Disappearing frontier: Alaska's glaciers retreating at record pace

[CGW]

What is reported in the MSM is off course cherry picked, even NASA tells us a different story, but facts often don't fit the objective?

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2844/fire-below-ice-above-volcanoes-glaciers-and-sea-level-rise/

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, Saint Nick said:

Yes...all good and true!

But still: new problems need new solutions!

Rising sea levels, rising ocean temperatures, weather extremes, the hottest year on record being always the one we are in...those are facts and they need to be addressed and solutions need to be found!

You, putting on rose tinted glasses, sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalala...I can't hear you", is NOT the solution!

yes, lets have look at those rising sea levels, and put it into perspective.

does it look like an exponential increase the past 50 years to you ?

[Saint Nick]

3 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Since you know nothing about my views on global warming beyond the fact that they seem to differ from yours, that is an absurd statement.

 

One problem with this debate is that the demand for global climate catastrophes far outweighs the supply. 

 

Sea level has been rising (at a minuscule rate) and temperatures have been rising  - quite modestly - recently. But nowhere in the best scientific literature available does it suggest that trashing capitalism is either necessary or desirable.

 

The script that the climate activists have decided to follow is almost unrecognisably different from the best scientific and economic advice.

Trashing capitalism?

Who want to do that?

I mean...I personally would have a look into that, but the discussion is not about "trashing" capitalism!

Closing coal- mines, that need subsidising and opening research facilities and windfarms or solarplants, that actually offer jobs and the prospect of gains and profit...is just finding new opportunities!

No one says, that workers at windfarms or im hydro- powerplants are working for free and for fun! 

[VocalNeal]

3 hours ago, Saint Nick said:

Rising sea levels, rising ocean temperatures, weather extremes, the hottest year on record being always the one we are in...those are facts and they need to be addressed and solutions need to be found!

The planet used to be warmer. Fossil records in Canada show a temperate climate or hotter in the arctic. CO2 levels are too low for plants to be really happy they would like 1000 ppm not 400. 

Sea levels are the real worry if one has a beach house. But they have also been higher than now. 

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

Trashing capitalism?

Who want to do that?

Oh, that's easy. Virtually every prominent activist and activist group -- that is to say, those given space and airtime by the legacy media.

 

You can start with the already mentioned Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), plus senior IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, who wrote: "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. .. We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." 

 

Have you ever read the mission statements of the Big Green NGOs? Try Greenpeace, which said as long ago as 1989 that ".. Greenpeace will have to take the lead in promoting the shift to a new economic order” It advocated “sweeping changes in the major systems of production,“ which “would be undertaken for a social purpose: environmental improvement." This represents social (as contrasted with private) governance of the means of production. That last, incidentally, being one of Karl Marx's key demands.

 

Then you can add in best-selling author Naomi Klein, the prominent activist Bill "Weepy" McKibben (350.org), Greta Thunberg, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the whiny nimrods from Extinction Rebellion, those climate experts Prince Charles and Bob Geldof, and a whole tawdry cast of others, including the legacy media, all caught up in a web of moral self-righteousness.

 

It's not as if they hide their disgust of capitalism; most of these groups and individuals are proud of it and flaunt it as a badge of honor.

[jany123]

On 12/10/2019 at 7:21 AM, DoctorG said:

Typical of you and @sirineou to not refute what I wrote but just to continue pressing your mantra.

What’s to refute? You made an observation followed by the two word statement... “so surprising”.... is that what should be refuted?

 

On 12/10/2019 at 6:39 AM, DoctorG said:

Let me see now. Photo at the beginning of summer with ice; photo at the end of summer with less ice. So surprising! ????

The description of the photo includes “... this summers ice loss...”. So again... what’s to refute?

[Saint Nick]

38 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Oh, that's easy. Virtually every prominent activist and activist group -- that is to say, those given space and airtime by the legacy media.

 

You can start with the already mentioned Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), plus senior IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, who wrote: "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. .. We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." 

 

Have you ever read the mission statements of the Big Green NGOs? Try Greenpeace, which said as long ago as 1989 that ".. Greenpeace will have to take the lead in promoting the shift to a new economic order” It advocated “sweeping changes in the major systems of production,“ which “would be undertaken for a social purpose: environmental improvement." This represents social (as contrasted with private) governance of the means of production. That last, incidentally, being one of Karl Marx's key demands.

 

Then you can add in best-selling author Naomi Klein, the prominent activist Bill "Weepy" McKibben (350.org), Greta Thunberg, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the whiny nimrods from Extinction Rebellion, those climate experts Prince Charles and Bob Geldof, and a whole tawdry cast of others, including the legacy media, all caught up in a web of moral self-righteousness.

 

It's not as if they hide their disgust of capitalism; most of these groups and individuals are proud of it and flaunt it as a badge of honor.

"redistribute", "shift"...not "get rid of"!

"Social" not socialist!

 

And I personally don't see any harm in rethinking some "capitalist" ideas, if Jeff Besos owns 140 billion U$ and his workers can't go to toilet, because they miss their "quota"!

Capitalism is good and nice, but it has gotten way out of hand, when a hand full pillage the land and others can not live of it anymore!

[Saint Nick]

57 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

The planet used to be warmer. Fossil records in Canada show a temperate climate or hotter in the arctic. CO2 levels are too low for plants to be really happy they would like 1000 ppm not 400. 

Sea levels are the real worry if one has a beach house. But they have also been higher than now. 

Yes...and there once were dinosaurs, roaming the Earth and man thought the Earth was flat!

 

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, Saint Nick said:

Trashing capitalism?

Who want to do that?

I mean...I personally would have a look into that, but the discussion is not about "trashing" capitalism!

Closing coal- mines, that need subsidising and opening research facilities and windfarms or solarplants, that actually offer jobs and the prospect of gains and profit...is just finding new opportunities!

No one says, that workers at windfarms or im hydro- powerplants are working for free and for fun! 

you are dead wrong about the economic viability & reliability of windmills,

in germany who was dumb enough to bet on it, electricity is now considered a luxury,

and they still need the coal plants for when the wind dont blow.

they have been labeled a wealth destroying technology

[metisdead]

Some inflammatory posts and replies have been removed. 

[Saint Nick]

55 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

you are dead wrong about the economic viability & reliability of windmills,

in germany who was dumb enough to bet on it, electricity is now considered a luxury,

and they still need the coal plants for when the wind dont blow.

they have been labeled a wealth destroying technology

Read this, please!

I am happy to help with your education!

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

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

[Catoholic]

The same government that can't keep witnesses alive in jail is expected to save the world's population ...

 

How dare you!

[Saint Nick]

1 hour ago, brokenbone said:

you are dead wrong about the economic viability & reliability of windmills,

in germany who was dumb enough to bet on it, electricity is now considered a luxury,

and they still need the coal plants for when the wind dont blow.

they have been labeled a wealth destroying technology

"you are dead wrong about the economic viability & reliability of windmills,

in germany who was dumb enough to bet on it, electricity is now considered a luxury,"   wrong! Totally wrong and missing any kind of source for this laughable claim! 

"and they still need the coal plants for when the wind dont blow." wrong! Except for the fact, that I would also like to see a quote for this next laughable claim: you know how BATTERIES work, don't you?

"they have been labeled a wealth destroying technology" by whom? Please also give me a source for this laughable claim! 

[brokenbone]

19 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

Read this, please!

I am happy to help with your education!

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

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

i was watching a german engineer talking about the issues first hand,

cant re find it on a whim but here is another article

on the issues http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/01/27/the-economics-of-wind-power/

[brokenbone]

2 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

"you are dead wrong about the economic viability & reliability of windmills,

in germany who was dumb enough to bet on it, electricity is now considered a luxury,"   wrong! Totally wrong and missing any kind of source for this laughable claim! 

"and they still need the coal plants for when the wind dont blow." wrong! Except for the fact, that I would also like to see a quote for this next laughable claim: you know how BATTERIES work, don't you?

"they have been labeled a wealth destroying technology" by whom? Please also give me a source for this laughable claim! 

no, the only feasible 'battery' that would have any prospect of being viable

in this case would be pumping water uphill on those occasions when the wind blow,

and extract the potential energy when it dont blow

[CGW]

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Oh, that's easy. Virtually every prominent activist and activist group -- that is to say, those given space and airtime by the legacy media.

It's just another step to a global "Police force" IMO, "they" need a central agency to tell everybody what to do to prevent "climate change" you would think that society would have learnt not to trust by now - ????

[MeePeeMai]

Suck on this Greta:    

Climate Shock: 90 Percent Of The World’s Glaciers Are GROWING (according to NASA)

https://principia-scientific.org/climate-shock-90-percent-worlds-glaciers-growing/

 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/a-surprise-one-of-earths-fastest-shrinking-glaciers-is-suddenly-growing-again/333764

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

1 hour ago, brokenbone said:

i was watching a german engineer talking about the issues first hand,

cant re find it on a whim but here is another article

on the issues http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/01/27/the-economics-of-wind-power/

That article is from 2011 so the costs it talks about are totally out of date, invalidating many of its calculations. Its conclusions area also manifestly wrong. For instance, it says that:

Quote

 

[Wind turbines] must be paired with other generators of equivalent power to compensate for wind variations and for the stability of the  electricity grid.

This pairing—wind and backup—has limits [...] It is estimated that this pairing can account for only 20 percent of the capacity of the grid. This means that wind can be only 6 percent of the generation (.20 x .3). 

 

 

Many, many countries have already way surpassed that. Denmark was already producing 43% of its total energy needs from wind power in 2017 and is on course to make it 50% by 2020. Germany was at 19% in 2017.

[brokenbone]

3 hours ago, MeePeeMai said:

Suck on this Greta:    

Climate Shock: 90 Percent Of The World’s Glaciers Are GROWING (according to NASA)

https://principia-scientific.org/climate-shock-90-percent-worlds-glaciers-growing/

 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

 

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/a-surprise-one-of-earths-fastest-shrinking-glaciers-is-suddenly-growing-again/333764

 

time has in any case run out, we are heading for colder times,

every article on warming from this point on is fake from start to finish

[toast1]

>What's with the incessant reporting on climate change doomsday news?  Seems like there's a new article every other day.  And it's all slanted in favour of climate change alarmists.  Don't see articles with countering viewpoints at all.

 

Yes, like the Bangkok Post, The Nation has taken a Socialist view of this and other subjects.

 

Thousands of hysterical end of the world articles, nothing from the other side, on which a great deal of scientific research and many prominent scientists state that this is all garbage that makes money for those in on the scam. 
 

 

Still, it gives opportunity for angry virtue signalling.

 

[Dumbastheycome]

On 12/10/2019 at 9:36 AM, Tippaporn said:

What's with the incessant reporting on climate change doomsday news?  Seems like there's a new article every other day.  And it's all slanted in favour of climate change alarmists.  Don't see articles with countering viewpoints at all.

Perhaps that is because the measured  evidence negates "countering viewpoints" ?

The reality is that regardless of attributable  cause it is happening and  if continues  for another decade will have a drastic impact on  many things  globally.

Denial only impedes consideration  of how to deal with that impact.

The view point that it is nothing humanity has caused is irrelevant to that reality.

 

[Scott]

You can stop with the endless posting of screenshots with no attribution and little or no explanation.  

 

It is a discussion forum.   Discuss matters and post substantiating links.  

[jastheace]

10 hours ago, brokenbone said:

time has in any case run out, we are heading for colder times,

every article on warming from this point on is fake from start to finish

thanks for the info. my a/c went wrong today, and I will rely on this valuable information to instal heating instead.

[brokenbone]

48 minutes ago, Scott said:

You can stop with the endless posting of screenshots with no attribution and little or no explanation.  

 

It is a discussion forum.   Discuss matters and post substantiating links.  

for those of us that still view this as a technical rather then political issue,

data is everything, and graphs are the most suitable means of transferring

and presenting those data

https://guides.library.illinois.edu/copyrightreferenceguide/fairuse

 

Fair Use of Tables, Charts, & Graphs for Research Purposes

Frequently, researchers wish to utilize charts or graphs of factual data created by another author in their own research or publication. As noted on the Copyright Basics page, copyright protection does not extend to protect facts. The question, then, is whether copyright protection extends to the "arrangement" of facts as presented in charts and graphs. Generally speaking, if there is only one real way to present the data, whether it be a pie chart or a graph, the factual representation is not protected by copyright.

[Scott]

2 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

for those of us that still view this as a technical rather then political issue,

data is everything

You may post data, but please make sure it has an explanation that is sufficient for most interested readers to understand and make sure it is properly attributed.   Screenshots must be given a source and cannot violate Fair Use, which means only 3 sentences and a link.  

 

[Krataiboy]

17 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Perhaps that is because the measured  evidence negates "countering viewpoints" ?

The reality is that regardless of attributable  cause it is happening and  if continues  for another decade will have a drastic impact on  many things  globally.

Denial only impedes consideration  of how to deal with that impact.

The view point that it is nothing humanity has caused is irrelevant to that reality.

 

We are talking here about a science, not a religious cult which is what climate change alarmism has become. Science is NEVER settled, otherwise we'd still believe the earth was flat, the sun circled the earth and many other theories which time has exposed as erroneous.

 

Plenty of eminent scientists disagree with the IPCC's projections on global warming (or climate change as it has been re-branded after the embarrasing lengthy haitus) and even more with the apocalypse-now doomsayers and their sad little human shield, Greta Thunberg.

 

Silencing doubters and critics is for fascists, not scientists, whose ethical duty is to encourage their hypotheses to be tested to destruction. The fact that in this case the opposite is true speaks for itself.

[Krataiboy]

On 12/11/2019 at 9:45 AM, Saint Nick said:

a) utter BS!

b) see a!

If only. You should talk to Ida Auken and her nutty chums in the World Economic Forum. On second thoughts, I'll let her speak for herself.

 

"Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city - or should I say, 'our city'. I don't own anything. I don't own a car. I don't own a house. I don't own any appliances or any clothes."

 

It gets better. . . 

 

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/shopping-i-can-t-really-remember-what-that-is/

[toast1]

>Denial only impedes consideration  of how to deal with that impact.

 

The more hysterical, end of the world nonsense people write, the more anyone who disagrees is called a denier, the more most people realise this is a fraud.

Its not science, its a religion.

Lets people virtue signal their superiority, does a lot of harm. 

[3NUMBAS]

condo owners can rent them out for duck farms in a few years time .all those malls will have a short lifespan ..and the metro will be flooded but skytrain just about workable

[Cryingdick]

4 hours ago, toast1 said:

>Denial only impedes consideration  of how to deal with that impact.

 

The more hysterical, end of the world nonsense people write, the more anyone who disagrees is called a denier, the more most people realise this is a fraud.

Its not science, its a religion.

Lets people virtue signal their superiority, does a lot of harm. 

 

The most successful scams in the history of mankind always use a false sense of urgency.   If you don't act immediately.... some horrible scenario will happen. 

 

The people that create these stories do not act urgently themselves. Like there is always a wildfire story somewhere. Paradise, California is one such place. The people go on camera and blame it on climate change. Meanwhile they rebuild in the same place.

 

If it's that urgent and severe they need to relocate immediately.