Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 8      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »
woody

Registered:
Posts: 10,204
Reply with quote  #31 
This might be the map that came from changing algorithms in the satellite imaging software. NASA first noticed pronounced changes when the software was modified. They knew something was wrong with one or both of the different software programs. Even still they are producing science and global temperature maps based on an unknown glitch in their imaging software. Read the maps but be aware even they are not confident in their own temperature measurements because of faults in their software.
__________________
Jane you ignorant slut. Keep your booger hook of the bang switch, you stupid Socialist. 

Beer me Hippie. I feel more like I do now, than when I first got here.
GrizzlyFan

Registered:
Posts: 2,055
Reply with quote  #32 
Lake Superior 20 degrees colder than in '12...

__________________
If Obamacare is such a good thing, why did he have to lie about it to get it passed?
DietCoke

Registered:
Posts: 2,302
Reply with quote  #33 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrizzlyFan
Lake Superior 20 degrees colder than in '12...


Thanks for bolstering the argument for global climate change.  Global warming is altering currents and creating upwellings like the one described in the article you posted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3350973/How-global-warming-affects-fish-stocks.html

__________________

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

― Theodore Roosevelt

woody

Registered:
Posts: 10,204
Reply with quote  #34 
Umm, while currents occur in freshwater lakes, especially large bodies of water, they in no way compare to the changes in surface water temperature changes that ocean currents cause. Ocean altimetry is awesome. In some cases you can find a huge uprising of water far above sea level that ocean currents cause when they collide, meet temperature, and or depth changes. I know, because I have been using it for a long time to target potential fishing areas far offshore. (Satellite imagery can be a useful tool) A sudden up swell in the current changes water temperature, but most importantly pushes bait up, and into a confined area that pelagic fish can easily ambush and feed. Ocean currents can make water temperature variations across vast expanses of open oceans. The Great Lakes while substantial in size, do not have the currents that exist in the open ocean to dramatically change the ambient air temperature of the surrounding areas. Nice try, but the Great Lakes, and their temperature are not affected by currents like the oceans. Keep posting up links, but please go out and actually experience what the earth can do in person, instead of reading a linked article. Purty neat stuff when viewed first hand. Just a hint, went out of Venice LA about 70 miles. Fished some deep water oil rigs at night, and right at first light, we had about 5 acres of Yellowfin tuna, skying (jumping 5' out of the water) at about 40-50 mph, attacking flying fish. Awesome stuff. You can't see that behind a desk, or on a couch.



__________________
Jane you ignorant slut. Keep your booger hook of the bang switch, you stupid Socialist. 

Beer me Hippie. I feel more like I do now, than when I first got here.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 10,204
Reply with quote  #35 
http://ripcharts.com/Map.aspx?id=531569

neat stuff


__________________
Jane you ignorant slut. Keep your booger hook of the bang switch, you stupid Socialist. 

Beer me Hippie. I feel more like I do now, than when I first got here.
GrizzlyFan

Registered:
Posts: 2,055
Reply with quote  #36 
Record low temps outpacing record highs 2-1 in USA...

 Montgomery, AL shatters record low set in 1889...

Coldest July ever in Indianapolis...

__________________
If Obamacare is such a good thing, why did he have to lie about it to get it passed?
GrizzlyFan

Registered:
Posts: 2,055
Reply with quote  #37 
Oh I get it now Diet Yard, global warming is warming the water and the warm water is making the water cooler.... Makes perfect sense [thumb]
__________________
If Obamacare is such a good thing, why did he have to lie about it to get it passed?
GrizzlyFan

Registered:
Posts: 2,055
Reply with quote  #38 
PAPER: 'Myth of arctic meltdown'...

Satellite images show cap has GROWN...

Gore predicted it would be ICE-FREE by now...

__________________
If Obamacare is such a good thing, why did he have to lie about it to get it passed?
GrizzlyFan

Registered:
Posts: 2,055
Reply with quote  #39 

Myth of arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now

  • Seven years after former US Vice-President Al Gore's warning, Arctic ice cap has expanded for second year in row
  • An area twice the size of Alaska - America's biggest state - was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice
  • These satellite images taken from University of Illinois's Cryosphere project show ice has become more concentrated

ByDavid Rose for The Mail on Sunday

The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’

Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change.

But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.

Scroll down for video

[1409435267461_Image_galleryImage_polar1_JPG]

 

To put it another way, an area the size of Alaska, America’s biggest state, was open water two years ago, but is again now covered by ice.

The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline – last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.

This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent.

Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html#ixzz3Bzjw4noj
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

__________________
If Obamacare is such a good thing, why did he have to lie about it to get it passed?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #40 
The Guardian, not a source likely to cover for Governments around the globe, allowed this article describing a very large consensus supporting man-made influence on climate.  Not sure why anyone would recommend people should simply dismiss this research.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 12,106
Reply with quote  #41 
An article that's a year and a half old describing institutional bullying of climate scientists.  Their case would be stronger if so much of the historical data hasn't been manipulated to fit into a political position.
__________________
Will I Wynn is a poster who used to go by the name of Dewey.  He used to criticize people who did that.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #42 
Climate-gate is so exaggerated.  However, it provided the skeptics with something to hang their hat on.  Reminds me of the OJ case.  The glove was tight, it didn't fit, we can now acquit.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 27,177
Reply with quote  #43 
dewy celebrated when OJ was acquitted, I've got pictures
__________________
"Getting your motor revved about taking our guns is going to be what undoes your efforts."

"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 6,301
Reply with quote  #44 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Climate-gate is so exaggerated.  However, it provided the skeptics with something to hang their hat on.  Reminds me of the OJ case.  The glove was tight, it didn't fit, we can now acquit.

Not as exaggerated as the gloom and doom of the man made global warming crowd. We should all be drowning in the rising oceans, all the polar bears should be dead, and the world should be starving due to crop losses. Just ask Al and his crew

__________________
#SCOTUS

Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #45 
spazsdad - Let me share some thoughts I have regarding this ongoing controversy.

a)  The article I posted earlier, along with so many similar articles I've read through the years, leads me to the conclusion the vast majority of scientists studying this issue obviously believe humans are affecting the global climate, and not in a positive way.

b)  It's clear to me scientists commit themselves to very high levels of education, and dedicate a lifetime of work in research, climate and environment in this case, for far more important reasons than easy access to income.  I can't imagine many scientists go to such lifetime lengths just for the easy buck.  What a waste of a life.

c)  Many scientists have grown old and retired from the research practice.  I'm guessing a significant number of these scientists would self reflect and find a need deep inside to expose a community misleading the entire world, strictly for the financial benefits they can garner.  It simply doesn't compute with my understanding of people, born with the gift of a great mind, who choose and dedicate a lifetime in hopes of discovering answers.  I just can't buy the conspiracy theory that minds like these opt for the misinformation road simply to get money.  Like I said, this would make for a very shallow life.
steelman

Registered:
Posts: 403
Reply with quote  #46 
Dewey do you believe that the arctic ice caps are not melting but have increased. I guess Al Gore was wrong. This was the first summer in a long time when the temps failed to hit 90 degrees on Long Island. Not one day over 90. I think today might be the hottest day of the summer and its Sept 1st. Now as far as high temps over water and the rise in sea level I have a theory. If there was increased activity in underwater volcanos and release of magma in the water would increase the temp and raise the sea level of the oceans. Does anyone know if this theory is correct?
__________________
Of all the things ive lost, I miss my mind the most.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,292
Reply with quote  #47 
There was a time when 100% of the people (save a few) believed the sun moved around the earth. Why? Because all the best minds in science, government, and religion said so. If you didn't believe this, and spoke your mind, you could be executed.

There was a time when people believed the earth was flat. Why? Because the best minds in science, government, and religion said so.

History tells us that just because people believe something, that doesn't make it true. All these people, throughout most of human history, were their lives wasted?

How about all the Gods the Greeks believed in.

More recently, tens of millions of Russians believed in Soviet Commumism. Were their lives wasted?

Well, apparently by Dewey's logic - that people who devote their lives to beliefs that turn out to be wrong - almost all the lives throughout human history have been wasted.

Let's take a mathematician - he polices a new theorem, gains fame, fortune, and tenure; but 20 years later another mathematician comes along and apparently disproves the original theorem. Well Math Guy #1, with entire career and existence at stake, argues vehemently in favor if his original theorem. But as evidence mounts refuting his theorem, he embarks on a journey to tweak his findings so they are compatible with Math Guy #2's findings. It wouldn't be long before Math Guy #1 falls from favor, his long held "truth" now irreconcilably refuted. Was his life wasted?

Now let's look at the global warming scientists of 20-30 years ago, and their multitude if dire predictions, all supported by the best science conducted by the best minds of their time. People like Al Gore latched into these predictions, and made these scientists famous (at least in the scientific community of climate) and they wrote books and studies and gained fame and were rewarded with ever more prestigious positions (giving their theories more importance.) But then 10 years went by, and another ten, and as their dire predictions failed to materialize, the "experts" with their entire careers vested in Global Warming, had no choice but to start moving the goalposts. The ice cap didn't melt, the coastlines haven't vanished, Los Angeles is still there - even Malibu is still above water! But does anyone expect these "experts" to now come out and say they were wrong? To surrender their tenure, their fame, their speaking fees; to admit their lives were wasted?

Of course they won't. They will look at the new evidence - that being reality - and say "Yes, but..." They'll revise their dire predictions and tell us "We are still right, but..." And they will have plenty of supporters, as they gained many followers on their ascent in the scientific community, and those supporters will produce theories that validate the original dire predictions but now account for various other factors, and they'll back off global warming and go with Climate Change. This way pretty much any change in the climate will fall under thier auspice if expertise.

But seriously people - if these "experts" were so wrong 20-30 years ago, what makes them so right today? Because they changed the terminology? Because they predict new causes and effects that appear plausible, at least to themselves, their acolytes, and those many followers with vested financial interests. Do we really need all the hysteria this brings on? Do we really need to kill off industries and put people out of work, just to prove these scientists who were wrong before are suddenly omniscient? No, we don't.

We need a common sense approach. We don't need to regulate industries out if existence, putting people in unemployment and welfare. We don't need to give our friends and cronies tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to developers new technologies that don't materialize and end up going bankrupt. We don't need to move the goalposts all over the field every time a theory falls apart, or predictions prove false. We don't need the knee-jerk reactions the Global Climate soomsayers insist on, as they benefit financially from their "predictions." We simply need some common sense. A long term goal, with a long term plan, with verifiable milestones to track our progress. None of which we get from the hysteria of the doomsayers.

Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #48 
steelman - I don't doubt your comment on arctic ice.  I'm not smart enough to understand all this science but here is the first article I came across.  I'm in no position to debate the accuracy of science but I'm confident in my logic that these many scientists did not dedicate their lives to science strictly to rip off the budgets of Governments, or to accept inaccurate findings.

FIB - Argue the wisdom of these scientists all day long.  Be my guest.  Or argue against the solutions being presented to address the problem.  That's fair too.  It's when others suggest they're mostly all lying, in what must be some sort of large conspiracy, that causes me to shrug.
vol52

Registered:
Posts: 984
Reply with quote  #49 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
 It's when others suggest they're mostly all lying, in what must be some sort of large conspiracy, that causes me to shrug.


Then again, how about Al Gore laughing all the way to the bank in his private jet? Or his house in Belle Meade that was an energy black hole until he was outed and THEN began to initiate energy saving practices that he so passionately preached to everyone else. (The info on his house came from the democrat leaning local rag The Tennessean.

On the other side of the coin, the growth in Arctic ice is very good news, but for the moment it looks to me to be mostly regaining what was lost in the previous 2-4 years.  I hope it continues to grow.

Steelman, This summer was the best in Nashville in years.  Ironically, our hottest weather seems to have come in late August after school started...but still very manageable, up to mid 90's.
_____________________
Steve Rhodes
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #50 
vol52 - If anger at Al Gore is leading skeptics/Right to convince the world that scientists are purposely misleading them, I'm not sure what to say.
vol52

Registered:
Posts: 984
Reply with quote  #51 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
vol52 - If anger at Al Gore is leading skeptics/Right to convince the world that scientists are purposely misleading them, I'm not sure what to say.


Dewey,

Anger at Al Gore isn't the issue.  The issue is I'm not so sure he really believes all that he preaches since he can show no evidence of practicing what he preaches.  He's like a televangelist that gives Christians a bad name.  It's all about the money.
_______________
Steve Rhodes
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #52 
vol52 - My response would be Al Gore isn't the issue.  Rely on the thousands of other worldwide scientists who are suggesting we need to address our environmental issues.  I'm confident, for the reasons I listed earlier, the vast majority of them are not in it for the money.  Personally, I don't think Al Gore is in it for the money either but I have no idea why you and I should debate such.  It's irrelevant, imo, but I can respect the fact you have differing opinions concerning our former VP.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,292
Reply with quote  #53 
The difference isn't whether we should ignore the environment, no one I know says we should. The difference is what the issues are, and what, if anything, we should do about it.

The multitudes of scientists have been upstaged by reality - the ice cap is there and growing. Coastal areas haven't washed away. Their catastrophic predictions were wrong. Why would we base our policy, or even rely them for information? There are, in fact, other climate experts who have said all along the "catastrophe group" was wrong, and it turns out this second group got it right. Why wouldn't we turn to them, in light of the indisputable reality?

vol52

Registered:
Posts: 984
Reply with quote  #54 
Dewey,

No debate.  My point is that, sometimes it most definitely is about the money.  Gore is the most visible proponent for global warming. That makes him an issue. At this point he can't afford to not be preaching against it.  

No matter how anyone feels about Rush Limbaugh, I presume those on the left would be in agreement that he can ill afford to not have a Democrat to bash.  Rachel Maddow needs a Republican to bash.  If either one changes their stripes the money disappears, doesn't it?

__________________
Steve Rhodes
vol52

Registered:
Posts: 984
Reply with quote  #55 
I guess I have been an environmentalist even before it was popular.  While backpacking in my youth, it was sickening to see a mountainside clear cut in the San Juans in Colorado and the outer reaches of Mt. Rainier in Washington.  

What I don't like is when something becomes apocalyptical like global warming. And once it is politicized, then all rational discussion is over.   I would hope everyone is for clean air, water, and reasonable use of resources like timber, gas, oil, etc.  People look at global warming and presume there is a specific cause, ignoring the significant periods of warming AND cooling in past centuries that are documented without the evidence of car exhaust and over flatulence of bovines. For scientists the issue has become cause and effect.  We can document the effect (rising or falling temperatures) but trying to determine cause is a different animal, e.g. global cooling as an outcome in the seventies is now considered to be false.  The best guess was wrong 30 years ago.  Do they have it right this time?  Who knows? Personally I think it is not that simple, but I'm just a lousy band director.
_______________
Steve Rhodes 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #56 
vol52 - I hear what you're saying but it drifts from the point I'm trying to make.  I have no doubt we all care about the environment.  I'm more focused on the scientific community.  I believe the vast majority are saying mankind is having a negative effect on the climate and the world should address the problem.  At the same time, I don't believe these folks invested a lifetime in order to get it wrong and collect a free check.  They would have chosen to be bankers instead. [wink]

I don't see the apocalyptic concern you do.  "We're going to be Greece", "we're losing our Country", and "we're going broke" are far better examples of the doom and gloom one side can present.  Here, beyond reducing our carbon footprint, I don't see this as the over-the-top concern that needed to be politicized? 

As for me, I'm just a machinist who also doesn't have the answers as to where we go from here.  I'll thank and leave this job to the educated.  In any event, if one believes mankind is affecting the global climate in a negative way, then we can move to the next stage of the debate.  If some don't believe such to be the case, then my original post was written to tell them why I do.

FIB - I forgot to address your post.  You're missing my point on "wasting a life".  I'm using that phrase for those who went to great lengths to educate themselves, joined the field they loved, and then chose to deliberately tell it all wrong for the sake of a Government check.  To completely become uninterested in the "truth" in exchange for money, would be a wasted life and I'm confident such is not the case among the vast majority of those scientists practicing research.
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #57 
Dewey - If the profit motive and singular value of profit is the beginning and ending point for this debate, then ignoring the future of the planet in favor of immediate profit is the solution.  If one argues from a "tree hugger's perspective", he or she will be repulsed and scoffed at by those who favor a profit motive society.  So it goes.  Remember the Golden Rule.  "He who has the gold makes the rules" of debate concerning this subject.
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,969
Reply with quote  #58 
JG - so you think the global warming crowd is only in it for the altruistic help mankind motive?

Obama dumped a trillion dollars into "green energy" - what did it get us?  His goal was to create "green industry".  It didn't play out that way, but it was all profit driven.

Same profits, different product.  It is not as one sided as you think.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JoiseyGuy
Dewey - If the profit motive and singular value of profit is the beginning and ending point for this debate, then ignoring the future of the planet in favor of immediate profit is the solution.  If one argues from a "tree hugger's perspective", he or she will be repulsed and scoffed at by those who favor a profit motive society.  So it goes.  Remember the Golden Rule.  "He who has the gold makes the rules" of debate concerning this subject.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 12,106
Reply with quote  #59 
This is unbelievable.  John ("I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot.") Kerry says the Bible instructs us to deal with global warming.  WTF???  And why do we need to hire a diplomat to deal with Mulsims?  Allen West is appropriately apoplectic about it.

http://allenbwest.com/2014/09/kerry-bible-commands-us-fight-climate-change-particularly-muslim-countries/


__________________
Will I Wynn is a poster who used to go by the name of Dewey.  He used to criticize people who did that.
GrizzlyFan

Registered:
Posts: 2,055
Reply with quote  #60 
'No global warming for 215 months'...

The numbers are in and the verdict is that there has been no global warming for 17 years and 11 months, according to satellite data.

Satellite data prepared by Lord Christopher Monckton shows there has been no warming trend from October of 1996 to August of 2014 — 215 months. To put this in perspective, kids graduating from high school this year have not lived through any global warming in their lifetimes.

According to Monckton — the third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and a former policy adviser to U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher — the rate of warming has been half of what climate scientists initially predicted in the early 1990s.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) first predicted in 1990 that global temperatures would rise at a rate of 2.8 degrees Celsius per century. But the temperature rise since the IPCC’s prediction has only been at a rate of 1.4 degrees Celsius per century.

The so-called “pause” in global warming has baffled climate scientists, as many climate models did not predict a prolonged period of little to no warming. While some climate scientists deny the “pause” in global warming even exists, others have looked to places ocean and wind patterns for answers as to why there has been no warming for nearly two decades.

There are now literally dozens of potential explanations for the global warming “pause,” ranging from increasing volcanic activity to Chinese coal-fired power plant emissions.

“The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with ‘substantial confidence’ that the science was settled and the debate over,” Monckton wrote in his climate analysis. “Nature had other ideas.”

“Though more than two dozen more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed,” Monckton added.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/08/report-no-global-warming-for-215-months/#ixzz3CjrYfu3i

__________________
If Obamacare is such a good thing, why did he have to lie about it to get it passed?
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.