Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on November 30, 2014 at 8:02pm

The article cited is a reprint from livescience.com.

Excerpt from the article:

"The increases are concentrated primarily in the Ross Sea in western Antarctica. Sea ice in the nearby Bellingshausen and Amundsen seas has significantly decreased. Researchers suspect these regional differences could result from stronger winds or increased meltwater from the Antarctic ice sheet, or a combination of both factors."

From an earlier (2012) article from livescience.com:

"The National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which tracks sea ice using satellite data, explains on its website why Antarctic ice has weathered global warming more robustly than Arctic ice."

 "...if anyone had asked an actual scientist, they would have learned that a good year for sea ice in the Antarctic in no way nullifies the precipitous drop in Arctic sea-ice levels year after year." 

 "We have known for many years that as the Earth started to warm up, the effects would be seen first in the Arctic and not the Antarctic. The physical geography of the two hemispheres is very different. Largely as a result of that, they behave very differently."

"The extent of Arctic sea ice at its summertime low point has dropped 40 percent in the past three decades. The idea that a tiny Antarctic ice expansion makes up for this — that heat is merely shifting from the the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern and therefore global warming must not be happening — is 'just nonsense' "

Shock treatment?

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dexter Green on December 1, 2014 at 4:16am

Still no explanation as to why we've had a "pause" in warming trends for 215 months.  Ok, there are actually 52 explanations and they're all hilarious.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on December 1, 2014 at 9:05am

Dan wrote:

"The article cited is a reprint from livescience.com."

The article I cited in the OP was found at AccuWeather.  I seriously doubt they would have put the information forward if they thought it flawed.  AccuWeather is headquartered in State College, Pennsylvania.  The folks there know about weather.  They only have hunches about climate.  But their hunches are worth a lot more than the findings of the "scientists" your side pays off.  Liberal interests have not been funneling "research" cash to Accuweather.  Thus, they remain free to write and promote the truth as they view it.

Liberals, OTOH, have problems with the truth, and they simply turn away when their lies are boldly exposed:

*If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.

*If you like your insurance company you can keep your insurance company.

*AGW exists.

These are all bold lies from the same liberal un-American ideological source.  In increasing numbers Americans are catching on.  Don't believe this?  Look at the outcome of the election at the beginning of November.  We're coming for you Dan, and all of your despicable NYC-based fellow liars.  We will defeat you politically, take America back, and destroy your ugly and destructive wind turbines and solar arrays.  Then we will promote American natural gas use for the next 500 years.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Thomas Lilli on November 30, 2014 at 10:33pm

In my opinion, Whether or not man has anything to do with the environment is much less an issue than the fact that governments around the world have discovered a way to use it to impose taxes, regulations and more control over people.

In the 70's the media talked about climate change caused by "pollution". There were TV specials, miniseries about how the waters would rise forty feet, how the coast lines would receed, how the helicopter would be the main source of rescue because of the volitility of flooding. Then, they blamed it all on the deforestation of the rain forests in South and central America. How devistating it would be for the earth. They talked about the alarming rate of deforestation by the day, and the fact that these governments were doing this to expand their agricultural base to feed more people.

In the seventies, it was not about punishing more advanced societies so third world countries could pollute, it was abound a rapidly expanding population.

I find it interesting how the narrative has changed. Makes you wonder what's behind the new narrative.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Trapper on December 1, 2014 at 3:52am

When I was in high school the talk was we were headed for an ice age!
Lol 35 yrs.later we're heating up!
Whatever the motive , it ain't good. Control freaks , dominators , etc. I swear its like a James Bond movie coming true.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on December 1, 2014 at 10:54am

Actually, it's the conversation that's changed, because of my narrative.  

Don't circle the wagons just yet.  Your attempt to paint me as the boogeyman is mistaken.  My involvement with the shale boom is as a stakeholder. As a result of public records abstraction by a land and title company, my name became Landowner. 

...then it became Defendant,

...now it's Lessor.  

While requesting maps, I was advised by the Assessor's office that it would soon be changing to Taxpayer.  "Remember to hold some back," to quote.  Sounds like the ecologists aren't the only ones grabbing for tax dollars.

A family member has discovered some holdings, and, having been low(snow?)-balled three years ago by a landman on other property, they asked for my help.  So here I am, trying to figure how to maximize profit from it.

Is it that hard to imagine someone who would like to have some money, but doesn't want their habitat trashed to get it?  There should be some room in the middle for moderation. A place where thinking people compromise.  I could look up and cite as many incidents of death and destruction by industry as the pro-drill camp can find erroneous predictions of catastrophe.

But I take issue with those who attempt to disperse vague generalizations about anything.  The studies cited in these articles are credible.  The study cited by Mr. Walker directly contradicts the conclusion that he draws from it.  That's where the science ends; when someone only considers only the parts that they like, and accuses anyone who disagrees with their opinion of doing exactly what they, themselves just did.

I remember the seventies too (class of '77... woo-hoo), the creation of the Superfund.  Was that all just media hype?  The fact is, a lot of good, positive things have come from public outcry about pollution.

Of course it's taken to extremes, and not always for the best.  But housekeeping should be as important in industry as profit.  If you can't do it responsibly and profitably, you shouldn't do it.

My point is that there are two sides of an issue.  In this case it's pro-drill against pro-environment. We know that profit, in the form of cash, drives PD, but what is the unseen force that drives ecological types to fight this fight?  What pushes them to put their reputation, finances, and even freedom on the line?  It must be the boogeyman.

Quality of life in my area has changed dramatically in two years, and more for the worse than the better.  Since the seventies, I've watched the local timber industry get bogged down by environmental regulation.  It was said then by the 'environmentalist wackos' (citation: Rush) that the hills would someday be gone, washed away as silt loosened by logging operations.  Now some of the same hills where loggers were forced to become landscapers have been summarily 'moved' to make space for a well pad.  

So it's all negotiable, right?  If we don't like it we can move.  Take our brand of evil and go elsewhere.  This is progress, so step aside, please.

BOO!

• ▶ Reply