• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No Evidence for Significant Warming for 170 Years

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
46,362
Reaction score
16,019
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Nope. None is from melting ice. If there were melting ice below then the water (from melted snow) would not be trapped on top.
You really have lost it. Ice melts at 33 degrees just like snow.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
42,068
Reaction score
12,265
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I would like to know where natural gas is not available. We're shipping it all over the world now, just like oil and coal. Fossil fuels are our primary source of energy today and it is prevalent everywhere, at much cheaper cost that trying to create it manually. So it makes absolutely no sense, and is actually counter-productive, to create solar panels that in turn create methane for long-term storage when we already have that long term storage and the natural gas to burn.

A better and more reliable alternative energy source is wood or biomass gasificiation. It uses renewable resources and is not subject to the climate or the amount of daylight. It is a very popular means of generating electricity in the more remote areas of Alaska.
The reason its not counterproductive is that it is removing the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere when it is made, so it is carbon neutral.

But yes, it is more expensive than buying natural gas from under the ground.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You really have lost it. Ice melts at 33 degrees just like snow.
From the link in #64:

". . . a Danish researcher at the Danish Meteorological Institute has since commented on the meltwater photo. . . . The melt depicted is quite normal. . . . ‘Because the ice is so thick, there are no holes through which the water can run out of the melted snow,’ said Mathiassen, adding that the water pictured, through which the sled dogs at Qaanaaq are scrambling, is not ice melt water, but apparently from melted snow.”
 

Glitch

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
8,112
Reaction score
2,913
Location
Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The reason its not counterproductive is that it is removing the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere when it is made, so it is carbon neutral.

But yes, it is more expensive than buying natural gas from under the ground.
It is always counter-productive to create something you already have at a much higher price than it would cost to obtain otherwise. Carbon neutrality are for morons who think hiding their heads in the sand and pretending that we don't exist will have no impact on the environment and will somehow make the climate static. It ultimately doesn't matter what the carbon content of the atmosphere may be, we have to learn to adapt or become extinct. So pretending that we don't exist with this ridiculous "carbon neutrality" BS is nothing more than politically-correct insanity.

It isn't technically carbon neutral either. How much carbon are you taking out of the environment in order to create those solar panels that uses CO2 to create the methane? Which is completely unnecessary.

As marke pointed out above, we are best served by exploiting the energy resources locally. Whatever that energy resource happens to be. What works in one geographical location may not work as well in another. It isn't a one solution fits all type of problem. Everyone has different energy requirements, and how they obtain that energy will vary depending on their location.
 

JackA

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
6,917
Reaction score
2,930
Location
Richmond, VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If that were true you would be open, not adamantly closed, to the other, weightier side of the science, which, for example, is offering this today via the UN:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/clim...s-only-way-avoid-worst-impacts-climate-change
I'm a WaPo subscriber, so I already read that tripe with my morning coffee. There's nothing "weightier" about it and it certainly isn't science. It's just louder propaganda.

I began as a believer in conventional AGW orthodoxy. My openness led me to skepticism. And btw, I'm not especially conservative and neither are the scientists who have it right, IMHO.
 

JackA

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
6,917
Reaction score
2,930
Location
Richmond, VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm a WaPo subscriber, so I already read that tripe with my morning coffee. There's nothing "weightier" about it and it certainly isn't science. It's just louder propaganda.

I began as a believer in conventional AGW orthodoxy. My openness led me to skepticism. And btw, I'm not especially conservative and neither are the scientists who have it right, IMHO.
Your scientific background that informs you it is tripe...is what?
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Last edited:

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
42,068
Reaction score
12,265
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

JackA

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
6,917
Reaction score
2,930
Location
Richmond, VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The left says the right is full of racists and bigots and have no tolerance. Nobody from the right organizes interference with gay pride parades, or other leftist events. The left however always has a group interfering with events organized by the right. Who are the tolerant ones I ask? Most certainly not the left.
Right. So sorry we spoiled your "Jews Will Not Replace Us" march at Charlottesville.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Supporting Member
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
[h=2]More Real Data Totally Contradict Fake Media… Show Scandinavia, Ireland NOT WARMING Over Past Decades[/h]By P Gosselin on 27. November 2019
[h=3]By Kirye[/h]and Pierre Gosselin
Global warming alarmists like to tell us the planet is warming faster and faster.
Yet, when we look objectively at the untampered data, we see this is not the case at all at many locations. Today we look at the (untampered) data from the Japan Meteorology Agency (JMA) for some stations across northern Europe for the month of October.
According to global warming believers, winter is supposed to be coming later, and spring arriving earlier. So looking at the season transition month of October is interesting.
[h=3]Ireland[/h]At the JMA we find seven stations in Ireland that have October data going back sufficiently to 1994:

Data source: JMA
As the chart above shows, 6 of 7 stations in Ireland show October temperatures have a COOLING trend since 1994. How can winter be possibly coming later?
Finland
Next we have October data from the Scandinavian country of Finland, near the Arctic, where it’s supposedly warming rapidly and a it is the climate canary in a coal mine.

Data source: JMA
In Finland we have data from 6 stations, and they clearly show that there has not been any real warming at all over the past quarter century.
Isn’t it puzzling that we continue to hear reports from alarmists from every direction that the warming is speeding up? It stinks like some cynical Communist-grade propaganda, doesn’t it?

With all the fakes news we’ve been witnessing lately, nothing should surprise us anymore. We certainly need to be careful when it comes to believing these now infamously dubious media sources.
Norway
Next we move on to Scandinavian Norway, which is situated next to the North Atlantic, and so there oceanic cycles would have a truly profound effect.

(Note: I didn’t include stations which don’t have the data from 20 century.) Data source: JMA
Lo and behold: Six of 11 stations in Norway show October temperatures have had no warming trend since 1999.
[h=3]Sweden[/h]And not surprisingly, the story is the same in Sweden.
Here the 6 stations with sufficient JMA data were examined, and here as well there’s been no real warming to speak of since 1995.

Data source: JMA here.
Four of the 6 stations in Sweden show October temperatures have had no warming trend since 1995.
Where’s the climate emergency that hysterical alarmists are pushing to declare? There hasn’t been any since the IPCC issued it’s 2nd assessment report – a quarter of a century ago! . . .
 
Top Bottom