Dog

Climate news

Recommended Posts

 The preferred outcome is you not answering, it demonstrates what a hypocritical cunt you are.

Well played by me so far.

tenor.gif?itemid=5819608

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LB 15 said:

The Globalist cult movement is nothing new. It is called socialism. In this country the entry level for teaching at university has been lowered so any dropkick can get in. With this influx of the stupid, naturally they have been swamped by the lunatic left who are now preaching their political views to these poor children to parrot.

Personally I think that teachers are the most important people in society. We should be picking from the brightest and best and they should be paid more than lawyers and politicians. But the classroom is no place for them to be passing on their own religious or political views. And weather or you like it or not (Ease the sheet - grammatical fail in aisle 3!) climate change is political and is subject to the greatest misinformation storm in history - on both sides. But I would bet if you asked any of those entitled little shits at the action on climate change sleep over rally what the average temperature rise was over the past hundred years, the answers would be as funny as fuck. Or they would cherry pick some bullshit like our own resident schoolgirl Randumb.

Don't misunderstand me, I am not a 'Denier' simply a realist who has done enough of his own research on the subject to be baffled by bullshit. Without doubt mankind is impacting on the planet. You can not double the worlds population in 50 years without significant impact. But to what extent it affects global warming is shrouded in mind boggling exaggeration and outright lies. But the reality is this. IF carbon emissions are contributing to global warming significantly and IF coal fired power stations and emissions are mostly the cause then the World is fucked. China and India are not going to stop building 680 more facilities because a group of Australian school children get some facebook likes and make the 6 o'clock news for a day. Their population's are going to run more cars and industry than ever before. Economic sanctions will only lead to poverty, suffering and war, and with fuckwits like Putin and Trump in charge of more than half the nuclear weapons, the world is doomed anyway. If we Australians try to stop selling it to them we would commit economic suicide and they will come and get it anyway. So IF those IF's are true we are fucked and no amount of Randumb's memes or token gestures like catching the bus to work twice a week can stop it. Remember these child activists are just as concerned about Global warming as they are about even bigger issues like removing the offensive terms 'boy' and 'girl' and keeping snapchat free. 

Maybe we are fucked so why not just go with the flow...

2o6wth.jpg

I agree with plenty of what you say here, but it'd also have to be said that your main point would seem like crackpot territory considering the thousands of career scientists without agendas who would vehemently disagree with it. myself, I can't believe we haven't profoundly disrupted climate systems considering the utterly vile amounts of pollution we dump into the environment 24/7, it just doesn't add up. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, random said:

 The preferred outcome is you not answering, it demonstrates what a hypocritical cunt you are.

Well played by me so far.

tenor.gif?itemid=5819608

Do you always have a happy ending when you play with yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 minutes ago, 3to1 said:

Don't misunderstand me, I am not a 'Denier' simply a realist who has done enough of his own research on the subject to be baffled by bullshit.

Well there we have it, funni as fuck, not only is LB a sitting-on-the-fence-centrist in politics, but he's have two bob each way on science as well!

He's confused!

GWrO.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, random said:

 

Well there we have it, funni as fuck, not only is LB a sitting-on-the-fence-centrist in politics, but he's have two bob each way on science as well!

He's confused!

GWrO.gif

You quoted 3to 1 you silly cunt. Clearly the concept of being a centerist escapes you. Like most things.

i don’t have to dance to anyone’s drum cup cake. How are you on gender neutrality? Happy to toe the party line? Maybe you like to put on a bra and g-banger yourself sometimes?

NTTIAWWT 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

You quoted 3to 1 you silly cunt. Clearly the concept of being a centerist escapes you. Like most things.

i don’t have to dance to anyone’s drum cup cake. How are you on gender neutrality? Happy to toe the party line? Maybe you like to put on a bra and g-banger yourself sometimes?

NTTIAWWT 

Some times LB, you just have to say ... fuck it, I'm in.  Commit.

Then there are the Centrists.  They will sit around as civilisation as we know it collapses, watching, still "not sure what to think about it all really".  While making lame jokes at the expense of others.

Grow some brains,some balls and get off the fence.  It's people like you who let the real criminals fuck this place.

edit: and cancel your manicure and grow a mustache and  ... you know the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random:"hey LB we need to go the big kite after this mark, it's looking soft, I'll haul it up"

LB: "nuh not sure about that, maybe we should just two sail it to see what happens".

Random "Mate we will get smoked if we don't go for it, WTF are you thinking?"

LB: "Maybe we should just take it easy and unfurl the big heady and you know ... pole it out"

LB: "Man overboard!!!  Man Over Board!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, random said:

Some times LB, you just have to say ... fuck it, I'm in.  Commit.

Then there are the Centrists.  They will sit around as civilisation as we know it collapses, watching, still "not sure what to think about it all really".  While making lame jokes at the expense of others.

 

Yeah, it's good that the world has you and your GIF's then...... 
How much has the temperature fallen with your last batch?
P.S. Is the childish way of spelling the word funny, a part of your effort to fight global warming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, VOA said:

He’s Australia’s leading embarrassment on the board

what are you?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why but this image came to mind ...

image.png.491e4ffa356c91e91355df05becf1ff8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you are talking about Trumptard

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2018 at 5:27 PM, LB 15 said:

Can you answer that without googling?

nope , no reason too , google is freely available ...........................

and provides this

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mid said:

nope , no reason too , google is freely available ...........................

and provides this

 

Just a tip - when you pick cherries don’t swallow the seeds. They fuck up the masserator in the head. Both NOAA and NASA’s official answer is the mean temperature of the earth  has risen .8 of a degree in 100 years. It’s a bit cold in brisvegas tonight. Should they factor that in as well? Even in the face of your own chosen  organisation’s evidence you clowns have to twist and turn the facts to suit your beliefs. Little wonder most of the world over 12 years of age won’t listen to your bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, random said:

Random:"hey LB we need to go the big kite after this mark, it's looking soft, I'll haul it up"

LB: "nuh not sure about that, maybe we should just two sail it to see what happens".

Random "Mate we will get smoked if we don't go for it, WTF are you thinking?"

LB: "Maybe we should just take it easy and unfurl the big heady and you know ... pole it out"

LB: "Man overboard!!!  Man Over Board!!!

Jesus you are an strange cunt Randumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, random said:

Some times LB, you just have to say ... fuck it, I'm in.  Commit.

Then there are the Centrists.  They will sit around as civilisation as we know it collapses, watching, still "not sure what to think about it all really".  While making lame jokes at the expense of others.

Grow some brains,some balls and get off the fence.  It's people like you who let the real criminals fuck this place.

edit: and cancel your manicure and grow a mustache and  ... you know the rest.

Yes critical, independent thought should be stopped. Best just to toe the party line on every issue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Just a tip - when you pick cherries don’t swallow the seeds.

right back at ya .

 

Quote

 

But why should we care about one degree of warming? After all, the temperature fluctuates by many degrees every day where we live.

The global temperature record represents an average over the entire surface of the planet. The temperatures we experience locally and in short periods can fluctuate significantly due to predictable cyclical events (night and day, summer and winter) and hard-to-predict wind and precipitation patterns. But the global temperature mainly depends on how much energy the planet receives from the Sun and how much it radiates back into space—quantities that change very little. The amount of energy radiated by the Earth depends significantly on the chemical composition of the atmosphere, particularly the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

 

I'm sure you read that on your chosen reference ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well documented that an increased aerosols lower global temps. Not hard to gather The Clean Air Act and "Climate Change" parallel one another.....just sayin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2018 at 1:27 PM, Saorsa said:

That's a good question. It seems to be available.

There may be some missing data.

One of the articles I read on DSCOVR was just silly.

Its camera, called EPIC, also produces incredible images of earth, akin to the iconic ”Blue Marble” image snapped by an astronaut onboard Apollo 17 in 1972, one of the first views of the entire earth from space. (That hasn’t stopped some people insisting it’s flat.)

The first views of the entire earth from space (in color)  were November 1967 from ATS III.  They were building monochrome composites in the early 60s.

20150726-072348-3wujb-jpg.27514

 

 

Good, that is one of the eleven sets of sensors that viewed the earth over its entire e-m spectrum.  The visual is only one part.  The next thing to look at is the absorption/reflection in the e-m spectrum of CO2 and methane gases, not only in the visual spectrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Laker said:

Good, that is one of the eleven sets of sensors that viewed the earth over its entire e-m spectrum.  The visual is only one part.  The next thing to look at is the absorption/reflection in the e-m spectrum of CO2 and methane gases, not only in the visual spectrum.

Here's more

https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/project/dscovr/dscovr_table

I posted the images because they were obfuscating when calling the Blue Marble of 72 among the first.

We took hundreds if not thousands with ATS birds over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

Here's more

https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/project/dscovr/dscovr_table

I posted the images because they were obfuscating when calling the Blue Marble of 72 among the first.

We took hundreds if not thousands with ATS birds over the years.

The big thing with DSCVR is that the entire spectrum over the whole earth could be monitored at the same time.  They did not have to "tile" it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Laker said:

The big thing with DSCVR is that the entire spectrum over the whole earth could be monitored at the same time.  They did not have to "tile" it.

Surprising what you can achieve in 60 years of continued development of remote sensing and computing.

BTW, the 1967 ATS-3 images were not tiled it was the whole earth in color.  In it's spare time it managed to relay the Mexico City Olympics to Europe when Intelsat had problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New peer-reviewed study finds consensus...

 "Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims".

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/?fbclid=IwAR1FJWAjxAjlTSWjjpVGBAV9CdkqgW1e4rA5M2rTOn6Ca5W1yXU0L7VGLu8#188bb58d4c7c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, warbird said:

Nice to finish with an editorial.....

In response to one - or did you bother to read Dog's link?  It's the kind of piece written by a lawyer based on surveys of people depending on the tar sands oil industry for a living that you would appreciate - free markets!

Survey Says - if your job depends on oil and you state that climate change is an issue made worse by the burning of fossil fuels you will most likely soon to be employed in another area.

Of course I don't know why I bother, the deniers are never going to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

In response to one - or did you bother to read Dog's link?  It's the kind of piece written by a lawyer based on surveys of people depending on the tar sands oil industry for a living that you would appreciate - free markets!

Survey Says - if your job depends on oil and you state that climate change is an issue made worse by the burning of fossil fuels you will most likely soon to be employed in another area.

Of course I don't know why I bother, the deniers are never going to change.

My link was to a Forbes article about a new peer-reviewed study that found a majority of geoscientists and engineers are skeptics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

My link was to a Forbes article about a new peer-reviewed study that found a majority of geoscientists and engineers are skeptics.

So, it was an editorial piece that mentions a study. Did you read it? Because that is where it gets really interesting.  It's not the peer reviewed study and it's done by someone who is funded and supported by the oil industry.  I really don't have time to dig through every denier piece that works to discredit the science that is being done.

So, enjoy - I have work to do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

In response to one - or did you bother to read Dog's link?  It's the kind of piece written by a lawyer based on surveys of people depending on the tar sands oil industry for a living that you would appreciate - free markets!

Survey Says - if your job depends on oil and you state that climate change is an issue made worse by the burning of fossil fuels you will most likely soon to be employed in another area.

Of course I don't know why I bother, the deniers are never going to change.

Just some guy highlighted the editorial ......

Editorial is not science, it is generally intended to sway an idea or perception.

I have good reason for my skepticism as do millions of others and we are by and large not employed OR heavily invested in fossil fuel production, just people who can look past what MSM puts on our plate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

"One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine".

Sigh, did you bother to research just who was being surveyed?  I live in an oil town, a majority of my friends are employed by the industry and some are principals in oil companies. They are not going to bite the hand that feeds them.  The science is not settled - what is settled is that humans are negatively impacting the planets climate.

That piece is peer reviewed in the same way a jury is made up of your peers. The end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

 Just some guy highlighted the editorial ...

Directly from the study, no less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

Directly from the study, no less.

Yep, a "study"  should not editorialize. All credibility is out the window at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, warbird said:

Just some guy highlighted the editorial ......

Editorial is not science, it is generally intended to sway an idea or perception.

I have good reason for my skepticism as do millions of others and we are by and large not employed OR heavily invested in fossil fuel production, just people who can look past what MSM puts on our plate.

Including, it appears, a majority of geoscientists and engineers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dog said:

Including, it appears, a majority of geoscientists and engineers.

what the fuck do you get out of lying all day Dog? This is who they studied.

To answer this question, we consider how climate change is constructed by professional engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta, Canada. 

I'm past you guys being dumb. YOu guys aren't dumb, you are fucking nuts. Religious nuts. There is absolutely nothing you won't lie about. No result you won't distort and there is nothing that will ever change your mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

Yep, a "study"  should not editorialize. All credibility is out the window at that point.

So then Dod and Forbes are discredited.

Gotcha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, justsomeguy! said:

So then Dod and Forbes are discredited.

Gotcha.

Any study that is summarized with an editorial is revealed to be slanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, d'ranger said:

Sigh, did you bother to research just who was being surveyed?  I live in an oil town, a majority of my friends are employed by the industry and some are principals in oil companies. They are not going to bite the hand that feeds them.  The science is not settled - what is settled is that humans are negatively impacting the planets climate.

That piece is peer reviewed in the same way a jury is made up of your peers. The end.

It seems that human CO2 emissions have caused an increase in green vegetation on the planet to the tune of 2 continental US's.  Is that a positive impact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

It seems that human CO2 emissions have caused an increase in green vegetation on the planet to the tune of 2 continental US's.  Is that a positive impact?

Depends,   Are they invasive tree of heaven because insects have destroyed all the hemlock, ash etc?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

It seems that human CO2 emissions have caused an increase in green vegetation on the planet to the tune of 2 continental US's.  Is that a positive impact?

I am glad you are here - the village was missing it's idiot.  The CO2 greening balloon was shot down repeatedly a long time ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

Uh, nobody said it's not causing additional growth - it's your idea that this is good and offsets all the other effects which are not good.  This discussion was done repeatedly, not bothering to crayon it out for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, justsomeguy! said:

So then Dod and Forbes are discredited.

Gotcha.

Oops. "Dog".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, d'ranger said:

Uh, nobody said it's not causing additional growth - it's your idea that this is good and offsets all the other effects which are not good.  This discussion was done repeatedly, not bothering to crayon it out for you.

I asked if that impact was positive.  Is it?

Do you support the green new deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, jzk said:

I asked if that impact was positive.  Is it?

Do you support the green new deal?

No it isn't because of all the other effects that more than offset it. I made that clear before.  Do I support the GND? I don't know - so far it is simply some statements to be considered, I will support any and all that make sense.  I am out of crayons now and must leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, d'ranger said:

No it isn't because of all the other effects that more than offset it. I made that clear before.  Do I support the GND? I don't know - so far it is simply some statements to be considered, I will support any and all that make sense.  I am out of crayons now and must leave.

So positive effects are no longer positive effects if there are negative effects that outweigh them?  What kind of stupid logic is that?  

What you mean to say, I should hope, is that, yes, CO2 fertilization is a positive effect.  Was that so hard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

No it isn't because of all the other effects that more than offset it. I made that clear before.  Do I support the GND? I don't know - so far it is simply some statements to be considered, I will support any and all that make sense.  I am out of crayons now and must leave.

Don't leave them where jizkid can find them. He eats all the good colours.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jzk said:

So positive effects are no longer positive effects if there are negative effects that outweigh them?  What kind of stupid logic is that?  

What you mean to say, I should hope, is that, yes, CO2 fertilization is a positive effect.  Was that so hard?

 I found one more crayon so here is something to read: https://phys.org/news/2016-04-co2-fertilization-greening-earth.html

Having a lush green garden is awesome unless you die in the meantime. Typical of deniers to glom onto anything that could possible be good news in a scenario where the other aspect is: Everyone Dies.  The 5th paragraph (2nd from bottom) should help you out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, d'ranger said:

 I found one more crayon so here is something to read: https://phys.org/news/2016-04-co2-fertilization-greening-earth.html

Having a lush green garden is awesome unless you die in the meantime. Typical of deniers to glom onto anything that could possible be good news in a scenario where the other aspect is: Everyone Dies.  The 5th paragraph (2nd from bottom) should help you out. 

Then you agree that CO2 fertilization is a positive effect?

When do you predict that "Everyone Dies?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jzk said:

Then you agree that CO2 fertilization is a positive effect?

When do you predict that "Everyone Dies?"

facepalm.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, d'ranger said:

facepalm.jpg

So what you are saying is that you are so dedicated in your religion that you can't even admit that there are positive effects of increase CO2 in the atmosphere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, d'ranger said:

I am glad you are here - the village was missing it's idiot.  The CO2 greening balloon was shot down repeatedly a long time ago. 

...…..uhmmmm no...…..plankton, the most prevalent plants and animaqls on earth are at an all time high.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know you are dealing with a religious zealot if they can't honestly evaluate positives and negatives.  The idea that a warmer climate with increased atmospheric CO2 levels is 100% negative and 0% positive is ludicrous. 

I guess the only possible habitable climate of the Earth occurred in 1850, and any change from that equals "Everyone Dies."

Superstitious much?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, warbird said:

 

...…..uhmmmm no...…..plankton, the most prevalent plants and animaqls on earth are at an all time high.....

It's all the cannabis residue in the wastewater.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you clowns can't be bothered to read the article I linked which gives a cogent explanation of your CO2 idea I will not be bothered to deal with your ideas gathered at the feet of Our Lady Of Perpetual Stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Since you clowns can't be bothered to read the article I linked which gives a cogent explanation of your CO2 idea I will not be bothered to deal with your ideas gathered at the feet of Our Lady Of Perpetual Stupidity.

Then you admit that CO2 fertilization is a positive effect?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Since you clowns can't be bothered to read the article I linked which gives a cogent explanation of your CO2 idea I will not be bothered to deal with your ideas gathered at the feet of Our Lady Of Perpetual Stupidity.

I noticed that your "article" called melting glaciers a negative effect.  What is negative about melting glaciers?  Should we mourn the melting of the glaciers that gave us the Great Lakes?  

Like your reaction, your article is merely a tantrum that doesn't know how to deal with the fact that the Earth has greened due to human emitted CO2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit that you are a moron. Happy now? Or you could just read the fucking article and cure a bit of your stupidity.  And I could be the next King of England, neither very likely.

buh bye

edit: After so many attempts re: CO2 you want me to explain glacier melting? YHGTBFKM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

I admit that you are a moron. Happy now? Or you could just read the fucking article and cure a bit of your stupidity.  And I could be the next King of England, neither very likely.

buh bye

The article that says that glaciers melting is a "negative" and that the CO2 fertilization effect diminishes over time according to their "studies?"  Yet the planet continues to green.  I guess the planet has not read your stupid article.  Will the fertilization effect end right about the time "everyone dies?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

what the fuck do you get out of lying all day Dog? This is who they studied.

 

I'm past you guys being dumb. YOu guys aren't dumb, you are fucking nuts. Religious nuts. There is absolutely nothing you won't lie about. No result you won't distort and there is nothing that will ever change your mind. 

Here we are on the verge of some sort of at least primitive climate control, and apparently according to some :rolleyes:, God won’t allow us to do even that.  I should remind myself that Herod washed his hands all the time, but it wasn’t to get rid of bugs- it was to wash off guilt.  Did anybody know that Cleopatra installed Herod?  

Conservatives......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Amati said:

Here we are on the verge of some sort of at least primitive climate control, and apparently according to some :rolleyes:, God won’t allow us to do even that.  I should remind myself that Herod washed his hands all the time, but it wasn’t to get rid of bugs- it was to wash off guilt.  Did anybody know that Cleopatra installed Herod?  

Conservatives......

Herod wasn't a very good brand, she should have put in Sub Zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Herod wasn't a very good brand, she should have put in Sub Zero.

They’re soooo expensive- how about a nice Kitchen Aid?  Brushed Stainless would be nice.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Amati said:

They’re soooo expensive- how about a nice Kitchen Aid?  Brushed Stainless would be nice.....

You like replacing your appliances weekly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

You like replacing your appliances weekly?

You have a problem with that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Amati said:
8 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

You like replacing your appliances weekly?

You have a problem with that? 

Except for the dryer, which we replaced about fifteen years ago, and the dishwasher, that I installed shortly after we moved in, we have the appliances that came with the house, about 24 years ago. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Amati said:

Here we are on the verge of some sort of at least primitive climate control, and apparently according to some :rolleyes:, God won’t allow us to do even that.  I should remind myself that Herod washed his hands all the time, but it wasn’t to get rid of bugs- it was to wash off guilt.  Did anybody know that Cleopatra installed Herod?  

Conservatives......

Please...We don't even have a working model of our climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Except for the dryer, which we replaced about fifteen years ago, and the dishwasher, that I installed shortly after we moved in, we have the appliances that came with the house, about 24 years ago. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Leeetle joke, Ish.  My wife and I have noticed that stuff like that ^^^ nearly always needs replacing during recessions.  At moments like that we like to think that we’re keeping the economy afloat. :)

Besides, America is based on a disposable economy- people, stuff, you name it- fungibility taken to a ridiculous extreme.  It feeds named executive pay, but really, it’s driven by what, (?) a fear of being suddenly and brutally replaced that pricks that panic on- the terror of being irrelevant, and the winners have used measures so effective that a larger and larger part of the population is giving up, drowning in a sea of depression, fear and anger, having been cast aside. So the growth of the economy blossoms most obviously at the top.  

What else might Trump be about?

When the going gets strange, the weird turn pro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an article about the CO2 Greening that numbnutz was asking about https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

It's from the Scientific American which is about sciencey type stuff.  I assume he follows one of our brilliant politicians from Texas:

Climate change skeptics have an arsenal of arguments for why humans need not cut their carbon emissions. Some assert rising CO2 levels benefit plants, so global warming is not as bad as scientists proclaim. “A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would aid photosynthesis, which in turn contributes to increased plant growth,” Rep. Lamar Smith (R–Texas) wrote in an op-ed last year. “This correlates to a greater volume of food production and better quality food.” Scientists and others calling for emission cuts are being hysterical, he contends.

The piece then goes on to explain why he should actually learn some science before going off on a subject that is both technical and complicated.  It's not long and worth the read and not hard to grasp for anyone able to actually comprehend science.  As for his melting glaciers comment I can't find anything better than the ultimate face palm to address that gem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The oceans are absorbing 90% of the carbon emissions. Combined with climate change, the increased salinity is causing bleaching of coral and the die offs of all our great reefs.

I guess a Republicans are ok with that because some grass is greener on the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, d'ranger said:

Here is an article about the CO2 Greening that numbnutz was asking about https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

It's from the Scientific American which is about sciencey type stuff.  I assume he follows one of our brilliant politicians from Texas:

Climate change skeptics have an arsenal of arguments for why humans need not cut their carbon emissions. Some assert rising CO2 levels benefit plants, so global warming is not as bad as scientists proclaim. “A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would aid photosynthesis, which in turn contributes to increased plant growth,” Rep. Lamar Smith (R–Texas) wrote in an op-ed last year. “This correlates to a greater volume of food production and better quality food.” Scientists and others calling for emission cuts are being hysterical, he contends.

The piece then goes on to explain why he should actually learn some science before going off on a subject that is both technical and complicated.  It's not long and worth the read and not hard to grasp for anyone able to actually comprehend science.  As for his melting glaciers comment I can't find anything better than the ultimate face palm to address that gem.

Did you read your stupid article?  What a fucking joke.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

The oceans are absorbing 90% of the carbon emissions. Combined with climate change, the increased salinity is causing bleaching of coral and the die offs of all our great reefs.

I guess a Republicans are ok with that because some grass is greener on the other side.

Say what???

Corals beach from high SST's caused by weather patterns. CO2 raises the carbonate level of seawater causing it to become more acidic. Well that last bit is said by alarmists because the fact is if your swimming pool was as acidic as the ocean, you'd actually still need to chuck in more acid to balance it to stop the water from making your eyes sting when you went for a swim because sea water is actually alkaline.

And there is no dispute the world is 30% greener. Compensates a little for the deforestation effect that cause things like reduced uptake of atmospheric CO2 and increasing sedimentation of coastal reefs that no one ever worries about because there's no money in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jzk said:

Did you read your stupid article?  What a fucking joke.  

I apologize for the quality of the article - Scientific American has yet to offer a coloring book version of it's materials. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, d'ranger said:

I apologize for the quality of the article - Scientific American has yet to offer a coloring book version of it's materials. 

Yeah, interviewing a bunch of "experts" about what is "likely" when the real life data already proves that CO2 is greening the Earth.  Stupid.  Really stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jzk said:

Yeah, interviewing a bunch of "experts" about what is "likely" when the real life data already proves that CO2 is greening the Earth.  Stupid.  Really stupid.

What happens to humans, though, with hypercapnia and hypocapnia?  Maybe the same with the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that creating huge algae blooms is "greening the planet".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ishmael said:

I'm not sure that creating huge algae blooms is "greening the planet".

Yeah, you are not sure about many things.  Are we in an ice age?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jzk said:

Yeah, interviewing a bunch of "experts" about what is "likely" when the real life data already proves that CO2 is greening the Earth.  Stupid.  Really stupid.

Just remember.....

The experts said the earth is flat, an amateur proved them wrong.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ishmael said:

I'm not sure that creating huge algae blooms is "greening the planet".

That algae is a CO2 sink. That algae dies and gets deposited on the ocean floor, sequestering that CO2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, warbird said:

That algae is a CO2 sink. That algae dies and gets deposited on the ocean floor, sequestering that CO2.

Soaks up a lot of excess fertilizer too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, warbird said:

That algae is a CO2 sink. That algae dies and gets deposited on the ocean floor, sequestering that CO2.

 

29 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Soaks up a lot of excess fertilizer too.

Funny how tings work, idn it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

That algae is a CO2 sink. That algae dies and gets deposited on the ocean floor, sequestering that CO2.

Very very much depends on what kind of algae.

A lot of algae blooms actually reduce the dissolved oxygen in the water, making it impossible for anything else to live.

Hence the term "dead zone"

This is not something that occurred prior to humankind's disruption of the environment, nor is it healthy for us (or anything other than that algae)

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, warbird said:

Just remember.....

The experts said the earth is flat, an amateur proved them wrong.....

Actually it was the theologians and peasants that claimed the earth was flat, much as the current anti science crowd,    Those that could read Ancient Greek knew better for more then two millennium.  

there are some stars seen in Egypt and in the neighbourhood of Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions; and stars, which in the north are never beyond the range of observation, in those regions rise and set. All of which goes to show not only that the earth is circular in shape, but also that it is a sphere of no great size: for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.

Also, those mathematicians who try to calculate the size of the earth's circumference arrive at the figure 400,000 stades. This indicates not only that the earth's mass is spherical in shape, but also that as compared with the stars it is not of great size.

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/heavens.2.ii.html

on the calculation of the size of the sphere:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes.   The early models weren't perfect but they had the fundamental facts right.   Only a few dolts and superstitious peasants ignored their work.  The chief librarian at the Great Library of Alexandria was no amateur.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Very very much depends on what kind of algae.

A lot of algae blooms actually reduce the dissolved oxygen in the water, making it impossible for anything else to live.

Hence the term "dead zone"

This is not something that occurred prior to humankind's disruption of the environment, nor is it healthy for us (or anything other than that algae)

-DSK

So then, what type of green vegetation has been added to the Earth as a result of our CO2 emissions?

If you look at the actual data, you will see that it is virtually every type.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Lark said:

Actually it was the theologians and peasants that claimed the earth was flat, much as the current anti science crowd,    Those that could read Ancient Greek knew better for more then two millennium.  

there are some stars seen in Egypt and in the neighbourhood of Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions; and stars, which in the north are never beyond the range of observation, in those regions rise and set. All of which goes to show not only that the earth is circular in shape, but also that it is a sphere of no great size: for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.

Also, those mathematicians who try to calculate the size of the earth's circumference arrive at the figure 400,000 stades. This indicates not only that the earth's mass is spherical in shape, but also that as compared with the stars it is not of great size.

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/heavens.2.ii.html

on the calculation of the size of the sphere:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes.   The early models weeent perfect,  it they had the fundamental facts right.   Only a few dolts and superstitious peasants ignored their work.

I can see a historic @Dog angrily screeching that the world must be flat because early calculations of a spherical earth weren't a correct model

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jzk said:

So then, what type of green vegetation has been added to the Earth as a result of our CO2 emissions?

If you look at the actual data, you will see that it is virtually every type.  

“...But it's an ill wind blaws naebody gude."

there are other translations, but as I have a fondness for the Rob Roy boat, I’ll quote Sir Walter Scott.   After all, the best sailing days in my area are often the strong straight winds that follow the gulf being destroyed by a hurricane.   Therefore I’m pro hurricane, though the poor unfortunate souls down there may suffer a bit so I can plane on a reefed main,  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jzk said:

So then, what type of green vegetation has been added to the Earth as a result of our CO2 emissions?

If you look at the actual data, you will see that it is virtually every type.  

How does this pertain to algae blooms causing benthic (and estuarine) dead zones?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites