Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Global warming refers to a slight increase in surface temperature anomaly. Climate change refers to the effects of global warming.

    Reports on climate change do not only come from the "left" but from the Pentagon, the U.S. military, insurers such as Lloyds of London, and banks like HSBC.

    Not surprisingly, they've also issued reports to their clients and personnel concerning peak oil.

    Comment


    • How climate change is thawing the 'glue that holds the northern landscape together' Social Sharing

      North·CLIMATE CHANGE How climate change is thawing the 'glue that holds the northern landscape together'

      Social Sharing

      The warming of the North is causing major changes to the very ground underfoot

      Susan Ormiston · CBC News · Posted: Jun 19, 2019 2:00 AM CT | Last Updated: 3 hours agoPermafrost scientist Steve Kokelj points to an area off the Dempster Highway where the northern permafrost is thawing. (CBC)
      comments
      This story is part of a CBC News series entitled In Our Backyard, which looks at the effects climate change is having in Canada, from extreme weather events to how it's reshaping our economy.

      In one of the coldest places in Canada, Steve Kokelj is searching for Arctic thaw. He's driving the great Dempster Highway, 747 kilometres of gravel linking southern Canada to the Arctic.

      "The large permafrost disturbances that we're seeing now have really developed in the last one to two decades," he says.

      Kokelj is a permafrost scientist for the territorial government, and his job is to survey the alarming changes to the layers of ice and rock which underpin the North.

      "Think of permafrost as sort of the glue that holds the northern landscape together."

      But as the Arctic warms three times as fast as anywhere else in the world, that permafrost — made up of leftover ice from the last glaciation, frozen for thousands of years — is degrading.

      That's glaringly obvious as he pulls over to point out a huge hole carved out of the Dempster highway embankment. Elevated moisture and warmth have caused the side of the road to collapse.

      https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north...ktuk-1.5179842

      Comment


      • Yes, the climate is changing. The debate is on cause, not that it's happening. And, no, the "debate is(n't) over." That's the argument the Progressive movement uses with more and more of their positions on various subjects. Kristen Gildabrand, one of the pack of Democrats running for President uses this "the debate is over" line to dismiss opponents on both climate change and abortion for example.

        It gets old.

        Until we have a much, much better handle on planetary atmosphere than we currently do, I simply am not buying the anthropogenic CO2 argument on its face.

        Climate change is real and happens all the time. Gorebal Warming is nonsense that is unproven and largely being pushed for political reasons and gain.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          Yes, the climate is changing. The debate is on cause, not that it's happening.
          The debate should be on how we can deal with, or alleviate the problem.

          The causes are likely to be diverse and ultimately irrelevant.

          Also I feel the younger generations should have greater weight in the discussion, since they'll have to live with the consequences of what we do, or don't do.

          For people our age it's of less importance.

          High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

            The debate should be on how we can deal with, or alleviate the problem.
            No, the debate should be Do we need to alleviate the problem or just deal with it?
            The causes are likely to be diverse and ultimately irrelevant.
            Which argues for my response above.

            Also I feel the younger generations should have greater weight in the discussion, since they'll have to live with the consequences of what we do, or don't do.

            For people our age it's of less importance.
            The problem is most younger generations are chock-a-block with kids that have learned the myopic Leftist / Environmentalist version only while being indoctrinated to believe anyone who says or thinks different is an idiot.

            Comment


            • Understanding the Global Warming Hoax: Expanded and Updated Paperback – March 31, 2009

              by Leo Johnson (Author)
              ...
              IS GLOBAL WARMING A HOAX? Isn't it time you read the facts? The propaganda of man-made global warming has been promoted by those with a political agenda by suppressing the truth and spreading fear. In this effort they have recruited academics, media, environmental groups, governments, the United Nations, even religions. Scientific evidence supporting man-made global warming has now been investigated by scientists and found to be baseless. Examination of the data has revealed the theory of climate change for the propaganda it is, derived from erroneous data, junk science, even scientific fraud. Now, for the first time, the American people have available to them an honest discussion of man-made global warming and climate change that is easily understood by those without a scientific background. The Layman's Guide describes in easily understood language the science refuting claims of climatic catastrophe resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. Using well-documented scientific facts, the Layman's Guide exposes the global warming hoax as an authoritarian assault on individual freedom.
              ...
              https://www.amazon.com/Understanding.../dp/1934956139

              Online PDF;
              https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x55xvms
              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

              Comment


              • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/...center_objects
                The USGS has a lot of studies on glaciers in America. while it has been .a while since I was in Glacier National |park, your USDNPS
                is a pretty dedicated group with a proud professional history



                Thanks. This helps underscore two items and suggests you and Snowshoveler were arguing at cross purpose and different subjects. First, this interesting excerpt from that USGS link-article;
                ...
                WHAT IS A GLACIER? A glacier is a body of snow and ice of sufficient size and mass to move under its own weight. Glacier movement may be detected by the presence of crevasses, cracks that form in the ice as the glacier moves. In Glacier National Park (GNP), USGS scientists define glaciers according to the commonly accepted guideline in which a body of ice has an area of at least 0 .1 km2 (100,000 m2), or about 25 acres. Below this size, the ice is generally stagnant and does not move, unless it is on a steep slope. Glaciers are dynamic , changing in response to temperature and precipitation. A glacier forms when winter snowfall exceeds summer melting. Glaciers retreat when melting outpaces accumulation of new snow.

                While the glaciers that carved GNP’s majestic peaks were part of a glaciation that ended about 12,000 years ago, the relatively small alpine glaciers that cling to mountainsides today are considered geologically new, having formed about 7,000 thousand years ago. These glaciers grew substantially during the Little Ice Age (LIA) that began around 1400 AD and reached their maximum size at the end of the LIA around 1850 AD. Their maximum sizes can be inferred from the mounds of rock and soil left behind, known as moraines. Aerial photography reveals moraines of over 150 glaciers that existed in Glacier National park at the end of the LIA. In 2015, only 26 active named glaciers remain.
                ....

                WHAT IS THE STATUS OF GLACIERS AT GLACIER NATIONAL PARK?

                In 2017, the USGS published a time series analysis of the glacier margins of the named glaciers of Glacier National Park . The areas measured are from 1966, 1998, 2005 and 2015/2016, marking approximately 50 years of change in glacier area. Scientists used aerial photography and satellite imagery to measure the perimeters of the glaciers in late summer when seasonal snow had melted to reveal the extent of the glacial ice. The data table shows that all glaciers have been reduced in area since 1966 with some glaciers having been reduced by as much as 85% by 2015. The average area reduction over the approximately 50-year period is 39%. Currently, only 26 glaciers are larger than 0.1 square kilometers (25 acres) which is used as a guideline for deciding if bodies of ice are large enough to be considered glaciers.
                ....
                https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/...center_objects
                ...

                So a couple pointers here and hopefully I don't have to "translate" all that I've highlighted in red.

                1. Glaciers are CONSTANTLY either growing or shrinking. Reflecting that Climate is never stagnant; climate is always either warming or cooling.

                2. Once a glacier is smaller than 25 acres in size it is no longer considered, defined as a glacier. So once a body of ice and snow shrinks to say 24 acres or less that "glacier" is "gone". Could we be quibbling over semantics here?

                3. There was a Little Ice Age starting about 600+ years ago, Climate COOLING ~ glaciers growing even more; then about 170 years ago glacier growth stopped and shrinkage started because Climate WARMING. This is about 30 years before that benchmark number of 280ppm for CO2 in 1880 that many gorebots treat as a holy grail of desired amount, and supposed majik threshold when $hit happens due to CO2 increase beyond. And it's all human's fault. Yet ....

                4. These glaciers at GNP only started to form about 7,000 years ago (That "thousand" after 7,000 in article is redundant/typo). Climate must have been too warm before then, since there were no glaciers, and of course this would have to be the fault of we humans, even though we barely had started any civilizations by then, and had no "Industrial Age" yet.

                5. There were "glaciers" there up until about 12,000 years ago, which carved out those peaks and valleys as they slid along and melted. These were a mile or more thick and had been there for tens of thousands of years, until the climate started warming, enough to melt all that ice. Obviously, once again we can blame this on humans (anthropogenic), and likely caused by the tens of thousands of humans then existing, running around wearing animal skins and furs, using their chipped flint pointy weapons to slaughter all the mastodons, sabre-toothed tigers, and other huge fauna that went extinct back then.

                Or maybe it's the fault of the Atlantians. Per genome/DNA research our current genetic version of homo sapiens has only been around for about 200-300,000 years and since Ice Ages have been coming and going for hundreds of millions of years, must have been the fault of the people of Atlantis using their advanced technologies to muck up the climate all that time before we humans could show up and take over that task from them.

                The more I look into this Anthropogenic(human caused) Climate Change/Anthropogenic Global Warming myth, the sillier and more absurd it becomes ...

                This post has gotten a bit long, will do a Part Two to cover Snowshoveler's points;
                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                Comment


                • Part Two:
                  As I understand things, Snowshoveler was referring to this;

                  Glacier National Park Quietly Removes Its 'Gone by 2020' Signs ...
                  https://wattsupwiththat.com/.../glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-202...


                  National Parks Quietly Toss Signs Saying Glaciers ‘Will Be Gone’ By 2020 (They’re Growing)
                  https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/06...heyre-growing/

                  Oh, So That's Why The 'Glaciers Will Be Gone In 2020' Sign Has Been Removed At A National Park
                  https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...-at-a-n2547957

                  Glacier National Park Quietly Ditches Signs Saying Glaciers Will ‘All Be Gone’ By 2020
                  https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...-gone-by-2020/

                  The NPS Removes all “Glaciers Gone by 2020” signs at Glacier National Park, Montana after “Larger-than-Average Snowfall over Several Winters”
                  https://electroverse.net/the-nps-rem...veral-winters/

                  Glacier National Park Quietly Removes Its "Gone By 2020" Signs
                  https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...one-2020-signs

                  National park ditches signs saying glaciers will be gone by 2020
                  https://hotair.com/archives/2019/06/...ill-gone-2020/

                  National Parks Toss Signs Warning Of Melting Glaciers After Glaciers Fail To Melt
                  https://www.dailywire.com/news/48287...-emily-zanotti

                  ETC. ;
                  https://www.google.com/search?client...+by+2020+signs

                  Notice that many of the above mention that the glaciers have started to "grow" in recent years ...
                  TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                  Comment


                  • So, all this talk about glaciers has reminded me of another anecdote, the saga of Glacier Girl;
                    ...
                    Glacier Girl: The Back Story

                    How it got trapped in the ice, and how it got out


                    Read more at https://www.airspacemag.com/history-...x9bjlEePXG1.99
                    ...

                    The journey on which the world’s most famous fighter airplane is now embarked is really the third leg in a trip that started 65 years ago, when Great Britain was holding off Nazi Germany and the United States was rushing warplanes to British airfields. In 1942, Glacier Girl was a brand new Lockheed P-38F, one of hundreds of airplanes sent as part of U.S. Army Air Force had its pilots base-hop across the North Atlantic from Maine to Scotland. Not all squadrons made it across, and this particular one was forced down by weather to an emergency landing on an ice cap in Greenland. For Glacier Girl, that was leg one.

                    The following story, originally published in the January 1993 issue of Air & Space/ Smithsonian, recounts adventures during the second leg of the journey, a 22-year slog through recovery and restoration that couldn’t have been completed without the ingenuity, stamina, and fortune of a Roy Shoffner, a Kentucky businessman, named the P-38 “Glacier Girl” and began to plan the completion of its mission.

                    Glacier Girl’'s new owner Rod Lewis, a pilot and president of the Lewis Energy Group in San Antonio, Texas, bought the fighter last year and immediately started preparations for the third leg of the journey. Lewis owns seven other warbirds, including Rare Bear, a Grumman F8F Bearcat racer, which set the closed-course world speed record of 528.3 mph in 1989. “I’m interested in preserving the history and heritage,” he says. He was committed to having Glacier Girl complete the mission even though, he acknowledges, “this trip is going to cost some bucks.”

                    “Besides that,” he continues, “it’s a hell of an adventure. I’ve been drilling oil and gas wells since 1982, so I guess I was looking for the equivalent experience in aviation.” Lewis will fly his Pilatus PC-12 on the journey, while warbird expert Steve Hinton flies Glacier Girl and airshow performer Ed Shipley flies a restored North American P-51. The group flew a scouting expedition earlier this month to locate alternate airfields in case the weather once again forces an unplanned landing. “In that part of the world, weather changes are quick and constant,” Lewis says. “We went by some old World War II airfields that had gravel runways and still had fuel barrels sitting around.” He expects to make six to eight stops a long the way. “You know, it wears you out flying these old airplanes. We can cross 1,000 miles if we need to.”

                    Read more at https://www.airspacemag.com/history-...x9bjlEePXG1.99
                    ...

                    While the ACC/AGW "gorebots" cry that Greenland's ice and glaciers are melting, Glacier Girl and the rest of the "Lost Squadron" had between 250-300 feet of ice pile atop them before she was pulled out 50 years later in 1992. IIRC it takes about 10-12 inches of snow to pack down into an inch of ice, so a bit of snow fell there in those fifty years.

                    Some other links, including one on efforts to recover a second P-38.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_Girl

                    15 Unbelievable Pictures From P-38 Glacier Girl You’ve Never Seen Before
                    https://www.warhistoryonline.com/mil...-pictures.html

                    Glacier Girl survives its own ice age
                    https://generalaviationnews.com/2018...s-own-ice-age/

                    http://p38assn.org/glaciergirl/index.htm

                    https://www.popularmechanics.com/fli...-in-greenland/

                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                    Comment


                    • The above three posts originally in this thread;
                      The Most Unscientific President...
                      ... which likely will fade away down the list, so archiving here where they fit better.
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        The problem is most younger generations are chock-a-block with kids that have learned the myopic Leftist / Environmentalist version only while being indoctrinated to believe anyone who says or thinks different is an idiot.
                        Naivety is the prerogative of youth, cynicism is for old geezers like us

                        High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.

                        Comment


                        • a picture says it all

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
                            a picture says it all
                            Omits the anthropogenic prefix.

                            Still awaiting proof that CO2 levels, currently barely above minimum needed to sustain life on this planet is the primary driver of current change/warming. i.e. proof of linkage and causative effect, rather than coincidental ghosting lag shown from some data charts.

                            Still awaiting your explanation for the several prior times in past millions of years when temp was higher while CO2 was lower;
                            AND
                            why you'd rather drive towards that glaciation/Ice Age condition that dominates 90% of climate history.

                            Do you understand that climate is never stagnate and that the relatively "mild" and temporary warming of the past 10,000 years is the anomaly and still unexplained?
                            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                            Comment


                            • Unfortunately, limited free access to their articles;

                              Cement Produces More Pollution Than All the Trucks in the World

                              There are greener ways to make it⁠, but customers are slow to embrace the change.
                              ...
                              The most astonishing thing about cement is how much air pollution it produces.

                              Manufacturing the stone-like building material is responsible for 7% of global carbon dioxide emissions, more than what comes from all the trucks in the world. And with that in mind, it’s surprising that leading cement makers from LafargeHolcim Ltd. in Switzerland to Votorantim Cimentos SA in Brazil are finding customers slow to embrace a greener alternative.

                              Their story highlights the difficulties of taking greenhouse gases out of buildings, roads and bridges. After wresting deep cuts from the energy industry, policymakers looking to extend the fight against global warming are increasingly focusing on construction materials and practices as a place to make further reductions. The companies are working on solutions, but buyers are reluctant to pay more.
                              ...
                              While architects and developers concentrate on the energy used by their buildings, it’s actually the materials supporting the structure that embody the biggest share of its lifetime carbon footprint. Cement’s contribution to emissions is especially immense because of the chemical process required to make it.

                              About two-thirds of the polluting gases that come from cement production stem from burning limestone. Kilns are heated to more than 1,400 degrees Celsius (2,600 Fahrenheit), about four times hotter than a home oven set to the self-clean cycle. Inside the kiln, carbon trapped in the limestone combines with oxygen and is released as CO2, the most abundant greenhouse gas.

                              A ton of cement yields at least half a ton of CO2, according to the European Cement Association. That’s more than the average car would produce on a drive from New York to Miami. And a single mixer truck can carry about 13 tons. Hundreds or even thousands of tons go into ordinary office buildings.
                              ...
                              Cost is a problem because greener forms of cement can cost triple what the traditional mix does. Researchers led by Brett Tempest at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte found a yard of geopolymer cement may reach $161, while the most commonly used Portland variety is $51, their 2015 paper in the PCI Journal published by the Precast Concrete Institute.

                              What comes out of the kiln is called clinker, the key raw ingredient of cement. It’s the substance that, when mixed with gypsum and water, binds with gravel to harden and form concrete. Many companies are working to cut the amount of clinker in their cement, which requires new and sometimes untested recipes.
                              ...
                              https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...=pocket-newtab

                              Of course, we're back to the fallacy and pseudoscience of calling Carbon Dioxide/CO2 an essential ingredient to about 99.9% of life on this planet a "pollutant", but why engage scientific honesty and accuracy when there's a political agenda to be had ?
                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                              Comment


                              • But the entire media complex couldn't be lying? Oh that's right Trump-Russia kind of kills the "it's a conspiracy theory" argument.
                                We hunt the hunters

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X