Eritrea is on the cost of the Red Sea next to the Sudan. So I would call it NE Africa/ Middle east. But yes, just one of those freak weather happenings that get excitable types all wound up.

So all so 'just' that it must just be normal and nothing to be of note...?


And yet...

How many times in a year or in a decade do you get to see Eritrea in the WORLD news for a 90 minute ice storm leaving a 1 metre thick layer of hail stones?


So normal that you should be able to find other examples easily to easily show us all how normal and unremarkable that all is?...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

95% of our Great Lakes frozen; in places up to 4 feet thick. Iceboating on the Hudson River probably 3000 miles from the North Pole. A good portion of my shrubs, herbs and bushes wiped out or partially dead from the cold and lingering icy weather this late winter/early Spring here in Tennessee.Please don't post that it's obvious that we are warming. You may possibly want to say that weather patterns are shifting and may well follow trends--cyclic or otherwise.

Yep, that's what happens when you give extra warming to certain parts of our atmosphere.

For your example, you get some extra cold for your area for this cycle from the warming all around shifting the weather around in the particular way for the present few months. All until the next atmospheric eddy slams round... All driven by...

If you can't be bothered to consider physics and convection and Hadley cells, then just simply follow the equation that extra CO2 pollution equals ever more rapid and extreme climate change. Part of that is seen as normal weather becoming extreme weather.


The really scary thing is that all this was predicted quite well by a group that reported to your President Nixon all that time ago...

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Hi everyone! How are you all?

I couldn't help noticing that Byron quoted KWSN - Majorkong as saying the following:

Jesus Wept! PT Barnum was right. There is a sucker born every minute, and a fool and his money are soon parted.

I'm sorry... it's a bit off topic... but I thought "There's a sucker born every minute" was a phrase most likely spoken by David Hannum, in criticism of both P. T. Barnum and his customers.

I believe it was Barnum's arch-rival, Adam Forepaugh, who attributed the quote to Barnum in a newspaper interview in an attempt to discredit him.

Barnum is said to have thanked Adam Forpaugh for the free publicity he received for his circus sideshow and display of freaks. Can't imagine Adam was very happy with that, but this is probably not the place to go into that.

Another quote attributed to Barnum is: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people" but again... that too is a misquote, this time of H. L. Mencken's.

I am looking into "A fool and his money"... then will get back to researching my next instalment of "open-minding myself". Hope everyone's having a lovely weekend! :)

Anniet

Ps: I don't think we should give much credence to quotes of such a derogatory nature, do you? :)

It was in 1949 :)

But you know what they say about experts. An ex is a has been, and a spurt is a drip under pressure.

Incorrect. An expert is a dead know-it-all as he's stopped learning.

---

Ahhh... You mean the financially motivated corruption and the planet be damned?


So... We can set in motion an industrial plan to go clean. However, that is going to be thwarted in the same ways that the Tobacco Industry have done their dirty tricks to keep people addicted to their profitably dirty stuff. All whilst needlessly destroying the planet.

Is that your armchair angle?

Martin, utter bunkum....

Ahhh... So you claim that the Tobacco Industry have not done their dirty tricks and that similarly the Oil/Coal/Gas Industry are not now doing similarly dirty tricks to keep us all dirty to pollute our planet?...

Bunkum with respect to the tangential response coming from you.

Ahhh... So... Your armchair discussion is nothing more than a dismissive negative grunt.


Meanwhile, the world continues around you.

All on our only one planet,
Martin

Martin, you are being so narrow minded that you do not come over as creditable.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

............

Anniet:

I LOVE your posts.

CLYDE

Thank you! :) Couldn't do them without help from so many inspirational people :)
Hope everyone's having a lovely day.

Best wishes,
Anniet x

here is an interesting article I found from phys.org

Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that manmade greenhouse gases are warming the planet, accelerating the melt of Greenland's ice, and yet resistance to the idea appears to have hardened among many Americans. Why? "The desire to disbelieve deepens as the scale of the threat grows," concludes one scholar who has studied the phenomenon. Analysts now see climate as another battleground in America's left-right "culture wars."

"I don't think there were any newspaper articles about it or anything like that," the author recalls.

But the headline on the 1975 report was bold: "Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" And this article that coined the term may have marked the last time a mention of "global warming" didn't set off an instant outcry of angry denial.

In the paper, Columbia University geoscientist Wally Broecker calculated how much carbon dioxide would accumulate in the atmosphere in the coming 35 years, and how temperatures consequently would rise. His numbers have proven almost dead-on correct. Meanwhile, other powerful evidence poured in over those decades, showing the "greenhouse effect" is real and is happening. And yet resistance to the idea among many in the U.S. appears to have hardened.

What's going on?

"The desire to disbelieve deepens as the scale of the threat grows," concludes economist-ethicist Clive Hamilton.

He and others who track what they call "denialism" find that its nature is changing in America, last redoubt of climate naysayers. It has taken on a more partisan, ideological tone. Polls find a widening Republican-Democratic gap on climate. Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry even accuses climate scientists of lying for money. Global warming looms as a debatable question in yet another U.S. election campaign.

From his big-windowed office overlooking the wooded campus of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., Broecker has observed this deepening of the desire to disbelieve.

"The opposition by the Republicans has gotten stronger and stronger," the 79-year-old "grandfather of climate science" said in an interview. "But, of course, the push by the Democrats has become stronger and stronger, and as it has become a more important issue, it has become more polarized."

It has been brought to my attention that I have not been on my best behavior in this thread.

I am sorry about offending people here. It was not my intention to do so. I have been dealing with illness both of myself and my other family members for the last couple of months, and it has me out of sorts.

Once again, I am sorry I offended you. I will be taking a break from this topic and perhaps this entire Politics forum for a while until I get things sorted out.

It has been brought to my attention that I have not been on my best behavior in this thread.

I am sorry about offending people here. It was not my intention to do so. I have been dealing with illness both of myself and my other family members for the last couple of months, and it has me out of sorts.

Once again, I am sorry I offended you. I will be taking a break from this topic and perhaps this entire Politics forum for a while until I get things sorted out.

Hopefully you wont be away for too long KWSN'.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Ahhh... You mean the financially motivated corruption and the planet be damned?

... Is that your armchair angle?

Martin, utter bunkum....

Ahhh... So you claim that the Tobacco Industry have not done their dirty tricks and that similarly [so] the Oil/Coal/Gas Industry?...

Bunkum with respect to the tangential response coming from you.

Ahhh... So... Your armchair discussion is nothing more than a dismissive negative grunt.

Martin, you are being so narrow minded that you do not come over as creditable.

And are you not being so blind as to deny that the Earth and corruption moves? (As was The Church religiously against Galileo... ;-) )

You could dearly do with some positive assertions and positive references to make any of your comments credible! ;-)


Meanwhile, the world continues around you.

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... I am sorry about offending people here. It was not my intention to do so...

Eh?!

What did I miss?!...

Regardless, hope you feel good enough soon enough for joining our threads again.


Cheers,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

here is an interesting article I found from phys.org

Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that manmade greenhouse gases are warming the planet, accelerating the melt of Greenland's ice, and yet resistance to the idea appears to have hardened among many Americans. Why? "The desire to disbelieve deepens as the scale of the threat grows," concludes one scholar who has studied the phenomenon. Analysts now see climate as another battleground in America's left-right "culture wars."

"I don't think there were any newspaper articles about it or anything like that," the author recalls.

But the headline on the 1975 report was bold: "Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" And this article that coined the term may have marked the last time a mention of "global warming" didn't set off an instant outcry of angry denial.

In the paper, Columbia University geoscientist Wally Broecker calculated how much carbon dioxide would accumulate in the atmosphere in the coming 35 years, and how temperatures consequently would rise. His numbers have proven almost dead-on correct. Meanwhile, other powerful evidence poured in over those decades, showing the "greenhouse effect" is real and is happening. And yet resistance to the idea among many in the U.S. appears to have hardened.

What's going on?

"The desire to disbelieve deepens as the scale of the threat grows," concludes economist-ethicist Clive Hamilton.

He and others who track what they call "denialism" find that its nature is changing in America, last redoubt of climate naysayers. It has taken on a more partisan, ideological tone. Polls find a widening Republican-Democratic gap on climate. Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry even accuses climate scientists of lying for money. Global warming looms as a debatable question in yet another U.S. election campaign.

From his big-windowed office overlooking the wooded campus of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., Broecker has observed this deepening of the desire to disbelieve.

"The opposition by the Republicans has gotten stronger and stronger," the 79-year-old "grandfather of climate science" said in an interview. "But, of course, the push by the Democrats has become stronger and stronger, and as it has become a more important issue, it has become more polarized."

Good find, thanks. And scarily interesting... And rather bad for the American response...


That reminds me of a similar article from 2011 that did a wide set of rounds around the press at that time:

The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?

September 24, 2011:

Tucked between treatises on algae and prehistoric turquoise beads, the study on page 460 of a long-ago issue of the U.S. journal Science drew little attention.

"I don't think there were any newspaper articles about it or anything like that," the author recalls. But the headline on the 1975 report was bold: "Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" And this article that coined the term may have marked the last time a mention of "global warming" didn't set off an instant outcry of angry denial.

... "This is building toward a point where the falsehoods of climate denial will be unacceptable as a basis for policy much longer," Gore said. "As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'How long? Not long.'"

Even Wally Broecker's jest — that deniers could blame God — may not be an option for long.

Last May the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, arm of an institution that once persecuted Galileo for his scientific findings, pronounced on manmade global warming: It's happening.

Said the pope's scientific advisers, "We must protect the habitat that sustains us."




Note: That is quite something for The Church to admit that America is blaspheming against the hand of Their God!

Only in America? (Ooooooops! That's for another thread!! ;-) Or should that be Stupid-or-Not-Stupid? :-( )


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

EX NASA employees speak out

The government is overreacting to a largely unreal threat of global warming and NASA isn't helping.

First of all, the group states, the argument over whether or not human-induced carbons are at fault for the global rise in temperatures is not "settled,"...

... they argue, the U.S. government is "over-reacting" to the concerns of the media, scientists and activists and that a more "rational process for allocation of research funds without the constant media hype of an AGW crisis is needed."

Gee, I wonder why they're EX EMPLOYEES. (No I don't. I was a federal employee for 28 years.)

Edit: Source: http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/index.html

Thanks for that one, that's just a brilliant example...

Note how the main emphasis is that the claims of doubt are all backed only by the fact that the various names have worked under the good name of NASA some time in the past. A gentle critique is given by:


NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority
Posted on 24 January 2013 by dana1981

In April of 2012, 49 former NASA employees sent a letter to the current NASA administrator requesting that he effectively muzzle the climate scientists at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). None of those former NASA employees have conducted any climate science research, but based on their own lack of understanding of the subject, they objected to the conclusions drawn by the climate experts at NASA GISS. This letter drew media attention because folks who have worked at NASA are well-respected (and rightly so), but there was really no substance to it, or any particular reason to lend it credence. Astronauts and engineers are not climate experts.

Now in January of 2013, a group of 20 "Apollo era NASA retirees" has put together a rudimentary climate "report" and issued a press release declaring that they have decided human-caused global warming is not "settled" and is nothing to worry about. This time around they have not listed the 20 individuals who contributed to this project, but have simply described the group as being:

"...comprised of renowned space scientists with formal educational and decades career involvement in engineering, physics, chemistry, astrophysics, geophysics, geology and meteorology. Many of these scientists have Ph.Ds"

The project seems to be headed by H. Leighton Steward, a 77-year-old former oil and gas executive. The press release also links the NASA group to his website, "co2isgreen", which also has an extensive history of receiving fossil fuel industry funding...


An associated example is:

Climate Denier at CPAC: Trust Me, I'm an Astronaut

Walter Cunningham — a former Apollo astronaut and Marine fighter pilot who now gives talks about climate change for the conservative Heartland Institute...


Incredible stuff for what oil-sponsored FUD is planted in the general news media! For real? Or all just for the short term money?

Only in the USA?

Only on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Are the Oil companies starting to listen? Exxon Mobil Investors Win Concession on CO2 Risk

Responding to shareholder pressure, Exxon Mobil (XOM) Thursday agreed to publish a Carbon Asset Risk report on its Web site, outlining for shareholders its strategies for handling future constraints on carbon emissions and the impact such constraints could have on its operations.

As stated in the press release issued by the shareholders:

World governments agree that if catastrophic warming over 2°C is to be avoided, no more than one-third of current proven carbon reserves can be burned. ... Yet, a recent Unburnable Carbon report calculates that in 2012 alone, the 200 largest publicly traded fossil fuel companies collectively spent an estimated $674 billion on finding and developing new reserves - reserves that cannot be utilized without breaking the world's carbon budget.

Are the Oil companies starting to listen? Exxon Mobil Investors Win Concession on CO2 Risk

Responding to shareholder pressure, Exxon Mobil (XOM) Thursday agreed to publish a Carbon Asset Risk report on its Web site, outlining for shareholders its strategies for handling future constraints on carbon emissions and the impact such constraints could have on its operations.

As stated in the press release issued by the shareholders:

World governments agree that if catastrophic warming over 2°C is to be avoided, no more than one-third of current proven carbon reserves can be burned. ... Yet, a recent Unburnable Carbon report calculates that in 2012 alone, the 200 largest publicly traded fossil fuel companies collectively spent an estimated $674 billion on finding and developing new reserves - reserves that cannot be utilized without breaking the world's carbon budget.

That is definitely one to keep an eye on I think. Thank you for bringing it to our attention Winterknight! Am I correct in thinking that the reason behind it seems to be that shareholders are worrying about their assets being stranded? Whatever the thrust - it will make for an interesting unfolding debate.

Hope everyone has a lovely weekend!! :)

Man 'o' man! Same ol slop people here want to call science but it isn't in the science thread is it? It's in the politics thread, is it not.

This rock was designed. That design is clear when it is given more of one thing then it normally takes in. This rock takes it on the chin, works the problem out and takes action.

Question: Has this rock ever had so much Co2 that it could not convert it, by use of the seas or the plants that grow on it?

Question: It has been said by many here (wrongly) that the Co2 levels have never risen above a given (by the people who are wrong) level. So, 85 million years ago... The ice cores both north and south (what ice cores? I was falsely accused of not knowing history, once again, flatly WRONG!) and sediment cores from the sea floors tell us a VERY different story then what is being pushed around here. What is the highest level this rock has ever seen and what life was on this rock at that time?

Question: Why is it that all the PIE charts and graph charts shown here and around the world never show anything in the past---beyond 120,000 (start of man) years or so? Got something to hide do they/we?

Hell, got many more but I'll stop here and let you catch up. :-)

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Accuracy never was your strong point - a few seconds spooling back in this very thread reveals
a graph going back 400,000 years

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Man 'o' man! Same ol slop people here want to call science but it isn't in the science thread is it? It's in the politics thread, is it not.

This rock was designed. That design is clear when it is given more of one thing then it normally takes in. This rock takes it on the chin, works the problem out and takes action.

Question: Has this rock ever had so much Co2 that it could not convert it, by use of the seas or the plants that grow on it?

Question: It has been said by many here (wrongly) that the Co2 levels have never risen above a given (by the people who are wrong) level. So, 85 million years ago... The ice cores both north and south (what ice cores? I was falsely accused of not knowing history, once again, flatly WRONG!) and sediment cores from the sea floors tell us a VERY different story then what is being pushed around here. What is the highest level this rock has ever seen and what life was on this rock at that time?

Question: Why is it that all the PIE charts and graph charts shown here and around the world never show anything in the past---beyond 120,000 (start of man) years or so? Got something to hide do they/we?

Hell, got many more but I'll stop here and let you catch up. :-)

Hi ID.

You want to see CO2 data from Geologic time?




There ya go!

RCO2 on that graph is defined as a multiple of the 'pre-industrial' level of CO2 of 300 ppm. An RCO2 of 1.0 therefore = 300 ppm.

The containing pages:

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/CO2History.html
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml

Quote from the main page text:

Since of the Earth's atmosphere is out-of-balance with the conditions expected from simple chemical equilibrium, it is very hard to say what precisely sets the level of the carbon dioxide content in the air throughout geologic time. While scientists are fairly certain that a 100 million years ago carbon dioxide values were many times higher than now, the exact value is in doubt. In very general terms, long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values. It dropped, then rose again some 200 million years ago to 4-5 times present levels--a period that saw the rise of giant fern forests--and then continued a slow decline until recent pre-industrial time.

As you can see, atmospheric CO2 levels in the distant past have been much higher than they are today. 500 million years ago, it is thought that CO2 levels were about 20 times higher than 'today', remember 300ppm pre-industrial is the 'today' standard they use. So, about 6000ppm. We already had very primitive fish by this time. Life went on.

200 million years ago, the level was 4 to 5 times higher than 'today', so about 1200ppm to 1500ppm. 200 million years ago well inside the Jurassic time period, during the age of the dinosaur. At about this time, mammals evolved. Life went on.

What is the highest level of CO2 we have ever had? I have no clue, but in all likelihood, it was a LOT higher than even the about 6000ppm estimate for about 500 million years ago.

2.3 billion years ago, photosynthetic cyanobacteria living in the sea processed a bunch of CO2 from the air into O2. Prior to this, O2 was not very common at all in the atmosphere (in fact, it was virtually non-existent).