Global Warming?
 

Yea, right. Whatever. It's -1 in KC right now, 39* below normal. I know it's not as cold as you folks in MN experience, but this is miserable. I keep telling myself "just a couple of more months here".

Global warming is only part of Global Climate change.
It's already here and to late to stop.

The only thing constant about the earth's climate through the millennia has been that it's always changing.

don't confuse folks with science

You nailed it with this post.

Change is good? We could use a little warmer climate.

At 7:00am this morning, with a temperature of 32 degrees and a wind chill of 23 degrees in The Villages, one golfer showed up and was surprised the rest of his foursome didn't show. This according to today's on-line news.

He obviously is used to playing above the arctic circle. Eh?

The worst thing scientists ever did regarding the climate change was to coin the phrase global warming. Now anytime it gets 1 degree out we get all the posts and comments from the Hannitys of this world berating science and somehow showing proof that climate change is not happening because it's cold outside!

They should look at the polar ice caps for evidence and not so much on the Villages' golf courses.

That said. When I lived in Minneapolis and was out and about in -30 wind chills I would look like the Michelin Man with my five or so layers of clothes. We sure did a lot of laundry. http://www.logodesignlove.com/bibendum-michelin-man

nne

Even thou it's rather brisk in Minnesota now (Schools closed due to cold)Minnesotans are still biking to work.

Harhttp://www.tcdailyplanet.net/news/2012/11/20/surviving-cold-two-wheels-10-tips-winter-biking-minnesota

It was 60,000 year or so we had ice age due to the earth oblong cycle around the sun. We have no control over that. Ice age in getting near. The best thing the grantee done was change the name from global warning to climate change. Why The climate always changing like it been doing for billon years. So you can't disagree. It going to change tomorrow, next year, or 100,000 years.

It's all about money and who controls and distribution of it. The fed gov. Gives way tax money to foreign countries like candy while starving or bleeding it's citizens. We are propping the world economy up at the expense of our economy.
When the yen takes over as the gold standard the dollar will be worth about as much as peso. That's the change we should be worrying about!

If I got enough money I can get somebody with doctoral degree to do study with the results I want to fit my agenda. Why? once you get doctoral nobody can say your wrong without the piece of paper. Only other doctoral in remotely similar area of study can refute findings. One thing about study it's someone opinion. Get enough to agree with you now it's the truth.

We do have control over what pollutants go into the sky in this country. Granted not a whole lot at an individual basis. The polar ice caps are melting and something can be done about that. Whether or not the cycles are 10,000, or 100,000 or whatever span of years. The human element has had a huge impact in the last 100 years or so.

Even though 2014 was the hottest summer on earth since record keeping, a cold snap is all that is needed to provide enough empirical evidence that the planet is not getting warmer.

look at global ocean temps rising....weird weather will be the norm from here on out

You don't seem to understand how science works. Global climate change data are available with the best data of course being the most recent as it has been collected with the most precision. The data is the "truth" if well collected. Scientists then analyze that data attempting to develop a theory of what factor or factors best explain the data which is observed. No scientist would use the word truth to describe an interpretation of observed data. Perhaps you used the word too loosely or don't have the background to understand the scientific method. A theory then should be able to predict future events or with modification explain future deviations from what had been predicted. Scientists then publish their results in journals. The better journals are peer reviewed prior to publication to try to not publish poorly written or inaccurate research. Once published it is open season as others are free to attack the assumptions, the methodology, the analysis of the data and the conclusions. Papers of exceptional difference from the standard theories receive special scrutiny but are especially welcome.

While no scientist wants to see his work criticized or invalidated almost all would accept such as an advancement of science. Ultimately with each tweak a fuller picture of the field emerges. You can go ahead and try and buy a scientist (good luck with that as publication of wrong data and bad conclusions will ruin your career) but such will not be successful in altering the science nor changing the long term outcome. I am only aware of one situation where individuals with lots of money have been attempting to use their money to influence the study of climate change.

Academic Freedom Under Assault |

But sometimes even trying to buy a scientist backfires

Bombshell: Funded Study Finds 'Global Warming Is ...

"It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men"

I like the little saying, goes good with today's education agenda.
Should Read
"It is easier to Brainwash strong child than brainwash men for future votes."

It all started with flouridation of the water supply! All the hot air from that discussion in the fifties has now built up and settled to ground level.

Has anyone been to Alaska twice? The first time being quite a while ago and the second visit more recently. Could you share what the differences were?

Who was that famous polar bear that coined the phrase "reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated" Perhaps Al Gore could refresh our memory.

Are polar bear populations increasing: in fact, booming?

click here to find out

"Some Native communities in Canada are reporting an increase in the numbers of polar bears on land. Traditional hunters believe this means an increase in population. Scientists attribute it to polar bears being driven ashore by lack of ice.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states, ". . . extensive scientific studies have indicated that the increased observation of bears on land is a result of changing distribution patterns and a result of changes in the accessibility of sea ice habitat."

The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

Photos: Copyright © The Nobel Foundation

I think it's cow flatulence - eat more chikin!

According to our fearless leaders of the left leaning side, you are significantly correct. I grew up in Beantown - no cows there - so it must be the politicians.

“Cows emit a massive amount of methane through belching, with a lesser amount through flatulence,” according to How Stuff Works. “Statistics vary regarding how much methane the average dairy cow expels. Some experts say 100 liters to 200 liters a day… while others say it’s up to 500 liters… a day. In any case, that’s a lot of methane, an amount comparable to the pollution produced by a car in a day.”
Scientists from Proctor and Gamble are experimenting with a new medicine named Pepto Bismoo. If that doesn't work they will be trying Two-Tums because cows have two stomachs. Earlier attempts with Amoodium reduced belching but the milk tasted like Magnesium.

stay tuned

Global Warming?
 

😷😷😷

All you global warming alarmists.....don't look now, but the global ice caps are EXPANDING! Oh my! Where people thought they were going to be able to ship thru this region all of a sudden they can't. The ice is reforming. Run for your life, it must be global cooling!!!

References please? Every source I have seen shows exactly the opposite. Be sure you understand the difference between sea ice and land ice when looking at Antarctica data.

You do of course understand that a single year is not climate, it is weather and wind and sea currents. Show me data say looking at the trend lines over that last 50 or 20 or 10 years. That is what I'd like to see. Please support your claim.

Note the average for 1981 to 2010 and the data, the real data not what you might have been told by the Heartland Institute for the few years since then and the up to date numbers into 2015.

In case you are not familiar with reading graphs... the higher the line the more ice coverage exists. The lower the line the more the ice is disappearing from the baseline years of 1981 to 2010. Of course those baseline years are lower than for previous years so if the baseline had been 1950 to 2000 or similar, those declines would be even more dramatic

Yea but in Minnesota its a dry cold:icon_wink:

Tal Antarctic ice is actually growing and the polar bear populations is growing

:coolsmiley:

As i recollect from my reading it was this focus on sea ice currents etc that have scientist now debating whether the shrinkage of land ice had been mistaken because of the variables in current etc.

My nephew is a weather guy and I tease him about the numerous qualifiers his profession uses when projecting the weather,mostly % partly .....

So now we have glowers predicting our demise. a number of articles have pointed to the computer manipulation of data. Not to mention the conceit by some that a computer model no matter how sophisticated is going to include every possible combination, permutation, etc involving our solar system that may or may not have an affect on our climate

I support all efforts to reduce pollution in our lakes cities etc . American has come a long way in reducing pollutants given transportation, power plants etc
I also agree that there is a moral imperative to deliver fossil fuels to the world's poorest country and to continue developing methods to make fossil fuels clearer. We should reengage in nuclear energy India, China etc must equal our efforts now

So true. It is all about the money.

Absolutely about the money. Make the people fearful, they will be compliant and will spend money and use unnecessary resources to save themselves from their fears.

Just so I understand your point.
What are our fears?
What was fabricated?
What do we spend money on?

China is holding the 4th World Vehicle Electrification Summit. One of the goals is to have EV charging stations across China's key cities. I imagine that EV's in China will reduce dependence on foreign oil and reduce emissions in cities where the smog is so thick in looks like LA in the 70's. Remember?
It would be interesting to read comments from non-U.S. residents to see what they believe about Global Warming.
As a side note, if you google the Portage Glacier in Alaska you will see the changes shown in photographs of the glacier over 80 years. The change is dramatic. I was in Anchorage, AK twice in the 80's and the changes were noticeable over a 5 year period.
Global warming is undeniable, the consequences of it are not.

I would say climate change is undeniable. Global warming not-so-much.

But I'm not even sure that is really the main debate. How much does man contribute to and how much can he control climate change. Those are the real questions.

CO2 concentrations have increased from 280 to 395 ppm since the industrial revolution. At what CO2 levels does everyone think we should start taking action to prevent further manmade "adjustment" of our atmosphere? When will the buffering action of our oceans be exhausted? All this carbon was sequestered many million years ago as oil, coal and natural gas and is now being released during our reliance on fossil fuels.

I still subscribe to the local newspaper (Omaha World Herald) where I lived until last September. While this post is somewhat political, it is meant to show the extreme positions of those who believe in climate change and those who don’t. A Craig Ryan had a piece in the paper’s Public Pulse. Here was my response:

Global Warming made up of lies

Wow, does Craig Ryan (1/7 Public Pulse) ever mischaracterize the climate-change “reality”!! He stated that since so many people agree that climate change is a problem that the conservatives (et al) should “accept this reality”. A 6/23/14 article in Personal Liberty Digest states, “The theory of man-made global warming is based on spurious science, phony statistics and outright lies”.

Fact: when the volcano, Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. Fact: the earth has 800-year temperature cycles of heating and cooling which have been recurring since long before there was gas, oil or coal to blame. Fact: the planet has actually cooled 0.7 degrees in the last century.

But then facts must never stand in the way of an agenda. Since billions of dollars will be made if/when tax & trade becomes law it is shamefully naïve to expect an “honesty awakening” in Washington or in the press rooms of America. The climate-change problem is a truth problem. Lies repeated often enough mysteriously become “the truth”, so I understand Mr. Ryan’s belief. It’s just that what he believes is wrong.