What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in
I'd like some global warming back...
Peeing in the ocean wouldn't actually accomplish anything even if everyone did...
Seafood is a very high producer of uric acid.
I know, I was just being facetious. Besides, not everybody's gonna want to pee at the same time. Then there's all those people who can't get to an ocean: prison inmates; hospitalised people; nursing home residents and those 'inlanders' who lack the necessary transport... etc, etc.
Not only that, I had some free time and had nothing better to do, so why not take the 'piss' out of these theorist nuts who seem to enjoy scaring the crap out of gullible and/or naive people who tend to believe pretty near anything. Sadly, there is more of those in the world than free thinking people with built-in bullshit detectors, and that's why these crackpot theories gain traction while lacking any credibility whatsoever.
If you wanted to do that, you could point out that the theory predicates lower CO2 concentrations in the ocean as it expels the gas at a higher temperature.
Dead Oceans. - http://scienmag.com/?p=1466991
That is essentially a pipe dream. You can't verify the accuracy of a modeling program by comparing it to past events when you don't know the past events. We don't even know what's going on now, as stated in the article, oxygenation monitoring in the ocean is extremely limited at present.
They're essentially saying a model working off their expectations says their expectations are right. It's a rather predictable outcome. Actual behavior in the ocean is anything but. Something as simple as an unusually high amount of wind counter to the current will result in algea blooms, along with booms in the supporting species, followed by mass die offs when the winds reverse, resulting in a booming deep sea population feeding on the destruction, which will then die out later themselves.
Mass die offs, which are statistically increasing, but rely on having been reported to the relevant authorities, not common world wide even now, happen for a variety of reasons both in and out of the ocean, and aren't the least bit concerning in themselves. They're typically a result of bacteria, red tide is a pretty major one.
Yeah, I could have.... but I didn't wanna go getting all technical-like. Besides, where's the fun in that? The only fun bits in there are "expels" and "gas", and I'm simply not allowed to talk about that anymore.
Beer? Enjoy! I'm a wine, sherry, and wiskey gal myself. Always time to get into good spirits....
Been nearly a month, so... link
Lol, Swinter is coming or is it Swummer?
Yup, the 'global warming' whitewalkers, and those in government will suck the life's blood out of us with their taxes, fees and 'global warming related higher pricing.
So to save the world, don't shoot a 'global warmist' today... bullets aren't reusable. Rope, however, is... and recycling is what we're supposed to be about, right?
That's hysterical, ZR5, in both senses of the word.
It's not conspiracy to just be aware of human nature.
Personal Greed: People are greedy and, with the oil industry being as old as it is, there is more profit in alternatives should and when they happen. There is a big difference between an oil companies stocks going from 90 to 95 and a new start up alternative going from 10 to 15. So there is definitely a motivation to use government as a wedge to drive the demand for these startups. Solyndra, for example, was a massive failure as a company, but people became very rich from it.
Resistant to Change: People, as a rule, all believe in "If it ain't broke, don't change it". When they are finally convinced that it is broke they will go with the easiest answer available (or at least the one with the least personal involvement) and push with their full might to achieve it ... if only to start not caring about it anymore. This is easily preyed upon by governments, political interests, and cons and must always be guarded against.
Desire for Power: People like control and to achieve control you need power, be it military, economic, or political. Any new "movement" is an opportunity for someone without power to achieve it, with power to lose it, or with power to expand it. Movements achieving the power to affect change are usually rare given our resistance to change, but those that wish to create movements are common place.
So when those in power pay for the studies of scientists that reach the conclusion that happens to give them both power and money that sparks a movement ... it is automatically suspect. Especially when they make the money via failed companies that costs tax payers millions. It is also very suspect when the administration that fights for a movement such as greatly limiting offshore drilling then turns around and pays another country to develop it ... one in which they heavily invested in ahead of time. Doing that sort of thing kind of undermines their credibility.
In conclusion, it is pretty naive to thing that having severe doubts about this makes one a "conspiracy nut".
Personally I am going to wait for the science. Anyone that claims that the science is "settled" is ignorant of the scientific method. It isn't the Law of Man Made Climate Change ... it is barely more than a thesis at this point. There is data both for it and against it. To say that one side is paid by the oil companies and the other side is a group of greedy elitist con-men and this somehow invalidates the collected data is insanity. Either the data stands on its own merits or it does not. Just because one group is larger than the other (if there is even a way to track such a thing ) does not create truth.
In short, most people just need to STFU about the subject and just release raw information without any political lean/spin. I am so tired of these "How Climate Change Affects the Feelings of Five Leaf Clovers" studies that are paid to justify a conclusion that was made before the science had even been collected. We still don't know to what extent man has on the global climate. It could, very well be, insignificant ... which would make the loss of jobs and poverty created by the pressure on the coal/oil industries a very sad part of our history.
Very well sad, taldren_dr. While there is data to support both arguments, It is early days and there is no clear cut scientific evidence to conclude one way or the other.
Having said that, and having some knowledge of the dynamic planet upon which we live, I lean toward the nay sayers camp and disbelieve the so-called evidence collected by climate change/global warming nuts who do more to frighten people with catastrophic future scenarios than solve anything. Yup, scare the crap out of people and they'll pay you anything to prevent your forecast doom.... and these people DO know that fear is often a greater motivator than hope or love
Hopefully, collective anger [another great motivator] will eventually be enough to stop corporations and governments funding these ludicrous studies at our expense, and "Five Leaf Clovers" can live in peace.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
