV solar radiation makes up a much smaller portion of the TSI than infrared or visible radiation, UV solar radiation tends to change much more dramatically over the course of solar cycles.
Most of these global warming people like to blame us, humans, for the problem, and the USA in particular. They ignore the one source that has more to do with it than anything else: the sun. We humans may be contributing to this, but it is the sun that is the main culprit.
Of course, blaming global warming on Americans keeps many people in the spotlight and many scientists and schools getting hefty grants. After all, if we let people know that the biggest culprit is the sun, there is little we can do about that and therefore the money and fame just might dry up.
As long as I get my shore front, to heck with the rest of you lowlanders. (Feeling ok at 100+ft.)
PS might be willing to sell my shorefront in the future. ;)
Sigh...these "scientists" don't have a clue what will happen. My guess is as good as theirs.
But just in case, I think I'll go somewhere south of Corsicana and buy a lot which will soon be beachfront property.
Well, there goes all those fears about running out of water.
Yawn. When one of these geniuses can predict the weather with any accuracy one month down the road then I'll start believing. Until then it's all a "what if," "I can top your gloom and doom" game designed to suck the scared taxpayers dry.