# While America is freezing...



## Warrigal (Mar 14, 2015)

the Arctic is warming.

Global warming  does not mean that the globe warms uniformly. On average it is getting warmer, and as a consequence weather/climate patterns are being disrupted with considerable impact on living things, including humans.



> *Winter ice in the Arctic nears all-time record low*
> 
> Date                March 14, 2015
> *Doyle Rice*
> ...


----------



## Josiah (Mar 14, 2015)

Thank you DW for this timely report. I'll admit that when I saw the title of your thread I thought you would be telling us about warm weather in OZ. 

Your summary suggested the diminished Arctic sea ice "affects wildlife as well as people who live in the Arctic", it also feeds a positive natural feedback loop that further increases Global Warming because ice reflects more sunlight back into space than open water less ice means less reflected sunlight and more warmth.


----------



## BobF (Mar 14, 2015)

For 10 or 20 years now we constantly get this message.   Global warming is here.   But in reality there is not much rise in the temperatures around the world and the oceans.   Lets see, is there any really good temperature changes yet, other than this one time report for this year only, if it is true.   Let us see about where this report came from.   Boulder Colorado is one of this countries very far left thinking places.   Where folks think drinking and drugs are OK and good ways to share life.   Boulder is a place for those folks that live on the streets and in the mountains where they can do these strange things.   I once lived and worked there but did move to another more level headed town 20 miles north where I felt my kids would have a better chance at living straight as they grew up.

What have I just said?   That having lived there I think I know a bit about how biased those folks are.   Modified or hidden data to build a certain thought process they want all to believe.   This has been an ongoing way of thinking about how we will all cook in the daily heats.    Been listening so many years to all this blather yet it does not seem any worse than 20 years ago.   So if truly going to heat up, then maybe our great grand children might be the ones sweating.   Certainly not in our lifetimes.   But then, just before this warming scare got started we were having those scientist that were worried about an new ice age about to take over.   This last winter in the US has seemed like the beginnings of the new ice age to many in the US.

Oh well.    Just have to wait out another twenty years to see if any of today's predictions ever do come true.


----------



## DoItMyself (Mar 14, 2015)

I'm trying to remain open minded about the possibility of climate change.  I do have to question it from a couple of different fronts.

Is it a result of man-made greenhouse gasses, or is it part of a natural cycle?  Do our weather records, which are only a century or so old, accurately reflect a man-made trend, or is it part of a natural cycle and we simply haven't been keeping accurate records long enough to realize it?  Is the data modeling software mature enough to really work, or are much of the conclusions based on speculation and guesses?

I'm not disputing the possibility of man-made climate change.  But I'm also not ruling out the chance that it's a regular part of nature, much the way forest fires in California were before we began putting them out.  We've caused more harm by putting out those fires than we would if we allowed nature to take it's course.  Could the same be said for our efforts to stop climate change?


----------



## Don M. (Mar 14, 2015)

It seems as though all the arguments surrounding "Global Warming" are centered around whether or not it is Man Made.  Rather than Global Warming, a more accurate description...at least in the short term...might be Climate Change.  We are seeing more and more extremes in the weather patterns, and we will soon have to deal with these changes.  Even if human pollution, and use of fossil fuels is causing these changes, there is very little likelihood that anything will, or can, be done to reverse these trends.  It would be wishful thinking that we could cease all use of fossil fuels, so the best we can do is to try to use them in the cleanest and most efficient ways.  

Perhaps the most pressing issue...here in the U.S., is the substantial changes in precipitation between our East and West areas.  While California, and the SW regions are going through an extreme drought, the Eastern half of the nation is seeing increased rain and snow.  If the California drought continues for another couple of years, it is going to have major effects on the entire nation.  California has over 10% of the nations population, and produces much of our produce....AND is rapidly running out of fresh water.  Their lakes are drying up, and the ground water is being quickly used up.  The snowfall in the Sierra Mountains is Not sufficient to replenish this water.  

Rather than sitting around arguing about "Man Made", our efforts would be better directed toward recognizing that these changes ARE taking place, and we should be looking for ways to compensate.


----------



## NancyNGA (Mar 14, 2015)

Maybe the scientists will finally come up with a way to make the rain spread out more evenly?


----------



## BobF (Mar 14, 2015)

Don't want that to happen either.   It will mess up our nice southwest desert country.   All our rich winter residents will stop coming back for the dry heat in the winter.


----------



## Don M. (Mar 14, 2015)

NancyNGA said:


> Maybe the scientists will finally come up with a way to make the rain spread out more evenly?



Scientists have tried for decades to alter weather patterns...cloud seeding, etc., and their efforts have been nil.  If this drought continues for much longer, California, and the nation may have to invest untold billions in desalinization plants, and that will take years to build enough to satisfy the needs.  Another alternative may be to build a huge pipeline from the Mississippi river to the desert SW.  Every day massive amounts of water flows down that river to the Gulf, and if just a small percentage could be diverted, it would probably serve the needs.  Again, that would be a huge, expensive project and could take years.  If this weather doesn't revert to more normal, that is years that California may not have.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 14, 2015)

Or we could invest more in non fossil fuel forms of energy?

The USA is already producing more energy from wind than any other country. This, and solar electricity, should be encouraged even further.

http://aweablog.org/blog/post/a-pleasant-surprise-usa-not-china-is-1-in-wind-energy

Unfortunately my country is walking away from sensible action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

http://www.google.com.au/publicdata..._co2e_pc&idim=country:AUS:USA:NZL&hl=en&dl=en


----------



## Don M. (Mar 14, 2015)

Yes, solar and wind are helping...but even with major advancements in solar, it would take years to make any substantial progress.  But, that doesn't do anything to reduce the Muck that is already in our atmosphere, and affecting weather patterns today.  The drought in our SW, especially California, is here, and expected to last for the foreseeable future, and there will be some major problems in the very near future, if that region doesn't get some much needed rain.  

The ideal solution would be Nuclear Fusion for electrical generation, and Hydrogen power for transportation.  I think we will get there, but probably not for decades.  Meanwhile, there is going to be some major issues.  Fresh Water could very well become the "New Gold" in many parts of this planet.


----------



## BobF (Mar 14, 2015)

Some need to take a closer look at California and other western states.   California already has water from the ocean desalinated and made available to the people.   There are already, and for years, water diversions from the Rocky Mountains to western Colorado, Nevada, California.   Los Angeles gets much of their water from central Sierra Mountains and canals it all the way back to Los Angeles area.   I think the Colorado river is nearly pumped dry by the time it gets to Mexico.

Colorado has lots of wind mills for the power companies.   But I don't think they are reliable enough for any power company to be able to shut down and not use energy to develope steady power.   Here in Arizona we are having some very large solar collectors built, but again, what do they do on a cloudy day or at night?   Not sure anyone is getting their moneys worth so far.   And there is really no need for us all to do without good electrical power for full time use every day.   Unless we wish to go back into the ways it was as I grew up in Ohio.   Rules were quite simple.   In summer you sweat.   In winter we wore sweaters in the house and got very cold when we went outside.    There was no such thing as electronic controls on furnaces or air conditioning for homes.   Maybe that is what some want to go back too.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 14, 2015)

Not all of America:


----------



## Josiah (Mar 14, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Or we could invest more in non fossil fuel forms of energy?
> 
> The USA is already producing more energy from wind than any other country. This, and solar electricity, should be encouraged even further.
> 
> ...




I've been astonished at how rapidly wind and solar have been gaining market share in the US. In part it has been encouraged by tax incentives but of course the government has been giving all the fossil fuel producers tax incentives for years and years. Two things loom ahead that might slow down the increase in renewables, first the sharp decline in the price of fossil fuels and second a possible Republican victory in 2016. Despite these possible roadblocks I think we have finally reached an inflection point in the country's attitude about global warming, at least I haven't seen any Drill Baby Drill bumper stickers lately. I really wish the media would start publicizing the really impressive advancements that Germany has achieved in moving from fossil to renewable energy sources.

I guess I'm a bit startled that OZ hasn't been leading the way towards renewable energy. OZ has certainly experienced some pretty dire global warming consequences what with droughts and wild fires


----------



## BobF (Mar 14, 2015)

One of the reasons the US makes more wind energy than any other country is because we are about the largest country attempting to do so.    Many of the European countries are small, like some of our states.   Australia is near to the US in size but in population you have a long way to go to catch up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States

*Wind power in the United States*

                                                              From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Wind power in the United States* is a branch of the energy industry, expanding quickly over the last several years. As of the end of 2014 the capacity was 65,879 MW. [SUP][1][/SUP] This capacity is exceeded only by China[SUP][2][/SUP] and the European Union[SUP][3][/SUP] 11,895 MW of wind power  was installed in 2012 alone, representing 26.5% of new power capacity.  The U.S. wind industry has had an average annual growth of 25.6% over  the last 10 years (beginning of 2005-end of 2014).[SUP][1][/SUP]  Projects totalling 12,000 MW of capacity were under construction at the  end of 2013, including 10,900 MW that began construction in the 4th  quarter.[SUP][4][/SUP]
 For the 12 months through December 2014, the electricity produced from wind power in the United States amounted to 181.79 terawatt-hours, or 4.44% of all generated electrical energy.[SUP][5]
...........................

To me, the 4.44% seems like a pretty small amount.    I wonder how much more it can get too as many areas of the US are just not well suited for those windmills.   And they trully are ugly when driving through rolling, tree covered areas, and come upon a area cleared of trees and filled with windmills.   For me, they sure spoil the view when driving for natural beauty on vacation and other times.    Where we grew our family, in northern Colorado, we did know about the windmills and knew what they were for.   For the expense I am wondering if they will ever be able to pay for their own expense and upkeep over the years.   I won't live long enough to hear the facts and truth in the years to come.    Right now I believe they are only surviving on taxpayer moneys and little else.
[/SUP]


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 14, 2015)

Josiah said:


> I've been astonished at how rapidly wind and solar have been gaining market share in the US. In part it has been encouraged by tax incentives but of course the government has been giving all the fossil fuel producers tax incentives for years and years. Two things loom ahead that might slow down the increase in renewables, first the sharp decline in the price of fossil fuels and second a possible Republican victory in 2016. Despite these possible roadblocks I think we have finally reached an inflection point in the country's attitude about global warming, at least I haven't seen any Drill Baby Drill bumper stickers lately. I really wish the media would start publicizing the really impressive advancements that Germany has achieved in moving from fossil to renewable energy sources.
> 
> I guess I'm a bit startled that OZ hasn't been leading the way towards renewable energy. OZ has certainly experienced some pretty dire global warming consequences what with droughts and wild fires



Two points - the price of coal is dropping rapidly and the consequence of that is to make it uneconomic to mine. A lot of money is being pumped into infrastructure - ports, rail etc - to allow huge new coal mines to open up in Queensland and New South Wales. The way things are heading it looks like these will soon become stranded assets. Unfortunately these developments are also threatening some of our best agricultural lands and being the hottest, driest continent, we can't afford to lay waste to any fertile land.

We could have been world leaders in innovative technologies such are wind, solar and hot rocks as a source of clean electricity but having an abundance of coal deposits, our governments have consistently supported the old industries over the newer ones. In short we missed the boat because of short sighted thinking.


----------



## Debby (Mar 15, 2015)

Don M. said:


> Yes, solar and wind are helping...but even with major advancements in solar, it would take years to make any substantial progress.  But, that doesn't do anything to reduce the Muck that is already in our atmosphere, and affecting weather patterns today.  The drought in our SW, especially California, is here, and expected to last for the foreseeable future, and there will be some major problems in the very near future, if that region doesn't get some much needed rain.
> 
> The ideal solution would be Nuclear Fusion for electrical generation, and Hydrogen power for transportation.  I think we will get there, but probably not for decades.  Meanwhile, there is going to be some major issues.  Fresh Water could very well become the "New Gold" in many parts of this planet.




I watched a documentary just last week that was discussing that with the projected number of people by 2050 (9 billion I think) there's no way that solar and wind will ever provide enough energy for that many people.  It said that to entirely power one house with solar requires the equivalent of 1/4 acre of panels.  Who's got that big a roof (well if they aren't part of the 1% group).  

It went on to talk about nuclear and the research and new abilities with it.  I think the US researchers have come up with a model that can't ever melt down because it shuts itself down when problems begin.  It also talked about new models still being worked on that will actually 're-burn' the waste from the standard type of reactors.  I'm not sure if those are all the right terminology (probably not but hopefully it gets the point across).


----------



## ~Lenore (Mar 15, 2015)

*South Pole growing!*

Now there's more ice at South Pole than ever 
(So much for global warming thawing Antarctica!)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ole-So-global-warming-thawing-Antarctica.html


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 15, 2015)

The Antarctic Sea ice is indeed spreading out but what is happening to the continental ice? Is it reducing in volume/thickness?
I can't seem to get a clear answer to this question.


----------



## BobF (Mar 15, 2015)

When you speak of the continental ice, which would that be and where?   Are you speaking of Antarctic ice or other continental areas?    I was thinking this article talked about ice over the entire area.s   Did you click on the link on the page?


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 15, 2015)

I did read the article, Bob, and I was talking strictly about Antarctic continental ice deposits. 
The article talks about wind patterns but is fairly superficial in its treatment.
The question remains in my mind - is the volume of Antarctic ice increasing, steady or reducing?
It is a very important question, I think.


----------



## BobF (Mar 15, 2015)

Warrigal, did you use this link.   Now there's more ice at South Pole than ever 
(So much for global warming thawing Antarctica!) 

​
Well, now I can't get the link format to let me alone.   I have gotten out of this mess before but forgot how.     Click on the link and

Go to the newspaper scroll down to the pictures of emporor penguins and read what it says about the ice at the polar area.   I read it to say ice is thicker.

Growth: Ice around the South Pole has expanded to cover a record area. Emperor penguins are pictured on the ice
Next picture:

Rise: For the last 30 years the amount of Antarctic sea ice has been increasing by 1 per cent each decade........................

To me this says the ice in general has grown.

Wish I knew how to avoid or break this strange formatting.   It is gone now but I did not do it
​​


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 15, 2015)

No it says the area of sea ice has grown. The thickness of the sea ice is not well known. You need both measures to calculate the volume and hence the total mass of the sea ice.


> 'The ice thickness is regarded  amongst climate scientists as the holy grail of determining changes in  the system,' Antarctic marine glaciologist Jan Lieser said.
> 
> 'If we can determine the change in the thickness of the sea ice we can  estimate the rate of change that is due to global warming.'



We also don't really know the depth of the continental ice. Obviously it varies with the terrain which is itself not that well known.  There is some suggestion that the continental ice is melting at the lower levels with the water flowing out to sea through ice tunnels. When a lot of fresh water enters the system deleting the salinity, the melting point of ice increases so this produces a  feedback loop that could be protecting the sea ice.

It is very complex and it's very difficult to evaluate what is happening from the area of sea ice alone.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 16, 2015)

Co-incidentally I noticed a news report this morning about the melting of glacial ice in Antarctica. It's not good news.
It's in the Washington Post.


 Tuesday, March 17 2015
Energy and Environment

*The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse.*
By Chris Mooney March 16 at 12:17 PM    

A hundred years from now, humans may remember 2014 as the year that we first learned that we may have irreversibly destabilized the great ice sheet of West Antarctica, and thus set in motion more than 10 feet of sea level rise.

Meanwhile, 2015 could be the year of the double whammy — when we learned the same about one gigantic glacier of East Antarctica, which could set in motion roughly the same amount all over again. Northern Hemisphere residents and Americans in particular should take note — when the bottom of the world loses vast amounts of ice, those of us living closer to its top get _more_ sea level rise than the rest of the planet, thanks to the law of gravity.

The findings about East Antarctica emerge from a new paper just out in Nature Geoscience by an international team of scientists representing the United States, Britain, France and Australia. They flew a number of research flights over the Totten Glacier of East Antarctica — the fastest-thinning sector of the world’s largest ice sheet — and took a variety of measurements to try to figure out the reasons behind its retreat. And the news wasn’t good: It appears that Totten, too, is losing ice because warm ocean water is getting underneath it.

“The idea of warm ocean water eroding the ice in West Antarctica, what we’re finding is that may well be applicable in East Antarctica as well,” says Martin Siegert, a co-author of the study and who is based at the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London.

The floating ice shelf of the Totten Glacier covers an area of 90 miles by 22 miles. It it is losing an amount of ice “equivalent to 100 times the volume of Sydney Harbour every year,” notes the Australian Antarctic Division.

That’s alarming, because the glacier holds back a much more vast catchment of ice that, were its vulnerable parts to flow into the ocean, could produce a sea level rise of more than 11 feet — which is comparable to the impact from a loss of the West Antarctica ice sheet*.* And that’s “a conservative lower limit,” says lead study author Jamin Greenbaum, a PhD candidate at the University of Texas at Austin.

More here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ica-was-already-really-bad-it-just-got-worse/


----------



## BobF (Mar 16, 2015)

I guess I will have to write to my a person who has been doing seasons on the Antarctica continent.   Don't know if she still does that but might be worth the question anyway.    So later, or maybe tomorrow I might have an answer from her experience.   I do not trust much of the global warming stuff as far too much is based on political preaching.   Many many years back they were telling us all about the many evil's happening to the world.   Now we are still waiting for many of their predictions of 15 years ago to come true.   So how good are their current predictions?    I will ask someone I know and see how her response is.   Am I a skeptic?    You bet I am.   And will be until we get the politics ot of the weather predicting and monitoring.   Let the scientist have their world back and free to write as they will.   We really do not need a UN group telling our scientist how to report.   A couple years back even the UN group was saying it was all political garbage being printed.   So what has changed?


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 16, 2015)

It is a pity that such an important issue has been politicised by powerful vested interests.

I'm not so much interested in the predictions because with complex systems like weather and climate you will also be taking a shot in the dark. However, I am interested in the scientists' observations and conclusions about that is actually happening now. As more measurements are made and more data is collected we begin to get a clearer picture of our current situation. IMO, it does not bode well for the future.

You'll notice that the article in my earlier post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ica-was-already-really-bad-it-just-got-worse/) is about attempts to estimate the total volume/mass of the Antarctic ice and how it is changing over time. This is science, not politics.


----------



## BobF (Mar 16, 2015)

I did send out my email to this Antarctica person.   Be interested in the response.

Keep in mind that many of those folks work for the government and like the wages they get.   If the government supports melting I think they will try to support their paymaster if possible.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 16, 2015)

I refuse to believe that scientists are that malleable.

In any case, our government does not support melting. 
Our PM thinks climate change is crap.
He has defunded the Climate Change Commission that was meant to be an advisory body for government and abolished the emissions trading scheme established by the previous government.

Now they are defunding research bodies, including the CSIRO.
We are losing all kinds of scientists right, left and centre, 
so I don't think that they are about to tell lies for this or any other government.


----------



## BobF (Mar 16, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> I refuse to believe that scientists are that malleable.
> 
> In any case, our government does not support melting.
> Our PM thinks climate change is crap.
> ...



The US government never went for the UN IPCC stuff prior to the current government.   Not in Clinton's day or Bush's times.   We did have a strange VP that insisted we had to buy into his security system that would make our businesses and lives OK.   I think that has all faded away now.   I know his wife faded away from him.

Well, I did write to someone that had worked there, not sure about how recently so will have to wait till I get a response or find some of the contrary places that do post for or against climate change for about 15 years now.   

Have a good evening and good sleep.   This topic is not something to lose sleep over.


----------



## BobF (Mar 17, 2015)

Still no response from my Antarctica person.   So still waiting.   I may have to write to another person to find if she is down there now, or if she even does that work any more.

Here is another recent post about global warming.

http://www.newsmax.com/MKTNews/global-warming-hoax-facts/2014/10/17/id/601458/

Tuesday March 17,  2015

*New Reports: There Is No Global Warming*


                                              Monday, 16 Mar 2015 10:20 PM


                   The liberal media machine has spent decades bulldozing anyone who tells you global warming is a sham.  

They even came up with a clever little title — “deniers.”  

Every time a heat wave hits, every time a picture of a lone polar bear  gets taken . . . the left pounds the table for environmental reform,  more policy, more money to combat climate change.  But how much has the  world really warmed?

Their message is simple: Get on the man-made global warming bandwagon . . . or you’re just ignorant.

But how much has the world really warmed?

It’s an important question, considering the U.S. government spends $22  billion a year to fight the global warming crisis (twice as much as it  spends protecting our border). 

To put that in perspective, that is $41,856 every minute going to global warming initiatives. 

*But that's just the tip of a gargantuan iceberg.*

(and more to read)
​
​


----------



## DoItMyself (Mar 17, 2015)

Josiah said:


> I've been astonished at how rapidly wind and solar have been gaining market share in the US. In part it has been encouraged by tax incentives but of course the government has been giving all the fossil fuel producers tax incentives for years and years. Two things loom ahead that might slow down the increase in renewables, first the sharp decline in the price of fossil fuels and second a possible Republican victory in 2016. Despite these possible roadblocks I think we have finally reached an inflection point in the country's attitude about global warming, at least I haven't seen any Drill Baby Drill bumper stickers lately. I really wish the media would start publicizing the really impressive advancements that Germany has achieved in moving from fossil to renewable energy sources.



Here in Iowa around 1/3 of our electricity is generated by wind.  At my home about 70% of the electricity we use comes from local wind power, and Iowa enjoys some of the lowest electric rates in the country.  The Rock Island Clean Line (which I support) will make Iowa a net energy exporter, and provide not only good paying, permanent jobs, but significant landowner royalties as well as increased property tax revenues.  We're already discussing how we can reduce homeowner property taxes if the clean line is approved.  Germany isn't the only one making serious headway into clean, renewable energy.

And wind power in Iowa has the full support of the republican governor, both republican and democrat senators/legislators, MidAmerican Energy, and virtually every county supervisor I know regardless of party affiliation.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 17, 2015)

Bob, the opening paragraphs of that article demonstrate that the focus is not on science but on a particular political opinion.

This is what I'm referring to



> T*he liberal media machine has spent decades bulldozing anyone who tells you global warming is a sham.
> *
> They even came up with a clever little title — “deniers.”
> 
> ...



Now for the science. The chart does not say what temperatures are being measured By clicking on it to the source article I read this:



> The reality is this: The world is 1.08 degrees cooler than it was in 1998.
> Just take a look at this chart from Remote Sensing Systems, which provides data to NASA, NOAA, and other scientific organizations.



However, unless we have an explanation of what the temperature values are ('the world' is a little too imprecise for my liking) and how they are arrived at, I cannot possibly accept the proposition that "the world is getting cooler". Average data of air temperatures at ground level indicates that records have been broken  very frequently since 2000. In fact 14 of the 15 hottest years recorded have all been in the 21st century. (ref http://www.unaavictoria.org.au/news...-as-global-warming-continues-un-agency-warns/)


Another source provides this temperature anomaly graph that clearly shows an ongoing trend towards warming. It would appear that NASA and NOAA don't agree that the world is cooling. Neither do the Japanese or the British.


Source:http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=85083


----------



## Ralphy1 (Mar 18, 2015)

Could use some of that warming right now in my little corner of the world!


----------



## rkunsaw (Mar 18, 2015)

Political opinions in the trash and scientific predictions, just that, predictions, we can learn a lot from historic fact. 

The earth has been warming, the ice melting, and the oceans rising since the last ice age. Many civilizations that came along during that 15,000 year period, as many today, have built major cities along the coasts. In recent years the remnants many such ancient cities have been discovered in many parts of the world offshore along coasts under varying depths of water. There have been several ice ages in earth's history and of course followed by GLOBAL WARMING. It was not and will not be, the end of civilization. How much of the land mass might be under water from this GLOBAL WARMING period will depend on how long it lasts until the next cooling period which could lead to another ice age. Scientists were predicting a new ice age less than fifty years ago. 

Yes, GLOBAL WARMING is happening, and has been happening for 15,000 years or so. Did humans contribute to it in the past? NO! Are humans contributing to it now? NOT MUCH if any.

If it worries you, sell you house by the sea and move to higher ground.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 18, 2015)

rkunsaw said:


> If it worries you, sell you house by the sea and move to higher ground.



Hard to do if you are a resident of Vanuatu. I guess all of the countries that live around the Pacific rim will just have to move over to allow the displaced islanders some lebensraum.


----------



## rkunsaw (Mar 18, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Hard to do if you are a resident of Vanuatu. I guess all of the countries that live around the Pacific rim will just have to move over to allow the displaced islanders some lebensraum.



Yes, that's the way it works. Some of the ancient cities were on islands that no longer exist. Places such as Vanuatu, the Maldives and other low lying areas were on much higher ground during the last ice age. Things change. Those who adapt to change best are the ones who survive.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 18, 2015)

So, if we can't do anything about the global warming, can we at least facilitate the relocation of the islanders to America and Australia where presumably there will be plenty of dry land? You'll have more of it because Oz is rather flat.


----------



## rkunsaw (Mar 18, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> So, if we can't do anything about the global warming, can we at least facilitate the relocation of the islanders to America and Australia where presumably there will be plenty of dry land? You'll have more of it because Oz is rather flat.



Sure, send them to America. Canada would be a great place since they are the American country that  has a large amount of land that is thinly populated. It may be cold now but It's sure to get much warmer soon.


----------



## BobF (Mar 18, 2015)

*I'm delighted to hear from you.  I'll get back with you with more soon.  Kate just got back from her fifth season working in Antartica.  Marty has  been there 4 times.  It's become a family addiction! *
...................
Warrigal, this is the person I said I would try to connect to.   Still waiting for some time from her for questions and answers.   She, and both of her kids, daughter and son, are all college grads and not fools or being kidded by nonsense, I hope.  Meaning that I don't think any of them are political in how they think about Antartica.  We will see when she does have time to exchange notes.   If she is still spending time in Antarctica it will likely be 10 years now.    And as she pointed out her kids have  done 4 and 5 years also.

Right now I am a great skeptic of lots of this global warming fear and what a couple have posted above, really fits my idea than anything we have created in recent years.   A few years back a lot of stuff was started and many of those ideas were found to be faulted or modified data points.   I have comments from a UN IPCC group that once said it was nothing yet that can be proved.   I think too much of this fear stuff is mostly driven by political efforts than by real scientific groups.   We have two groups battling this idea.   One says global warming and the other say not so.

I hope this person responds soon.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 18, 2015)

Thanks Bob.
I'll be very interested to read her response.


----------



## BobF (Mar 19, 2015)

In the mean time, here are a couple of older articles to read that think warming is not happening.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/08/wheres_global_warming/


Where's global warming?
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / March 8, 2009  


<Clip>


The United States has shivered through an unusually severe winter, with snow falling in such unlikely destinations as New Orleans, Las Vegas, Alabama, and Georgia. On Dec. 25, every Canadian province woke up to a white Christmas, something that hadn't happened in 37 years. Earlier this year, Europe was gripped by such a killing cold wave that trains were shut down in the French Riviera and chimpanzees in the Rome Zoo had to be plied with hot tea. Last week, satellite data showed three of the Great Lakes - Erie, Superior, and Huron - almost completely frozen over. In Washington, D.C., what was supposed to be a massive rally against global warming was upstaged by the heaviest snowfall of the season, which paralyzed the capital.


<Clip>
....................................


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html




Climate facts to warm to


Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008  


CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.


Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"


She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."


Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"


Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."  
........................................

Unfortunately the Australian link won't open now.   It did years back when I copied and saved it.   Don't know why it won't open now.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 19, 2015)

Bob, one of the principles of science is that when new evidence is unearthed, older conclusions are sometimes invalidated. That's why I'm not too interested in looking at older articles, especially if I think that they are politically motivated. I'm interested in the latest data because the methods of observation/investigation are continually improving and becoming more sophisticated.


----------



## BobF (Mar 19, 2015)

Warming is definitely political as it was a nothing topic till Clinton and Gore were around.   Even then it was mostly Gore and not Clinton.   Then more right leaning folks took over and there was nothing about warming for 8 years, then the left returned and since then we always hear about warming up.   But we never really see any proofs of those warm times and we do have some rather extensive winters now.   That chart you posted showed one degree in over 100 years.   Maybe another 1 degree in the next 100 years before it starts down again.   Who knows?


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 19, 2015)

One degree Celsius on average over the whole planet represents a lot of heat build up in the system.
That is why weather patterns are becoming more violent. We still have time to reverse the trend but there is a point of no return looming. After that things will get really crazy.

My advice - ignore the politicians unless they are listening to the best scientists who are working in this or related fields. Also ignore big business  who are protecting their short term profits without regard for the greater good.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Mar 20, 2015)

Spring arrives here today with a few inches of snow...


----------



## BobF (Mar 23, 2015)

Warrigal, your warning to ignore the politicians should be what you should be doing.   Far too much of what some consider to be scientist are just those likely wanting to keep their jobs so they preach and emphasize what their bosses want to hear.   We also have a lot of scientist that do not bend to government wishes as they really do prefer to be scientist and not the fools of politicians as far too many are doing.

If we really were warming as some folks claim, why are we having so many really cold winters.   Winters like in 2008, the items I posted earlier, and this year again where most of the US has been having exceptional cold, deep snows of record numbers, and it has been for much of the winter season.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 23, 2015)

Bob, we are certainly not having record cold Winters down here. 

I don't know the answer to your question but it has been explained by others. It has something to do with changed conditions shifting the location of the polar vortex, whatever that is.



> *What is a polar vortex?*
> 
> A polar vortex is a system of upper-level winds that circle around one of the poles.  Such circumpolar wind systems exist most of the time at both the North and South Poles, but they can change in strength depending on season and also special atmospheric conditions.  They surround and help to define the coldest regions on earth, and in popular accounts the term polar vortex is often applied to the cold polar air mass itself.  In the northern hemisphere, the arctic polar vortex interacts extensively with the polar jet stream and may affect weather patterns at mid-latitudes.
> 
> ...


----------



## BobF (Mar 23, 2015)

As I read that it is still lots of  science and not much decisions about what is going on.

Now the type of vortex I am talking about is the one sided push for global warming, far left folks; while others are not pushing so hard and are more into just wobbling temps as temps so often to go.   Much more time than left for me before we really know if we are actually warming or cooling.   One degree Centigrade over a 100 year time frame is not very much at all.   It could all be washed out with cooling in a short time, maybe another 100 years.

Nothing has been proven yet.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 23, 2015)

> One degree Centigrade over a 100 year time frame is not very much at all.   It could all be washed out with cooling in a short time, maybe another 100 years.



Exactly. It's still not too late to turn it around.
But there will come a time when any efforts we may make will be entirely fruitless.


----------



## BobF (Mar 23, 2015)

OK Warrigal, there is nothing to turn around at all.   It will take a lot more time and less political nonsense to get beyond this global warming or not stuff.   At one point it was obvious that a lot of the global warming stuff was pure lies and distortions at the UN meetings and also at one of the English places.   Data had been made up and distorted to fit someones idea of what needed to be reported and did so and ignored the real data.

At least now it seems that the UN bunch have published that they do not do the data, that is up to the national members.

Something I just found out.   One person I liked in the UN group has retired.   I liked him as he is the one who wrote the letter that he was not saying the earth suffered from global warming.   It was just certain of the reporting scientist that claimed that.   I was looking for the letter he wrote saying that when I found his retirement letter of February 24, 2015.   I will continue to look for his letter.

Here is his letter.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/150224_pachauri_letter.pdf


----------



## Denise1952 (Mar 23, 2015)

I know that a lot of things that change in our environment are being changed by what "man/woman" does, but also, if we go back far enough, the Earth is really an ever-changing planet, not all caused by man.  It doesn't surprise me, maybe it should scare me if I think of a particular Twilight Zone episode where this gal was living in an apartment in NY City, dying of the heat, the planet I mean, was being "cooked to death" by the Sun.  Then she wakes up, realizes she was dreaming, and finds that the planet is actually freezing, or was it the other way around.

All the more reason to enjoy life while we have the chance


----------



## BobF (Mar 23, 2015)

And here is a quote from Pachauri.    He is admitting that the UN IPCC is just following political leads.

*Pachauri admits purpose of the  UN IPCC report it to make the case that 'action is needed  on  climate  change': 'There will be enough information provided so that  rational people across the globe will see that action is needed on  climate change'*


*Pachauri admits the IPCC  science reports are tailored to meet the political needs  of  governments: 'We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the  governments of the world want us to do. If the governments decide we  should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of  products we would be at their beck and call.'*


[url]http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/19/ipcc-chairman-climate-report?CMP=twt_fd
[/URL]


----------



## Don M. (Mar 23, 2015)

The IPCC, IMO, is just a charade being conducted by governments to make the public "think" that they are serious about taking actions.  The rulers of these governments know that by the time that any significant effects of Climate Change occur, they, and all the rest of us, will be long gone.  At the present rates of change, it will be well into the next century before rising oceans, etc., really begin to impact the populations.  We Cannot cease the use of fossil fuels, unless everyone agrees to turn the clocks back 3 or 4 hundred years.  By the time sufficient amounts of alternative energy become available, the weather patterns will be altered such that nothing we can do will change them.  

Climate Change must be looked at from a perspective of decades...not just one or two years.  In the US, the best indicator might be the ongoing drought in California, and the entire SW, vs. the excessive amounts of snow and precipitation occurring in the Eastern half of the nation...but even this must be looked at in the context of how many more years this continues.  If California doesn't get some serious rain in the next 2 or 3 years, we will see the effects at the grocery stores...as a significant amount of our fruits and vegetables come from the San Joaquin Valley.       

Many of the "scientific" reports currently being bantered about are increasingly being subsidized by those who would profit from these studies.  As such, it is very hard to believe many of them.  

The planet is going through the early stages of climate change....as it has done many times in the past.  The problem now is that there are over 7 billion people who could be potentially impacted....and that number is scheduled to grow to 9 billion by mid century, and as many as 12 billion by the end of this century.  Between overpopulation, and a changing climate, those living 100 years from now will have some serious issues to deal with.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 23, 2015)

My thoughts in blue.


nwlady said:


> I know that a lot of things that change in our environment are being changed by what "man/woman" does, but also, if we go back far enough, the Earth is really an ever-changing planet, not all caused by man.
> 
> No-one in their right mind would claim that the earth is static. It is a very dynamic and complex system and just as well, or there would be no life on it at all. We rely on the seasons, the weather, the tides and the cycle of erosion and renewal, the movement of the earth's crust that produces earthquakes and volcanoes.
> 
> ...


----------



## BobF (Mar 24, 2015)

Or generations that will curse us for taking away lots of reasons and ways for creating a decent way for them to stay comfortable even when the weather is severe.   No fuels for generation of electricity, pretty sad living for no reason, just mistaken ideas.   And so forth, on and on.   We have no substitute for these fuels some wish to be taken from us.   

In the US we have lots of coals for fuel for the next hundreds of years.   Our test plant was ready for testing in Indiana as Obama became President.   He shut down the test.   And pushed instead for unproven and shown to be inadequate wind and solar methods instead.   So Obama changed from a likely winner to likely failures with nothing more than Obama's ideas.   He actually blocked the necessary testing of a clean coal process for generating electrical energy.   This test plant could have shown us what could really generate energy with out polluting our atmosphere and countries around the world could have benefited from the success of the test.   The expense of the test was already spent so nothing lost if the test had proceeded.

This just goes to show that far too much of the push against coal and other fuels is just a nasty POLITICAL effort and very little chance that our windmills and solar items will ever be able to do the job that our other fuel means had been and could be doing.   Over all, must less expensive and more efficient that what has been proposed and pushed on us.


----------

