Scientists: World likely won't avoid dangerous warming mark

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmmm… A San Francisco publication. I wonder which side of the “man-made” argument they come down on?
 
Was looking at the radar for the big hurricane now south of Cuba.

Matthew.

nhc.noaa.gov/storm_graphics/AT14/refresh/AL1416W5_NL+gif/120607W5_NL_sm.gif

Then switched from radar to satellite.

MY GOODNESS!

Looks like FIVE additional HUGE storms moving eastward across the USA …

… AND … there are several MONSTER storms moving eastward across the Pacific Ocean …

… AND … parts of Canada has temps of -20ºF.

So … I think that we are getting only part of the story … very small part.
 
Politically correct “science” not looking good.

The hurricane path is suddenly veering out to sea.
 
If it is too late to do something about AGW then I recommend doing nothing. Kick back and watch some football.
 
The usual silly stuff.

The article points out that the “report” it’s touting was NOT published in a scientific journal (thus no “peer review” the MMGW folks think so important) but, they point out an entire six “scientists” (of some kind) said it’s credible.

But it also points out that we’re going to hit that “doomsday” level anyway, no matter what. It’s just a matter of when. So, one wonders why they even bothered to publish any of it.
 
Yes, the Chronicle article is accurate. It’s extremely, extremely likely, a virtual certainty, that the process of increasing climate heat associated with ocean acidification has sped out of control. I realize it’s not a popular view here, but it simply isn’t a debatable matter among serious, non-shill scientists, who overwhelmingly recognize the facts. It’s not a conspiracy theory. Those who believe it’s a vast and all-encompassing global conspiracy have been lied to by petrochemical corporations and public relations firms.

Those links again, which will repay one’s efforts to read and grasp:

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm
 
Exiled_Child said:
Yes, the Chronicle article is accurate. It’s extremely, extremely likely, a virtual certainty, that the process of increasing climate heat associated with ocean acidification has sped out of control. I realize it’s not a popular view here, but it simply isn’t a debatable matter among serious, non-shill scientists, who overwhelmingly recognize the facts. It’s not a conspiracy theory. Those who believe it’s a vast and all-encompassing global conspiracy have been lied to by petrochemical corporations and public relations firms.

Those links again, which will repay one’s efforts to read and grasp:

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm
Click to expand...
One doesn’t need to read petrochemical company publications. One just needs to be outdoors a lot and see what plants and animals require in the way of climate. Nobody experiences global warming. I live in a very narrow climatic zone in which a number of plants and animals thrive in combination, but just a bit north and south of it, they don’t. It hasn’t changed since I was a child, decades ago.
 
Ridgerunner said:
One doesn’t need to read petrochemical company publications. One just needs to be outdoors a lot and see what plants and animals require in the way of climate. Nobody experiences global warming. I live in a very narrow climatic zone in which a number of plants and animals thrive in combination, but just a bit north and south of it, they don’t. It hasn’t changed since I was a child, decades ago.
Click to expand...
Then why does Walden Pond bloom two weeks early?
 
Global warming proponents are saying that overpopulation is the cause, therefor cut down on the number of children being born, especially those that are deemed useless. :rolleyes:
 
Ridgerunner said:
One doesn’t need to read petrochemical company publications. One just needs to be outdoors a lot and see what plants and animals require in the way of climate. Nobody experiences global warming. I live in a very narrow climatic zone in which a number of plants and animals thrive in combination, but just a bit north and south of it, they don’t. It hasn’t changed since I was a child, decades ago.
Click to expand...
Actually though, it’s public relations firms planting stories in newspapers and news programs that’s the problem. Nobody except stockholders reads actual corporate information directly from the source. But there are literally tens of thousands of climatology papers which address this subject in a non-biased way.

As far as actually seeing climate change firsthand, unless you live in the Arctic that isn’t really possible. It’s a relatively slow and gradual change to human’s direct perceptions, but put on a paleoclimatology timeframe it’s enormously fast. In a few decades though, everyone will have direct experience of it, because it’s speeding up exponentially. And while that amount of time may seem long to us as individuals, it’s nothing in the scheme of things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top