Major snowstorm brewing

[km1125]

Because all we have to do is look at the progression of the global temperatures for the last 10 years. Even if temps remain flat, the ocean waters are going to continue to climb. The permafrost that has melted is also a wild card. Saw a very well informed documentary on PBS of how methane is escaping from melted permafrost. It starts a positive feedback cycle that only accelerates global warming. We are fastly approaching the tipping point.

Preface that with "IF YOU CAN BELIEVE THE HISTORICAL TEMPERATURE DATA THAT THEY'VE RETROACTIVELY MODIFIED"

Why is it that the billionaires are obsessed with getting on Mars and other planets? Do you think they are just bored?

Seriously??? It would cost a LOT less to make habitable places on EARTH that would last a millennia and provide for millions/billions of people than it would to make a habitable place on MARS that would support even a few thousand. They're doing it because it's cool and they can afford to.

[Rate This]

Because all we have to do is look at the progression of the global temperatures for the last 10 years. Even if temps remain flat, the ocean waters are going to continue to climb. The permafrost that has melted is also a wild card. Saw a very well informed documentary on PBS of how methane is escaping from melted permafrost. It starts a positive feedback cycle that only accelerates global warming. We are fastly approaching the tipping point.

Preface that with "IF YOU CAN BELIEVE THE HISTORICAL TEMPERATURE DATA THAT THEY'VE RETROACTIVELY MODIFIED"

Why is it that the billionaires are obsessed with getting on Mars and other planets? Do you think they are just bored?

Seriously??? It would cost a LOT less to make habitable places on EARTH that would last a millennia and provide for millions/billions of people than it would to make a habitable place on MARS that would support even a few thousand. They're doing it because it's cool and they can afford to.

How exactly do you believe the data has been modified?

[paul8539]

We did not get 8 inches of snow. We got 8 inches of 'partly cloudy'.

[km1125]

Because all we have to do is look at the progression of the global temperatures for the last 10 years. Even if temps remain flat, the ocean waters are going to continue to climb. The permafrost that has melted is also a wild card. Saw a very well informed documentary on PBS of how methane is escaping from melted permafrost. It starts a positive feedback cycle that only accelerates global warming. We are fastly approaching the tipping point.

Preface that with "IF YOU CAN BELIEVE THE HISTORICAL TEMPERATURE DATA THAT THEY'VE RETROACTIVELY MODIFIED"

Why is it that the billionaires are obsessed with getting on Mars and other planets? Do you think they are just bored?

Seriously??? It would cost a LOT less to make habitable places on EARTH that would last a millennia and provide for millions/billions of people than it would to make a habitable place on MARS that would support even a few thousand. They're doing it because it's cool and they can afford to.

How exactly do you believe the data has been modified?

It's not what I "believe", it's fact. Over the last 10 years or so there have been SEVERAL incidents where past temperature measurement records have been modified, and these changes conveniently fit a particular narrative. The justification was that these changes were made as folks have investigated past measurement practices and found likely errors in how they were done, so the resulting data was modified to "correct" the "errors".

However, like many things, all of these "errors" were only in ONE direction, and that corrections were "conveniently" in the direction to support the narrative. If they were REALLY errors, then some percentage of them would likely be in the OPPOSITE direction but they NEVER are.

[Colonel Flagg]

Because all we have to do is look at the progression of the global temperatures for the last 10 years. Even if temps remain flat, the ocean waters are going to continue to climb. The permafrost that has melted is also a wild card. Saw a very well informed documentary on PBS of how methane is escaping from melted permafrost. It starts a positive feedback cycle that only accelerates global warming. We are fastly approaching the tipping point.

Preface that with "IF YOU CAN BELIEVE THE HISTORICAL TEMPERATURE DATA THAT THEY'VE RETROACTIVELY MODIFIED"

Why is it that the billionaires are obsessed with getting on Mars and other planets? Do you think they are just bored?

Seriously??? It would cost a LOT less to make habitable places on EARTH that would last a millennia and provide for millions/billions of people than it would to make a habitable place on MARS that would support even a few thousand. They're doing it because it's cool and they can afford to.

How exactly do you believe the data has been modified?

It's not what I "believe", it's fact. Over the last 10 years or so there have been SEVERAL incidents where past temperature measurement records have been modified, and these changes conveniently fit a particular narrative. The justification was that these changes were made as folks have investigated past measurement practices and found likely errors in how they were done, so the resulting data was modified to "correct" the "errors".

However, like many things, all of these "errors" were only in ONE direction, and that corrections were "conveniently" in the direction to support the narrative. If they were REALLY errors, then some percentage of them would likely be in the OPPOSITE direction but they NEVER are.

Most of the fruitcakes who believe in this drivel were not around in the '60's and '70's, when we were supposedly entering an "ice age" another theory that turned out to be bunk. Ten years on earth? That's barely the blink of an eye. It means nothing. I remember watching snow fly in Orlando on Christmas Eve in 1979. I still didn't buy the "ice age" nonsense, even with that.

The only winter in recent years around here that resembles a typical '60's '70's winter is probably 2014.

I also remember summer 1988. Every lawn in Okemos was burned to a crisp. Days of 90+ degree temps turned into weeks. A nearly dry thunderstorm, on a 100 degree day wiped out a lot of equipment at WFMK.

Just because there are unusual, extreme weather events is no reason to become hysterical.

[Rate This]

Because all we have to do is look at the progression of the global temperatures for the last 10 years. Even if temps remain flat, the ocean waters are going to continue to climb. The permafrost that has melted is also a wild card. Saw a very well informed documentary on PBS of how methane is escaping from melted permafrost. It starts a positive feedback cycle that only accelerates global warming. We are fastly approaching the tipping point.

Preface that with "IF YOU CAN BELIEVE THE HISTORICAL TEMPERATURE DATA THAT THEY'VE RETROACTIVELY MODIFIED"

Why is it that the billionaires are obsessed with getting on Mars and other planets? Do you think they are just bored?

Seriously??? It would cost a LOT less to make habitable places on EARTH that would last a millennia and provide for millions/billions of people than it would to make a habitable place on MARS that would support even a few thousand. They're doing it because it's cool and they can afford to.

How exactly do you believe the data has been modified?

It's not what I "believe", it's fact. Over the last 10 years or so there have been SEVERAL incidents where past temperature measurement records have been modified, and these changes conveniently fit a particular narrative. The justification was that these changes were made as folks have investigated past measurement practices and found likely errors in how they were done, so the resulting data was modified to "correct" the "errors".

However, like many things, all of these "errors" were only in ONE direction, and that corrections were "conveniently" in the direction to support the narrative. If they were REALLY errors, then some percentage of them would likely be in the OPPOSITE direction but they NEVER are.

What if inferior measuring equipment really did result in undercounts?

[bmw]

Why is the global warming debate such a politicized one? I find those who deny its existence to have blinders on and those who scream that the sky is falling to be a bit crazy. It is scientific fact that man-made carbon emissions are increasing. It is also scientific fact that more Co2 in the air causes a greenhouse effect and thus higher temperatures. I think it is irrefutable that humans are contributing to a warming planet.

To what extent humans are contributing is unknown, but we do have fairly solid numbers on Co2 emissions - specifically, that they're up more than 13 percent between 2010 and 2020. There's roughly 750 GigaTons of Co2 that are emitted naturally, and that number doesn't vary much over tens of thousands of years. Human output, however, is now over 40 Gigatons. While we as humans only account now for about 5% of the Co2 in the atmosphere, don't tell me that that doesn't have a measurable impact on global temperatures. But don't tell me that the world is about to end either.

[km1125]

Why is the global warming debate such a politicized one? I find those who deny its existence to have blinders on and those who scream that the sky is falling to be a bit crazy. It is scientific fact that man-made carbon emissions are increasing. It is also scientific fact that more Co2 in the air causes a greenhouse effect and thus higher temperatures. I think it is irrefutable that humans are contributing to a warming planet.

To what extent humans are contributing is unknown, but we do have fairly solid numbers on Co2 emissions - specifically, that they're up more than 13 percent between 2010 and 2020. There's roughly 750 GigaTons of Co2 that are emitted naturally, and that number doesn't vary much over tens of thousands of years. Human output, however, is now over 40 Gigatons. While we as humans only account now for about 5% of the Co2 in the atmosphere, don't tell me that that doesn't have a measurable impact on global temperatures. But don't tell me that the world is about to end either.

Because there is ONE side who wants to control the spending and alter YOUR life habits to further THEIR priorities on this issue.

There might be a measurable impact from human contributions, but it would be akin to the change in gas mileage from putting an extra 20lbs in the trunk of your car. You'd need some pretty sensitive instruments and controlled conditions to actually measure it, and whether it's there or not is completely meaningless to practicality.

Temperatures ARE rising and they are going to continue to rise even if we TOTALLY ELIMINATED CO2 production immediately. So, does it make sense to spend the bulk of our resources to trying to eliminate a SMALL PORTION of CO2 production, or would it make MUCH MORE SENSE to adapt to the changing environment, because it's going to change no matter what we do on CO2??

ALSO, check out the graph below. Frequently used by climate alarmists, it shows the PPM from Mauna Loa Observatory. Note that during the year 2020, we significantly shut down transportation and a lot of industrial processes ACROSS THE GLOBE. There were PLENTY of satellite measurements that shows a virtual elimination of all kinds of emissions in most major metropolitan areas in every country. Yet, in the aggregated data from this site, there is NO measurable change in the overall CO2 measurements. Further "proof" that if we shut down "human" CO2 we're not going to change ANYTHING.

[bmw]

Because there is ONE side who wants to control the spending and alter YOUR life habits to further THEIR priorities on this issue.

That applies to BOTH sides. There are a lot of people on the right who outright deny that man's activity is doing anything whatsoever to affect the climate. And I believe many do so with a motive as you describe - in order to further their priorities on seeing to it that we continue to burn lots of fossil fuels.

There might be a measurable impact from human contributions, but it would be akin to the change in gas mileage from putting an extra 20lbs in the trunk of your car. You'd need some pretty sensitive instruments and controlled conditions to actually measure it, and whether it's there or not is completely meaningless to practicality.

As I said, it is debatable exactly how much we're contributing. But we ARE contributing, and I find the accelerating rise in Co2 emissions to be concerning. That said, I tend to agree that there's not much we can practically do about it without sending most of the developed world back into the stone age.

If we want to start somewhere, we need to start with China. They're solely responsible for 30% of the world's emissions. Just one more reason to get off of our addiction to stuff made in China.

[km1125]

Because there is ONE side who wants to control the spending and alter YOUR life habits to further THEIR priorities on this issue.

That applies to BOTH sides. There are a lot of people on the right who outright deny that man's activity is doing anything whatsoever to affect the climate. And I believe many do so with a motive as you describe - in order to further their priorities on seeing to it that we continue to burn lots of fossil fuels.

On this issue (climate change and CO2 elimination), just how is the "right" wanting to control your spending and alter your life habits?

I don't doubt you can find other issues where that might apply, but you ask why THIS issue is political.

[bmw]

This is an over-simplification, but I think it will make my point. There are right-wing politicians who WANT you to continue driving that gas guzzling vehicle because there are certain special interests who make money off of you driving that gas guzzling vehicle.

[km1125]

This is an over-simplification, but I think it will make my point. There are right-wing politicians who WANT you to continue driving that gas guzzling vehicle because there are certain special interests who make money off of you driving that gas guzzling vehicle.

That's got to be a super-minority. I don't doubt there might SOME that fit that description, but by-and-large most on the "right" are for keeping independent decisions.

On the left, whether they're benefiting directly financially (Al Gore, anyone?) or just furthering their own agenda, they want you to do what they want you to do, and eventually they'll FORCE you to do it via their governmental control. I'd venture to say that's the majority of the "left" and a rather significant majority (>80%) if you're talking about elected officials.

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

Because there is ONE side who wants to control the spending and alter YOUR life habits to further THEIR priorities on this issue.

That applies to BOTH sides. There are a lot of people on the right who outright deny that man's activity is doing anything whatsoever to affect the climate. And I believe many do so with a motive as you describe - in order to further their priorities on seeing to it that we continue to burn lots of fossil fuels.

On this issue (climate change and CO2 elimination), just how is the "right" wanting to control your spending and alter your life habits?

I don't doubt you can find other issues where that might apply, but you ask why THIS issue is political.

When those waves sky over NYC, they're going to take your pocket book and your life if you call the boroughs your home. It may be a Katrina like hurricane, but it will happen if we don't start taking care of the climate.

[km1125]

Because there is ONE side who wants to control the spending and alter YOUR life habits to further THEIR priorities on this issue.

That applies to BOTH sides. There are a lot of people on the right who outright deny that man's activity is doing anything whatsoever to affect the climate. And I believe many do so with a motive as you describe - in order to further their priorities on seeing to it that we continue to burn lots of fossil fuels.

On this issue (climate change and CO2 elimination), just how is the "right" wanting to control your spending and alter your life habits?

I don't doubt you can find other issues where that might apply, but you ask why THIS issue is political.

When those waves sky over NYC, they're going to take your pocket book and your life if you call the boroughs your home. It may be a Katrina like hurricane, but it will happen if we don't start taking care of the climate.

You haven't been paying attention. IF that's ever going to happen, then it's going to happen regardless if we cut our CO2 emissions to ZERO right now. And that "we" means either JUST the USA or the entire world.

People have been predicting the end of the world for 100 years, due to "climate".

Here's one from just a few decades ago. See how the narrative changes??