Hard to take climate change seriously when scientists claim snakes and lizards are eating eggs in the far north shores
Arctic 'no safe harbour' for breeding birds
Arctic 'no safe harbour' for breeding birds
Time to take CLIMATE CHANGE SERIOUSLY
- Thread starter Ocean Breeze
- Start date
How much more is that than the nightly cooling effects. Will my hot-air balloon work better or not??
Volcanoes going off already and more pressure is going to be added???
The probe sent back any temp readings during it's 'twisting maneuver', Did it say what temp that program kicked in. How much did it weigh on earth and how much will it weight when it is close to the sun?
Perhaps if we let off 10 or so nuclear weapons in a specific that will re-balance things once those 10 really, really expensive nukes are build and let off in the south pole or Iran the bad weather will go away and a new and accurate forecast will be made. Might be expensive to repair the past mistakes but if we all donate as much as we can rather than as little as we can all will be good.
Last edited:
Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study
researchers with UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Princeton University recently walked back scientific findings published last month that showed oceans have been heating up dramatically faster than previously thought as a result of climate change.
In a paper published Oct. 31 in the journal Nature, researchers found that ocean temperatures had warmed 60 percent more than outlined by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
However, the conclusion came under scrutiny after mathematician Nic Lewis, a critic of the scientific consensus around human-induced warming, posted a critique of the paper on the blog of Judith Curry, another well-known critic.
“The findings of the ... paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media,” Lewis wrote. “Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”
Co-author Ralph Keeling, climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, took full blame and thanked Lewis for alerting him to the mistake.
“When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” he said. “We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.”
Keeling said they have since redone the calculations, finding the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC. However, that increase in heat has a larger range of probability than initially thought — between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.
“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed the error margins.”
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html
oooops...
AGAIN!
researchers with UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Princeton University recently walked back scientific findings published last month that showed oceans have been heating up dramatically faster than previously thought as a result of climate change.
In a paper published Oct. 31 in the journal Nature, researchers found that ocean temperatures had warmed 60 percent more than outlined by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
However, the conclusion came under scrutiny after mathematician Nic Lewis, a critic of the scientific consensus around human-induced warming, posted a critique of the paper on the blog of Judith Curry, another well-known critic.
“The findings of the ... paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media,” Lewis wrote. “Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”
Co-author Ralph Keeling, climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, took full blame and thanked Lewis for alerting him to the mistake.
“When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” he said. “We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.”
Keeling said they have since redone the calculations, finding the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC. However, that increase in heat has a larger range of probability than initially thought — between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.
“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed the error margins.”
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html
oooops...
AGAIN!
Oops, can we keep the $100M and we'll need $200M more to undo our mistake. Thanks in advance.
Go do the math in the NASA thread, it will give you a good idea what you are getting for your money. Spoiler: Not much.
Go do the math in the NASA thread, it will give you a good idea what you are getting for your money. Spoiler: Not much.
Cold San Antonio weather 'shatters' 102-year-old record
The cold weather also broke daily records on Tuesday and Wednesday.
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/w...io-weather-shatters-102-year-old-13391345.php
Snow-vember! The earliest Houston snowfall ever just happened!
HOUSTON — An incredible sight danced over the city’s glistening skyscrapers of Houston this morning and likely caused many to rub their eyes and shake their heads. No, it wasn't your lying eyes but rather the earliest snowfall ever observed in the city of Houston and surrounding areas.
It's official, according to the National Weather Service, that Houston has recorded it's earliest snowfall ever observed -- and not just by a day or two but by 10 days! The previous earliest trace snow was November 23rd, 1979.
https://www.khou.com/article/news/l...ton-snowfall-ever-just-happened/285-614153347
Yes...it's official.
The cold weather also broke daily records on Tuesday and Wednesday.
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/w...io-weather-shatters-102-year-old-13391345.php
Snow-vember! The earliest Houston snowfall ever just happened!
HOUSTON — An incredible sight danced over the city’s glistening skyscrapers of Houston this morning and likely caused many to rub their eyes and shake their heads. No, it wasn't your lying eyes but rather the earliest snowfall ever observed in the city of Houston and surrounding areas.
It's official, according to the National Weather Service, that Houston has recorded it's earliest snowfall ever observed -- and not just by a day or two but by 10 days! The previous earliest trace snow was November 23rd, 1979.
https://www.khou.com/article/news/l...ton-snowfall-ever-just-happened/285-614153347
Yes...it's official.
From Drudge.com
Northeast Coldest Thanksgiving on Record?
https://weather.com/forecast/regional/news/2018-11-18-thanksgiving-day-record-cold-northeast/
Temps 25° below average!
https://www.wusa9.com/article/weath...en-it-will-feel-like-the-10s-20s/65-615665921
MACY'S Parade could be frigid nightmare...
https://nypost.com/2018/11/19/macys-thanksgiving-day-parade-could-be-a-frigid-nightmare/
LIVE: CHILL MAP...
http://hp2.wright-weather.com/icons/us_chill.gif
Northeast Coldest Thanksgiving on Record?
https://weather.com/forecast/regional/news/2018-11-18-thanksgiving-day-record-cold-northeast/
Temps 25° below average!
https://www.wusa9.com/article/weath...en-it-will-feel-like-the-10s-20s/65-615665921
MACY'S Parade could be frigid nightmare...
https://nypost.com/2018/11/19/macys-thanksgiving-day-parade-could-be-a-frigid-nightmare/
LIVE: CHILL MAP...
http://hp2.wright-weather.com/icons/us_chill.gif
BREAKING NEWS
Climate change could slash the size of America��s economy by 10 percent by 2100 unless major action is taken, a federal government report says.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/23/...aking-news&nlid=55065696ing-news&ref=headline
"Could" slash the size of America's economy by 10% in 81 years....
REGINA, SK: The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on the federal government to back off on its threatened carbon tax in the wake of a new University of Regina study detailing the damage a carbon tax would inflict on the Saskatchewan economy while failing to help the environment.
“There are two problems with a carbon tax: it costs people money and it doesn’t help the environment,” said Todd MacKay, the CTF’s Prairie Director. “While Ottawa refuses to provide transparency on its carbon tax scheme, the University of Regina’s study shines a light on the economic damage a carbon tax would cause.”
Ottawa’s carbon tax will cost the Saskatchewan economy $1.8 billion every year, according to the University of Regina. That’s equivalent to a GDP loss of 2.4 per cent. A separate University of Calgary study shows the carbon tax will cost Saskatchewan households more than $1,000 annually.
“We have to look beyond the billion-dollar numbers to see the hurt a carbon tax will cause for Saskatchewanians,” said MacKay. “A carbon tax will make grocery bills bigger for families and jobs harder to get for workers.”
The University of Regina also examined the environmental impact of Ottawa’s carbon tax scheme and found it would trim Saskatchewan emissions by a mere 1.25 per cent.
“Canada produces 1.6 per cent of global emissions and Saskatchewan produces a tenth of those emissions,” said MacKay. "That means Ottawa’s carbon tax would cost Saskatchewan’s economy $1.8 billion a year without making any real change in Canadian or global emissions.”
The University of Regina’s evidence of a carbon tax’s economic harm balanced against its failure to significantly reduce emissions provides key arguments as the Saskatchewan government goes to the Court of Queen’s Bench to block Ottawa’s scheme. The CTF is seeking intervener status to raise arguments on behalf of taxpayers.
“Going to court will force Ottawa to stop hiding its carbon tax numbers and put its cards on the table,” said MacKay. “The University of Regina’s research strengthens Saskatchewan’s hand as it makes its case to stop Ottawa’s carbon tax.”
But you'll get $200 in free money a year.
That's enough to buy 1/3 of a window. Just imagine the energy savings from 1/3 of a new window.
That's enough to buy 1/3 of a window. Just imagine the energy savings from 1/3 of a new window.
Climate report warns aggressive action is needed to avoid ��substantial damages�� to health, economy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/
The equivalent to a GDP loss of 2.4 per cent may trim Saskatchewan emissions by 1.25%? What happens with a progressively increasing Carbon Tax to reduce emissions by 50%?
Lowering Saskatchewan emissions by 1.25% = 2.4% loss in GDP
Lowering Saskatchewan emissions by 50% = 96% loss in GDP? (50% / 1.24% = 40 x 2.4% = 96%?)
Saskatchewan will freeze and starve, & Trudeau with retire with a PM's Pension in a few years & live off his Trust Fund in the Caribbean. Sounds like a good deal. All we have to do is agree to buy his magic beans carbon tax, or be forced to buy his magic beans carbon tax. It's good to have choices....
Lowering Saskatchewan emissions by 1.25% = 2.4% loss in GDP
Lowering Saskatchewan emissions by 50% = 96% loss in GDP? (50% / 1.24% = 40 x 2.4% = 96%?)
Saskatchewan will freeze and starve, & Trudeau with retire with a PM's Pension in a few years & live off his Trust Fund in the Caribbean. Sounds like a good deal. All we have to do is agree to buy his magic beans carbon tax, or be forced to buy his magic beans carbon tax. It's good to have choices....
Last edited: