Xtra News Community 2
February 20, 2018, 02:25:45 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Xtra News Community 2 — please also join our XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP.
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links BITEBACK! XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP Staff List Login Register  

Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”


Pages: 1 ... 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”  (Read 12069 times)
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 28443


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #1100 on: December 21, 2017, 01:16:01 pm »

Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 851


« Reply #1101 on: December 21, 2017, 02:53:28 pm »

"Fake science" from some of the most experienced climatolagists on the planet. Isn't it time you extracted your head from your arse and started engaging braincells? 😁
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 28443


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #1102 on: December 27, 2017, 10:32:12 pm »


from The Washington Post....

Tesla's enormous battery in Australia, just weeks old,
is already responding to outages in ‘record’ time


Elon Musk vowed to deliver the battery in less than 100 days.

By BRIAN FUNG | 10:52AM EST — Tuesday, December 26, 2017

South Australia's huge new lithium-ion backup power system battery. — Photograph: Neoen/Tesla/HornsdalePowerReserve.com.au.
South Australia's huge new lithium-ion backup power system battery. — Photograph: Neoen/Tesla/HornsdalePowerReserve.com.au.

LESS THAN a month after Tesla unveiled a new backup power system in South Australia, the world's largest lithium-ion battery is already being put to the test. And it appears to be far exceeding expectations: In the past three weeks alone, the Hornsdale Power Reserve has smoothed out at least two major energy outages, responding even more quickly than the coal-fired backups that were supposed to provide emergency power.

Tesla's battery last week kicked in just 0.14 seconds after one of Australia's biggest plants, the Loy Yang facility in the neighboring state of Victoria, suffered a sudden, unexplained drop in output, according to the International Business Times. And the week before that, another failure at Loy Yang prompted the Hornsdale battery to respond in as little as four seconds — or less, according to some estimates — beating other plants to the punch. State officials have called the response time “a record,” according to local media.

The effectiveness of Tesla's battery is being closely watched in a region that is in the grips of an energy crisis. The price of electricity is soaring in Australia, particularly in the state of South Australia, where a 2016 outage led 1.7 million residents to lose power in a blackout. Storms and heat waves have caused additional outages, and many Australians are bracing for more with the onset of summer in the Southern Hemisphere.

The Hornsdale battery system, which uses the same energy-storage tech found in Tesla's electric cars, is one of chief executive Elon Musk's newest projects. In March, Musk, who is known for setting high goals and only sometimes meeting them, vowed on Twitter to deliver a battery system for South Australia's struggling grid within 100 days or it would be free. By early July, the state had signed a deal with Tesla and the French-based energy company Neoen to produce the battery. And by December 1st, South Australia announced that it had switched on the Hornsdale battery.

Fed by wind turbines at the nearby Hornsdale wind farm, the battery stores excess energy that is produced when the demand for electricity isn't peaking. It can power up to 30,000 homes, though only for short periods — meaning that the battery must still be supported by traditional power plants in the event of a long outage.

A spokesman for Tesla didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Nonetheless, the Hornsdale reserve has already shown that it can provide what's known as “contingency” service — keeping the grid stable in a crisis and easing what would otherwise be a significant power failure. And, more important, the project is the biggest proof-of-concept yet that batteries such as Tesla's can help mitigate one of renewable energy's most persistent problems: how to use it when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing.

“When you think about energy storage, it's not a [power] generation resource,” said Stephen Coughlin, the vice president of energy storage platforms at the Arlington-based AES Corporation, which is behind several battery projects in California, the Netherlands and several other countries. “What it's really doing is providing a much-needed injection of reliability and resiliency into the network overall.”

Where it can take as much as 10 minutes to spin up a traditional turbine in a pinch, added Coughlin, it's not uncommon to see systems such as Tesla's intervene in fractions of a second.

This isn't Musk's only experiment with large-scale batteries. Last year, Tesla said it had equipped a small island in American Samoa with thousands of solar panels and batteries that could serve the area's 600 inhabitants, shifting them almost entirely off fossil fuels. In October, Musk responded to the hurricane crisis in Puerto Rico by offering to discuss building a solar grid for the island. Parts of Puerto Rico are still without power, months after Hurricane Maria ripped down power lines and other energy infrastructure.

An electric grid consisting of distributed solar panels, paired with a large battery, could prove transformative for some island economies, analysts say. Under normal circumstances, the price of imported fossil fuels can become a drain on local businesses. But the abundant sunshine at tropical latitudes makes solar energy extremely cost-efficient.

“[Big batteries] definitely can be a game changer for island or island-type economies,” said Ravi Manghani, director of energy storage at GTM Research, a market analysis firm. “Hawaii, for instance, has one of the highest retail rates in the U.S. [for electricity], and that's because of the cost of shipping diesel or other fuel oils which currently are used by a lot of the existing facilities.”

What's more, he added, spreading solar panels out across an island reduces the likelihood of the entire grid going down because of storms.

Other battery projects, including in the United States, have already helped manage spikes in demand. For example, a major 2015 gas leak near Los Angeles that kept some gas-fired plants from producing energy at peak times prompted Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric to announce energy storage projects that were completed earlier this year, according to Sam Wilkinson, an industry analyst at IHS.

In an April report, Wilkinson highlighted the rapid rise of China and Australia as energy storage leaders.

“For the first time Asia accounts for more than one third of the global pipeline for energy storage,” the report read. “This underscores the importance that China, Australia, South Korea and India are all predicted to have in the global market.”


• Brian Fung covers technology for The Washington Post, focusing on telecommunications, Internet access and the shifting media economy. Before joining The Post, he was the technology correspondent for National Journal and an associate editor at The Atlantic.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/26/teslas-enormous-battery-in-australia-just-weeks-old-is-already-responding-to-outages-in-record-time
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 851


« Reply #1103 on: December 28, 2017, 12:05:39 am »

Didn't read your usual Washington post crapola, but what delusional believers in unreliable energy never properly calculate is "at what cost?"
Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 28443


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #1104 on: December 28, 2017, 01:19:23 am »


Yep, not only are you IGNORANT, but you CHOSE to REMAIN IGNORANT.

I guess that means you are as dumb and fucked-in-the-head as Donald J. Trump.
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 851


« Reply #1105 on: December 30, 2017, 08:00:38 am »

Are you stupid?? Wind and solar have been around for decades. If they are so economical why aren't governments simply switching over. The reason is they AREN'T economical. Any govt dumb enough to deploy them as anything more than window dressing to please screeching lefties is going to go bankrupt!
Report Spam   Logged
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 851


« Reply #1106 on: December 30, 2017, 08:04:44 am »

Germany went on a delusional bender with wind and solar and learned the hard way it was simply way way to fucking expensive and unreliable. They are now building coal plants and importing nuclear power from neighbouring countries.
Report Spam   Logged
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 851


« Reply #1107 on: December 30, 2017, 04:26:01 pm »

Report Spam   Logged
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 7237



WWW
« Reply #1108 on: January 02, 2018, 02:11:08 pm »

NINE YEARS AGO... Al Gore Predicted North Pole Would Be Completely Ice Free by Today

hey ktj do you want to buy a bridge it's going for a song Grin
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 7237



WWW
« Reply #1109 on: January 06, 2018, 07:25:33 am »

 Grin
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 28443


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #1110 on: January 06, 2018, 11:36:58 am »


Yet more extreme 500-year weather events happening in New Zealand over the past day or so.

How many extreme 500-year weather events have we now had over the past couple of years?

Remind me.

I bet you'll whinge & scream like stuck pigs when your insurance company bangs up your property insurance premiums to cover the ever-increasing cost of these 500-year and 1000-year weather events which are occuring with almost monotonous regularity.

IDIOTS!!!
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 7237



WWW
« Reply #1111 on: January 06, 2018, 10:53:14 pm »

extreme 500-year weather events bahahaha Grin
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 28443


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #1112 on: January 11, 2018, 06:37:57 pm »


from The Washington Post....

New York City sues Shell, ExxonMobil, and other oil majors over climate change

By CHRIS MOONEY and DINO GRANDONI | 4:30PM EST — Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Waves wash over the sea wall near high tide at Battery Park in New York, on October 29th, 2012, as Hurricane Sandy approaches the East Coast. — Photograph: Craig Ruttle/Associated Press.
Waves wash over the sea wall near high tide at Battery Park in New York, on October 29th, 2012, as Hurricane Sandy approaches the East Coast.
 — Photograph: Craig Ruttle/Associated Press.


THE NEW YORK CITY GOVERNMENT is suing the world's five largest publicly traded oil companies, seeking to hold them responsible for present and future damage to the city from climate change.

The suit, filed on Tuesday against BP, Chevron, Conoco-Phillips, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell, claims the companies together produced 11 percent of all of global-warming gases through the oil and gas products they have sold over the years. It also charges that the companies and the industry they are part of have known for some time about the consequences but sought to obscure them.

“In this litigation, the City seeks to shift the costs of protecting the City from climate change impacts back onto the companies that have done nearly all they could to create this existential threat,” reads the lawsuit, brought by New York corporation counsel Zachary Carter and filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The legal strategy has already been embraced by several California cities and counties, but prior lawsuits seeking to blame companies for their role in causing climate change have foundered.

It remains unclear whether a new wave of litigation — propelled by stronger climate science, reports about how much some companies knew about climate change decades ago, and somewhat divergent legal strategies — will succeed where those efforts failed.

In California last year, Marin County, San Mateo County and the city of Imperial Beach similarly sued a group of fossil fuel companies over damage related to climate change — citing a theory called “public nuisance,” which basically argues that companies are causing an injury to the localities under common law. The cities of San Francisco and Oakland and the city and county of Santa Cruz have also filed suit.

“I think the significant development here is that this is the first of these cases in this last year that’s filed outside of California,” said Michael Burger, who directs the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. If more and more localities sue, “we might be able to see adequate pressure applied to these companies to inspire action on climate change,” he said.

So far, that has not been the response. ExxonMobil has instead reacted strongly to the claims, seeking in Texas court to depose California state officials and others involved in bringing the cases for “potential claims of abuse of process, civil conspiracy, and violation of ExxonMobil's civil rights.”

Climate change “is a complex societal challenge that should be addressed through sound government policy and cultural change to drive low-carbon choices for businesses and consumers,” Curtis Smith, head of U.S. media relations for Shell, wrote by email, “not by the courts.”

BP and ConocoPhillips, two other defendants named in the lawsuit, declined to comment.

Exxon responded to New York's lawsuit on its blog, where the firm has also challenged investigative reports from InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times that showed the company was an early pioneer in climate-change science in the 1980s, reports that were cited in the suit.

“ExxonMobil welcomes any well-meaning and good faith attempt to address the risks of climate change,” wrote Suzanne McCarron, Exxon's vice president of public and government affairs. “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a global issue and requires global participation and actions. Lawsuits of this kind — filed by trial attorneys against an industry that provides products we all rely upon to power the economy and enable our domestic life — simply do not do that.”

Chevron spokesman Braden Reddall said in an email: “This lawsuit is factually and legally meritless, and will do nothing to address the serious issue of climate change. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a global issue that requires global engagement. Should this litigation proceed, it will only serve special interests at the expense of broader policy, regulatory and economic priorities.”

Several prior cases challenging individual companies based on a public-nuisance theory have failed — including at the Supreme Court, which ruled in 2011 that climate action by the Environmental Protection Agency in effect removed the ability to use the courts as a remedy.

But the difference now, Burger said, is that the claims are being brought under state, rather than federal, common law — and that strategy remains to be tested.

New York charges in the lawsuit that it is “spending billions of dollars” to protect its coastlines, its infrastructure and its citizens from climate warming.

“To deal with what the future will inevitably bring, the City must build sea walls, levees, dunes, and other coastal armament, and elevate and harden a vast array of City-owned structures, properties, and parks along its coastline,” the lawsuit says. “The costs of these largely unfunded projects run to many billions of dollars and far exceed the City's resources.”

The suit does not specify precisely how much money it is asking for from the oil companies in what it calls “compensatory damages,” saying that should be established in the case.

At a news conference on Wednesday afternoon, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio focused on the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy in 2012, calling it “a tragedy wrought by the actions of the fossil fuel companies.” He detailed the 44 people who died in New York as a result of Sandy, as well as the estimated $19 billion in damage it caused. “That is the face of climate change,” de Blasio said. “That is what it means in human and real terms.”

De Blasio claimed fossil fuel companies were complicit in worsening climate change, because they knew of the problem decades ago but continued to sell a product to Americans that contributed to only more greenhouse-gas emissions.

“The city of New York is taking on these five giants because they are the central actors, they are the first ones responsible for this crisis and they should not get away with it anymore,” he said, adding: “We're going after those who have profited. And what a horrible, disgusting way to profit — the way it puts so many people's lives in danger.”

“It's time that they are held accountable,” de Blasio said. “It's time that things change in the way we do business.”

In addition to the litigation, officials said they expect to divest up to $5 billion in investments from as many as 190 companies with fossil fuel ties, even as they promised to maintain their fiduciary duty to New York’s pensioners.

“We're using this moment to send a message to the world,” said New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer. “We believe a green economy is a thriving economy.”

Bill McKibben, an author and co-founder of the climate advocacy group 350.org, praised the city's actions on Wednesday.

“I've been watching the climate fight for the last 30 years,” McKibben told reporters. “This is one of the handful of most important moments in that 30-year fight.”

But the oil and gas lobby said that by not investing in their industry, New York was doing city workers a disservice.

“Today Mayor de Blasio turned his back on millions of first responders, police officers and public employees who depend on their pensions to provide for themselves and their families in retirement,” said Karen Moreau, New York executive director for the American Petroleum Institute, the largest U.S. oil and gas lobbying group. “Government pension managers have a responsibility by law to seek the greatest return for their investors and pensions that invest in oil and natural gas companies have historically delivered a stronger return than other investments.”


Brady Dennis contributed to this story.

• Chris Mooney reports on science and the environment for The Washington Post.

• Dino Grandoni is an energy and environmental policy reporter at The Washington Post and the author of PowerPost's daily tipsheet on the beat, The Energy 202.

__________________________________________________________________________

Related to this topic:

 • Extreme hurricanes and wildfires made 2017 the most costly U.S. disaster year on record


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/01/10/new-york-city-sues-shell-exxonmobil-and-other-oil-majors-over-climate-change
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 28443


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #1113 on: January 12, 2018, 05:25:39 pm »


It's good to see “rich pricks” being affected by extreme climate events caused by global warming, eh?

After all, “rich pricks” tend to be the greatest polluters ('cause they can afford to pollute), so it tends to be karma when they get affected.




from The New York Times....

Climate Change in My Backyard

Will the flooding and mudslides that ravaged California — the latest in a
series of climate disasters this year — lead to action on global warming?


By LEAH C. STOKES | Thursday, January 11, 2018

Illustration: Mark Pernice.
Illustration: Mark Pernice.

SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA — On Tuesday morning, half an inch of water fell in nearby Montecito — half an inch in five minutes. Even in the best of conditions, this pace could cause flooding. But it wasn't the best of conditions. Last month, we endured the largest wildfire in California history.

For two and a half weeks straight, the fire burned closer every day. Air quality turned unhealthy and forced schools to close. Businesses had to shut their doors during the peak holiday season. The local economy was decimated. I moved out of my home for weeks, as did many others. But at least I had a home to return to. Hundreds of others lost theirs. Thousands more lost their livelihoods. As a climate policy researcher, I was seeing the consequences of climate inaction in my own backyard.

Life was just beginning to get back to normal when the rains came this week, hard and fast. The scorched land could not absorb the water, and so the mudslides began.

Many residents, exhausted from weeks of displacement, were at home that night despite evacuation warnings. The forecast called for heavy rains, and the county was persistent in its preparation for mudslides and flooding. But the rain's intensity was extreme. Rain was not supposed to fall this fast, not in our memory. No one thought it would be so bad.

Houses were ripped from their foundations. City streets were unrecognizable. Helicopters flew back and forth in a near continuous line for days, hoisting people from roofs. The names of the missing and the dead swelled.

We say the extreme rain caused this disaster. We say it was the fire. And we say that multiple years of drought didn't help. But what caused the rain, the fire and the drought?

There is a clear climate signature in the disaster in Santa Barbara. We know that climate change is making California's extreme rainfall events more frequent. We know it's worsening our fires. We know that it contributed substantially to the latest drought.

There are simpler stories we could tell. Stories with more proximate causes: Those people bought in dangerous places. Those people should have left their homes. Those people are somehow to blame. These events are normal. These things just happen there.

But these simple stories mask a larger truth. How many times do we need to hear adjectives in their superlative form before we spot a pattern: largest, rainiest, driest, deadliest? Records, by their nature, are not meant to be set annually. And yet that's what is happening. The costliest year for natural disasters in the United States was 2017. One of the longest and most severe droughts in California history concluded for most parts of the state in 2017. The five warmest years on record have all occurred since 2006, with 2017 expected to be one of the warmest yet again.

I have researched climate change policy for over a decade now. For a long time, we assumed that climate policy was stalled because it was a problem for the future. Or it would affect other people. Poorer people. Animals. Ecosystems. We assumed those parts of the world were separate from us. That we were somehow insulated. I didn't expect to see it in my own backyard so soon.

Climate change devastated ecosystems, species and neighborhoods in Houston and much of struggling Puerto Rico last year. Now climate change has ravaged one of the wealthiest ZIP codes in the country. We know now that even the richest among us is not insulated.

These extreme events are getting worse. But when I read the news after each fresh disaster, I rarely see a mention of climate change. Whether it's coverage of a fire in my backyard or a powerful hurricane in the Caribbean, this bigger story is usually missing. To say that it is too soon to talk about the causes of a crisis is wrongheaded. We must connect the dots.

Climate change helped cost my friends' businesses' revenue. Climate change helped put my community in chaos for weeks. Climate change paved the way for lost lives next door. If climate victims here and across the globe understood that carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels played a role in their losses, perhaps they would rise up to demand policy changes.

We know this could happen because research from the political scientist Regina Bateson, now a congressional candidate in California, shows that being a crime victim can spur people into activism. Perhaps some of the people affected by the fires in California, the hurricanes in Puerto Rico and Texas, and the drought in the Dakotas will be similarly motivated. Maybe some of these climate change victims will become the climate policy champions we sorely need.

It is never too soon after one of these disasters to speak truth about climate change's role. If anything, it is too late. If we do not name the problem, we cannot hope to solve it. For my community, as much as yours, I hope we will.


__________________________________________________________________________

Leah C. Stokes is an assistant professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/opinion/california-floods-mudslides-climate.html
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 7237



WWW
« Reply #1114 on: January 20, 2018, 07:51:42 am »

Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 28443


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #1115 on: January 20, 2018, 01:19:55 pm »


from the print edition of the Los Angeles Times....

2017 one of 3 hottest years on record

Warming was seen even without El Niño. NASA and NOAA data show ‘long-term trends are very clear’.

By AMINA KHAN | Friday, January 19 2018

This color-coded map shows that most of the Earth was warmer than average for the calendar year 2017. — Source: NOAA/NCEI.
This color-coded map shows that most of the Earth was warmer than average for the calendar year 2017. — Source: NOAA/NCEI.

EVEN WITHOUT the help of El Niño, 2017 was a top-three scorcher for planet Earth.

Global temperatures last year were the third-highest since scientists began keeping records in 1880, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Measurements from NASA placed it even higher, coming in second over the last 138 years.

Both agencies said the average global surface temperature in 2017 was only slightly below the record-high temperature seen in 2016.

Two years ago, the average temperature across land and ocean surfaces jumped 1.69 degrees above the 20th century average of 57 degrees, according to NOAA. It remained high last year, coming in at 1.51 degrees above the previous century’s average.

That makes the last three years — 2015, 2016 and 2017 — the hottest ones since 1880. In fact, both analyses agree that five of the hottest years have occurred just since 2010.

“The fact that 2017 was so warm in a year without El Niño should make very clear how rapidly Earth's global temperature is increasing,” said Noah Diffenbaugh, a climate scientist at Stanford University who was not involved with the either NASA's or NOAA’s report.

Although the NASA and NOAA data announced on Thursday have slight statistical differences, they clearly show that global warming continues its climb, scientists said.

“The annual change from year to year can bounce up and down … but the long-term trends are very clear, especially since the mid-20th century,” said Derek Arndt, chief of the monitoring branch of NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information.

The results were buttressed by analyses from the United Kingdom Met Office and the World Meteorological Organization, which also ranked 2017 as a top-three year for recorded global temperatures.

Apart from a few cold spots, “the planet is warming remarkably uniformly,” said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which uses satellites to monitor Earth's climate.

Although global temperatures differed across continents, virtually all of them felt the heat.

South America experienced its second-warmest year since continental records began in 1910, according to NOAA data. Asia felt its third-warmest, Africa its fourth-warmest and Europe its fifth-warmest year on record. North America and Oceania, a region that includes Australia, Polynesia and several other island chains, felt their sixth-warmest years on record.

The record-breaking temperatures in 2016 were fueled slightly by El Niño, a multiyear weather pattern that can result in higher regional temperatures. But 2017 was warm even without that additional help, going through a fairly “neutral” year as the pattern transitioned toward the cooler La Niña phase.

“It was the warmest non-El Niño year on record,” said Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University who was not involved with either government analysis.

Data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center showed that Arctic sea ice last year covered 4.01 million square miles. That marks the second-smallest extent since 1979, when records began.

Antarctic sea ice covered only 4.11 million square miles in 2017, breaking the previous record set in 1986 by 154,000 fewer square miles.

Global temperatures have been rising steadily over the last several decades, fueled in large part by emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that result from burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests and other human activity.


A map of some noteworthy climate and weather events that occurred around the world in 2017. — Source: NOAA/NCEI.
A map of some noteworthy climate and weather events that occurred around the world in 2017. — Source: NOAA/NCEI.

The warming trend has caused sea levels to rise and led to an uptick in extreme weather events, scientists said.

“We are now clearly seeing the impact of human-caused climate change in the form of unprecedented droughts, wildfires, floods and superstorms,” Mann said. He pointed to a heavy-hitting 2017 season that included Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria. Each of those storms cost the United States far in excess of $1 billion, according to NOAA.

“The effects of climate change are no longer subtle,” he said.

The excess carbon dioxide has also made oceans more acidic, causing long-termdamage to corals and many other marine species, research shows.

Members of the Trump administration have indicated a reluctance to recognize and respond to the threats associated with human-caused climate change. President Trump announced last year that he would be pulling the United States out of the 2015 Paris climate accord.

His administration has also pushed to remove protections from some public lands and to open waters to drilling. Meanwhile, civil servants with climate science and environmental expertise say they're being sidelined.


__________________________________________________________________________

• Amina Khan is a science writer covering a broad range of topics, from Mars rovers to linguistics to bio-inspired engineering — but she's perhaps best known for her repeated and brutal attacks on the office snack table. She surfs and snowboards in her spare time.

http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=0535b327-50aa-4343-8a23-158ef9b2a746
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 28443


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #1116 on: January 23, 2018, 12:35:11 am »



Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 7237



WWW
« Reply #1117 on: January 23, 2018, 01:57:37 am »

time to send the global warm scam to the cartoon graveyard ?
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 7237



WWW
« Reply #1118 on: January 26, 2018, 07:54:08 am »

Is Global Warming Science Just A Fraud?

Climate Change: We're often told by advocates of climate change that the "science is settled." But in fact, "science" itself is in a deep crisis over making claims it can't back up, especially about climate.

As BBC News Science Correspondent Tom Feilden noted last week, "Science is facing a 'reproducibility crisis' where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests." This isn't just his journalistic opinion, but the conclusion of the University of Virginia's Center for Open Science, which estimates that roughly 70% of all studies can't be reproduced.

And this includes the field of climate change, by the way. It's a disaster. Being able to reproduce others' experiments or findings from models is at the very heart of science. Yet, radical climate change advocates would have us spend 2% of global GDP, or roughly $1.5 trillion a year, to forestall a minuscule amount of anticipated warming based on dubious modeling and experiments.

Meanwhile, the federal government spends literally billions of dollars a year on climate change, with virtually none of the money funding scientists who doubt the climate change threat. There is no serious debate. This is a problem for all of science.

Worse, our government's own science fraud is a big problem. Dr. John Bates, a former top scientist at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, recently detailed how a government paper that called into question the 18-year "pause" in global warming was based on "experimental" data and politicized. That "paper" was used to justify President Obama's signing of the Paris climate agreement.

Meanwhile, Georgia Institute of Technology climatologist Judith Curry recently retired, blaming the "CRAZINESS (her emphasis) in the field of climate science."

Even so, mythical claims of a "consensus" among scientists about climate change continue in an effort to shut up critics. Those who dissent, and literally thousands of scientists and engineers do, are shouted down and harassed.

As Princeton University physicist Will Happer told the left-wing British newspaper the Guardian earlier this week: "There's a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult. ... It will potentially harm the image of all science."

It's time for some science Glasnost. New EPA Director Scott Pruitt has called for an open debate on climate science, rather than the name-calling and outright dishonesty of the past. Real science has nothing to fear from more openness and discussion, but everything to fear from more politicized dishonesty.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/is-global-warming-science-just-a-fraud/
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 28443


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #1119 on: January 27, 2018, 10:06:59 pm »


A brain fart from President Donald J. Trump aka the gutless, yellow-bellied, cowardly, draft-dodging Cadet Bone Spurs……




Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 851


« Reply #1120 on: January 30, 2018, 02:01:11 pm »

Report Spam   Logged
Kiwithrottlejockey
Admin Staff
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 28443


Having fun in the hills!


« Reply #1121 on: January 30, 2018, 06:31:40 pm »


from The Washington Post....

Debunking the claim ‘they’ changed ‘global warming’
to ‘climate change’ because warming stopped


Scientific and government institutions called for the name to be changed; it never stopped warming.

By JASON SAMENOW | 3:52PM EST — Monday, January 29, 2018

Via NASA: “This map shows Earth's average global temperature from 2013 to 2017, as compared to a baseline average from 1951 to 1980, according to an analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Yellows, oranges, and reds show regions warmer than the baseline”. — Credit: NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio.
Via NASA: “This map shows Earth's average global temperature from 2013 to 2017, as compared to a baseline average from 1951 to 1980, according to an analysis by
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Yellows, oranges, and reds show regions warmer than the baseline”. — Credit: NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio.


“THEY” changed the term “global warming” to “climate change” because the planet is not warming is an oft-repeated talking point of those, such as President Trump, who cast doubt on the reality of rising temperatures.

This claim is demonstrably incorrect, never mind that it's unclear who “they” are.

The gradual change in preferred terminology from “global warming” to “climate change” began about a decade ago because that's what the scientific community and governmental institutions called for. It also happened to be the preference of the George W. Bush White House. Temperatures never stopped rising.

No matter the reality, Trump has now twice uttered this falsehood. In 2013, he tweeted: “They changed the name from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ after the term global warming just wasn't working (it was too cold)!”

Then, in an interview with Piers Morgan last week, when asked about his belief in climate change, he responded: “There is a cooling, and there is a heating, and I mean, look — it used to not be climate change. It used to be global warming…. That wasn't working too well, because it was getting too cold all over the place.”

Trump apparently missed the joint NOAA and NASA news release earlier this month that showed the four warmest years on record have occurred in the past four years. “The planet is warming remarkably uniformly,” Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told reporters.

When the preferred terminology for the planet's rising temperatures pivoted some years ago, it had nothing to do with thermometers.

In 2005, the National Academies of Sciences published a pamphlet that expressed the viewpoint that “climate change” was a more scientifically comprehensive description of what was happening to the planet. “The phrase ‘climate change’ is growing in preferred use to ‘global warming’ because it helps convey that there are changes in addition to rising temperatures,” it said.

Shortly thereafter, in 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency changed the name of its Web site on the issue from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”. It plastered the National Academies quote on the superiority of “climate change” on the front page to explain the rationale.


EPA “Climate Change” website, from February 2007. — Credit: Wayback Machine.
EPA “Climate Change” website, from February 2007. — Credit: Wayback Machine.

“The contentious phrase global warming, first used by United Press International in 1969, seems to be undergoing a certain cooling; contrariwise, the more temperate phrase climate change is getting hot,” The New York Times' William Safire wrote in his On Language column in 2005.

In the years prior, the Bush administration had expressed a clear preference for the term “climate change”. In speeches on the issue, Bush referred to “global climate change” and never mentioned “global warming”. His administration formed “climate change” science and technology programs. There may well have been political motivation to change the name, as The Washington Post's Philip Bump wrote on Monday:


Quote
In 2002, Republican consultant Frank Luntz wrote a memo arguing that Republicans start using the latter term.

Climate change is less frightening than global warming,” he wrote. “While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.”

Even years before that, international institutions had paved the way for “climate change” to eventually become the prevalent term. The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change was negotiated in 1992, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988.

“Global warming” had its ascension in 1988 when NASA scientist James E. Hansen testified before Congress that “global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause-and-effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming.” His testimony generated massive media coverage and popularized the term.

While “global warming” was eclipsed by “climate change” decades later, it remains a valuable term that accurately and directly describes what's happening to the planet's temperature over time.


__________________________________________________________________________

• Jason Samenow is The Washington Post's weather editor and Capital Weather Gang's chief meteorologist. He earned a master's degree in atmospheric science, and spent 10 years as a climate change science analyst for the U.S. government. He holds the Digital Seal of Approval from the National Weather Association.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/01/29/debunking-the-claim-they-changed-global-warming-to-climate-change-because-its-cooling
Report Spam   Logged

If you aren't living life on the edge, you're taking up too much space! 
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 851


« Reply #1122 on: January 30, 2018, 10:05:01 pm »

Didn't read the wapo predictable crap. Wapo are just more watermelon media lemmings promoting the narrative of Co2 induced Armageddon. Sadly the same species of enviro-lemming has infiltrated orgs like NOAA.
Report Spam   Logged
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 851


« Reply #1123 on: January 30, 2018, 10:10:32 pm »

Report Spam   Logged
aDjUsToR
Part-Of-The-Furniture Member
*
Posts: 851


« Reply #1124 on: February 01, 2018, 12:30:06 pm »

Report Spam   Logged

Pages: 1 ... 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Open XNC2 Smileys
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Buy traffic for your forum/website
traffic-masters
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.172 seconds with 11 queries.