Look at this "Global Warming"

[Dagger311]

@Dagger311

I am in Michigan. We have been getting hit with an insane amount of snow this year. Had a few days of -30f degree temperatures with wind chill. I posted these in the weather thread.

6 FOOT to 8 FOOT snow drifts. The building to the left of this has 12 foot snow drifts but no one can get access to the building.


View attachment 108696 View attachment 108697 View attachment 108698 View attachment 108699

Not sure how accurate this is but it was posted in the global warming thread.

We rarely ever get feet. One thing I do think is dumb is the fact that we get civil emergency warnings over four inches, just because the south isn't prepared for it.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

I really wish I could get access to the building next to this one so I could take pics. No joke at all, it has at least 12+ foot snow drifts. I have never seen anything like it in all the years I have lived here. 12+ foot snow drifts!

I admit its a bit strange seeing so many cities down south shut down for 4" of snow. But as you said, the south is not prepared for that kind of weather. But they should be.

 

[Dagger311]

I really wish I could get access to the building next to this one so I could take pics. No joke at all, it has at least 12+ foot snow drifts. I have never seen anything like it in all the years I have lived here. 12+ foot snow drifts!

I admit its a bit strange seeing so many cities down south shut down for 4" of snow. But as you said, the south is not prepared for that kind of weather. But they should be.

Should be? I agree. We like to think it's always 79 (179, that is!) and sunny here, but it's not.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Atlanta made it in the Wall Street Journal because of it's shutdown.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

Should be? I agree. We like to think it's always 79 (179, that is!) and sunny here, but it's not.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Atlanta made it in the Wall Street Journal because of it's shutdown.

That's why I quit messing around years ago and now I own AWD cars for daily drivers. A 05 Subaru RS and a 04 Subaru WRX. 26 years of driving in winter weather and I will NEVER daily drive a FWD or RWD car ever again in winter. AWD is the way to go. AWD cars are not bulletproof but they will get you through a heck of a lot more than a FWD or RWD vehicle.

 

[Dagger311]

That's why I quit messing around years ago and now I own AWD cars for daily drivers. A 05 Subaru RS and a 04 Subaru WRX. 26 years of driving in winter weather and I will NEVER daily drive a FWD or RWD car ever again in winter. AWD is the way to go. AWD cars are not bulletproof but they will get you through a heck of a lot more than a FWD or RWD vehicle.

My dad can make his Chevy S10 work all right, but it's a chore. My cousin's F-150 does better, but the two Nissans will barely move lol.

Awd is the best one though, they're just so versatile.

 

[R.S]

Don't think about "global warming" or "climate change". These are confusing terms.

Think about "More energy in the earth's weather system"

The extra energy indeed comes from the atmosphere supposedly retaining more energy/heat coming in from the sun than it used to (as opposed to it bouncing back to space). Supposedly that is caused by extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere acting like a blanket on your bed.

More energy does not necessarily mean hotter but think of it meaning more extreme. If you had 10 red bulls in 1 hour you may be incredibly quick thinking or have great reflexes, or you may turn into a raging psycho when someone looks at you wrongly - one thing's for sure - you're full of caffeine. (Caffeine = Energy / Heat = Energy)

 

[Johnnypenso]

People really need to learn the terminology. It's "climate change", not "global warming".

It was global warming for a couple of decades when all the scaremongers were running around talking about rising oceans and people melting off the face of the earth. Now we've discovered there is no global warming it's called "climate change" aka weather. Now any storm, any heavy rain or snow, any extreme weather of any kind, the kind of weather that has been happening since the dawn of time, is now fodder for the climate change fearmongers. It's all a scam Remember the Wizard of Oz? Al Gore is the Wizard of Global Warming Climate Change raking in hundreds of millions of dollars in the process. Follow the money kids, it all leads to the same place!!

 

[Dagger311]

At least Georgia had the brains to get ready this time.

 

[Lain]

It was global warming for a couple of decades when all the scaremongers were running around talking about rising oceans and people melting off the face of the earth. Now we've discovered there is no global warming it's called "climate change" aka weather. Now any storm, any heavy rain or snow, any extreme weather of any kind, the kind of weather that has been happening since the dawn of time, is now fodder for the climate change fearmongers. It's all a scam Remember the Wizard of Oz? Al Gore is the Wizard of Global Warming Climate Change raking in hundreds of millions of dollars in the process. Follow the money kids, it all leads to the same place!!

Maybe I'm just unimaginative, but I fail to see how one makes money off of Global Warming/Climate Change. Does Al Gore sell sunscreen or something?

Now I'm not saying that global warming is true, since analyzing and predicting weather isn't something that I feel science has come close to mastering... there's simply too many variables. But to me, it seems that the "fearmongers" are attempting to perform legitimate science and that the money trail instead leads to big oil trying to counter the fearmongers with their own brand of science which disproves global warming, since they stand to lose something if the public were to buy into the idea of global warming and take action.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Maybe I'm just unimaginative, but I fail to see how one makes money off of Global Warming/Climate Change. Does Al Gore sell sunscreen or something?

Now I'm not saying that global warming is true, since analyzing and predicting weather isn't something that I feel science has come close to mastering... there's simply too many variables. But to me, it seems that the "fearmongers" are attempting to perform legitimate science and that the money trail instead leads to big oil trying to counter the fearmongers with their own brand of science which disproves global warming, since they stand to lose something if the public were to buy into the idea of global warming and take action.

Legitimate science? You mean like these 35 Inconveient Untruths?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

Legitimate science? You mean like these 35 Inconveient Untruths?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

Gore charges 6 figures to make a short speech based on a movie that's full of junk science and untruths. He's made $100's of Millions since he lost his bid for the Presidency, mainly leveraging his status as the messiah of global warming climate change.

 

[Adamgp]

Gore charges 6 figures to make a short speech based on a movie that's full of junk science and untruths. He's made $100's of Millions since he lost his bid for the Presidency, mainly leveraging his status as the messiah of global warming climate change.

Al Gore also buys carbon credits from a company that he himself owns.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Al Gore also buys carbon credits from a company that he himself owns.

And sold his TV Network to Al Jazeera, which is owned by the Government of Qatar which gets most of it's revenue (and most of the country's GDP) from...wait for it...wait for it....oil!!!!

 

[Lain]

Al Gore is not a scientist, so I could care less about whatever's in his film or how much money he's making off of it.

If you'e trying to suggest that he's in cahoots with all the scientists who are researching the climate and have come to grim conclusions, that'd be one of the most laughable consipracy theories I've heard in a long while.

But again, I'm not supporting the idea of global warming. Even amongst legitimately unbiased scientists, it's a divided topic. I'm just saying that "No Global Warming" is waaaaaaaay more profitable than "Global Warming" could ever even dream of being, so the notion that "Global Warming" is some big profit-making scheme is simply absurd.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Al Gore is not a scientist, so I could care less about whatever's in his film or how much money he's making off of it.

If you'e trying to suggest that he's in cahoots with all the scientists who are researching the climate and have come to grim conclusions, that'd be one of the most laughable consipracy theories I've heard in a long while.

But again, I'm not supporting the idea of global warming. Even amongst legitimately unbiased scientists, it's a divided topic. I'm just saying that "No Global Warming" is waaaaaaaay more profitable than "Global Warming" could ever even dream of being, so the notion that "Global Warming" is some big profit-making scheme is simply absurd.

Absurd? You need to open your eyes. Everyone on either side of the discussion is in it for the money. Everything is about money, always has been always will be. Economics 101. Survival 101. Competition 101. What's a legitimately unbiased scientist? Does such a thing exist? Who pays legitimately unbiased scientists? Someone with an agenda. There's always an agenda on either side and there's always money.

 

[Lain]

So you're saying Al Gore concocted some scheme to pay scientists to come up with some disturbing statistics about the environment so that he could make and sell a film?

I understand that where there's science, there's funding. But the only people who fund science with ulterior motives behind it, especially on such a large scale, are industries that can afford it because they're already massively profitable and wish to remain that way.

I mean seriously, who pays NASA to put telescopes in space, sent rovers to Mars, etc? This guy?

I mean, sure it could possibly be true that NASA's being funded by one crazy individual as part of his plan to reap in mountains of cash from a fearmongering alien documentary.

Or maybe, just maybe, it could be that people and governments have an interest in space and are willing to fund science that will be conducted properly and with no intent at the outset of skewing any of the findings intentionally to fit in with their agenda. Kinda like most scientists who study weather and aren't being funded by big oil.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Or maybe, just maybe, it could be that people and governments have an interest in space and are willing to fund science that will be conducted properly and with no intent at the outset of skewing any of the findings intentionally to fit in with their agenda. Kinda like most scientists who study weather and aren't being funded by big oil.

You mean like this?
http://news.sky.com/story/1144134/climate-change-scientists-told-to-fudge-report

Several countries put pressure on UN climate change scientists to alter a landmark report on global warming so it did not "provide ammunition for climate sceptics".

Leaked comments show that governments were concerned that scientists were struggling to explain why global warming appears to have slowed down in the past 15 years even though greenhouse gas emissions keep rising.

Climate sceptics have used the lull in surface warming since 1998 to cast doubt on the broad consensus that humans are bringing about ecological disaster by burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests.

Documents that have been obtained by the Associated Press show there are concerns among countries on how to address the issue ahead of next week's meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Or maybe this?:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Maybe I'm just unimaginative, but I fail to see how one makes money off of Global Warming/Climate Change. Does Al Gore sell sunscreen or something?

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/06/27/ontarios-power-trip-mcguintys-bigger-debacle/

Samsung will still be paid to produce 500 MW of solar power and 869 MW of wind power at massive subsidies that, by my calculation, will cost ratepayers $600-million per year for the next 20 years.

How to destroy one of the world's strongest economies through green energy bs:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/rese...Green-Energy-Act-a-bad-bargain-for-Ontarians/

 

[ildd]

Meanwhile in Houston-

 

[DK]

Johnny, Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Do you really think he's going to present the unbiased truth about climate change?

 

[Pupik]

This has nothing to do with climate change, but how did my rental car agency forget to put an ice scraper in my vehicle? It's not like I'm in Florida this week...oh snap.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Johnny, Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Do you really think he's going to present the unbiased truth about climate change?

Send me some links to the lawsuits that followed all the obvious lies after that article. I suppose Forbes, the National Post and the Fraser Institute are also inundated with lawsuits as well...Oh wait...

Nobody on either side presents an unbiased truth, everyone has an agenda. Everyone in the global warming climate change industry is making a buck. Everyone on the other side is making a buck. Difference is, on the climate change side it's my tax bucks that are getting sucked up like dust into a hoover for something I think is bs to begin with but even if it's true, the money being wasted in my province on stuff like wind farms and solar which does zero to help with climate change or emissions, is a total waste of money.

 

[kennylmao]

The extra energy indeed comes from the atmosphere supposedly retaining more energy/heat coming in from the sun than it used to (as opposed to it bouncing back to space). Supposedly that is caused by extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere acting like a blanket on your bed.

More energy does not necessarily mean hotter but think of it meaning more extreme.

That is exactly what I understand about this. What's with all the skeptics, is it not true? Isn't the cold weather getting colder and the hot weather getting hotter?

the money being wasted in my province on stuff like wind farms and solar which does zero to help with climate change or emissions, is a total waste of money.

Not too keen on sustainable energy, are you? Good luck getting around when fossil fuel runs out.

 

[Johnnypenso]

That is exactly what I understand about this. What's with all the skeptics, is it not true? Isn't the cold weather getting colder and the hot weather getting hotter?

Not too keen on sustainable energy, are you? Good luck getting around when fossil fuel runs out.

Is cold weather getting colder and hot getting hotter? What data do you have to support that?

I am keen on energy I can afford, that's what I'm keen on. Wind and solar are unreliable, cannot replace any other infrastructure so they are an additional infrastructure cost not a replacement. And they are exhorbitantly expensive. We are paying Samsung more than double the rate for hydro that it's being sold for and solar power is credited back to the grid at around 7 times the rate hydro is sold at. Our hydro is going up more than 50% in 5 years. How happy do you think manufacturers are spending 50% more for hydro? Tool and die shops? Retailers? Everyone else?

So you have to figure we must have a massive number of coal fired generating stations we're replacing right? Wrong.
http://blog.powerstream.ca/2013/02/ontarios-electricity-supply-diverse-mix-sources/

77% of our power is zero emissions. Hydro and Nuclear. Zero CO2. In case you don't know this, we have our own uranium mines and water has flowed by our hydro generating stations for millions of years and isn't going to stop any time soon. In other words, renewable. Another 14% is natural gas much cleaner burning than coal. Coal is 2.8%.

Ontario should be the poster boy for clean, renewable energy. Instead we bought into the global warming climate change scam and we are getting hosed for it for zero emissions benefit. None. Nada. Zip.

 

[kennylmao]

Is cold weather getting colder and hot getting hotter? What data do you have to support that?

I've no evidence, just assumptions because I... was young at the time I watched Al Gore's movie and bought into this climate change crap?

I am keen on energy I can afford, that's what I'm keen on. Wind and solar are unreliable, cannot replace any other infrastructure so they are an additional infrastructure cost not a replacement. And they are exhorbitantly expensive. We are paying Samsung more than double the rate for hydro that it's being sold for and solar power is credited back to the grid at around 7 times the rate hydro is sold at. Our hydro is going up more than 50% in 5 years. How happy do you think manufacturers are spending 50% more for hydro? Tool and die shops? Retailers? Everyone else?

So you have to figure we must have a massive number of coal fired generating stations we're replacing right? Wrong.
http://blog.powerstream.ca/2013/02/ontarios-electricity-supply-diverse-mix-sources/

77% of our power is zero emissions. Hydro and Nuclear. Zero CO2. In case you don't know this, we have our own uranium mines and water has flowed by our hydro generating stations for millions of years and isn't going to stop any time soon. In other words, renewable. Another 14% is natural gas much cleaner burning than coal. Coal is 2.8%.

Ontario should be the poster boy for clean, renewable energy. Instead we bought into the global warming climate change scam and we are getting hosed for it for zero emissions benefit. None. Nada. Zip.

You got a point about the inefficiency resulting in high prices though. BTW, great that Ontario is phasing out coal plants by next year. 👍

Nuclear is clean but it's not a renewable source. It has a high fuel to power output but there isn't an unlimited amount of nuclear fuel around. What about the management of radioactive waste that is produced? They are still radioactive and will be for thousands of years. We're just digging holes and sticking them in the ground for now. So far, hydro seems to be the only renewable energy source (excluding wind and solar) and when Nuclear runs out (it's gonna be a long time but one day) how are we going to replace the 56.4 percent it's contributing now? I think Wind and Solar is a viable source just not refined enough for it to be an efficient source for now. Honestly, I get that Solar is still expensive but I can't understand how Wind is.

I noticed I went from Clean Energy to Sustainable Energy.

 

[DK]

Well kenny, there's always nuclear fusion, although fusion reactors are currently in their infancy. Fusion reactors are fueled by hydrogen, which can be easily extracted from water.

 

[Lain]

You mean like this?
http://news.sky.com/story/1144134/climate-change-scientists-told-to-fudge-report




Or maybe this?:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/





http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/06/27/ontarios-power-trip-mcguintys-bigger-debacle/



How to destroy one of the world's strongest economies through green energy bs:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/rese...Green-Energy-Act-a-bad-bargain-for-Ontarians/

Touche.

But if it's a matter of big oil paying for "science" to support the idea that everything's fine in order to maintain the status quo and the electronics industry paying for "science" to support the idea that everything's going to hell and there needs to be a change to sustainable energy sources, then I'm fine with that.

You're keen on energy you can afford, but eventually oil's gonna start to run dry to the point where affordability evaporates and we're all gonna be kicking ourselves that we didn't start investing in sustainable energy sooner. You complain about wind and solar being unreliable, but that's a problem that can be fixed with some good ol' R&D.

 

[R.S]

@Johnnypenso the reason wind, solar, green etc are expensive is because WE AREN'T PAYING FOR FOSSIL FUELS. It is very simple, the price we are paying for petrol, gas, coal etc is not the real cost. Not by a long shot.

Could you imagine the REAL cost of petrol - the price we would have to pay for a continuous sustainable-unending supply of petrol? (suppose there was no oil under the ground)

Petrol is an amazing energy storage, it is very valuable, it takes an extremely long time to make - yet we pay less for it then a bottle of water.
Human, with all their science and gizmos have not yet made an energy storage medium anything of the level of qualities, density, stability, ease of use etc that petrol and similar fuels has and yet we still give it very little monetary value. It's an old mentality learnt from we didn't know better.

Btw solar and wind can be reliable, we also have tidal and geothermal to make use of. For large scale energy storage problem we have salt batteries etc (ie a for solar farm at night). To me Hydro is questionable (impact of damming).

Nuclear fission is a stop gap, fusion is still a long long long way away.


We can do stuff now or we can let or great grandchildren take care of it with greater haste (oh crap we're out of oil, now lets make some electric cars. Oh crap the ocean's dead, now lets stop pouring chemicals in it) and have much larger impact on their lifestyles.

Stuff is being done but IMO no-where near enough though. I wish people would get serious about this and stop playing 3year politics or bending over for the greedy and self-entitled.

 

[Northstar]

You complain about wind and solar being unreliable, but that's a problem that can be fixed with some good ol' R&D.

No amount of R&D can move clouds or make it windy.

 

[Touring Mars]

What's a legitimately unbiased scientist? Does such a thing exist? Who pays legitimately unbiased scientists? Someone with an agenda. There's always an agenda on either side and there's always money.

Nobody on either side presents an unbiased truth

I'm sorry, but you simply cannot make such sweeping generalizations.

When it comes to climate science, there may well be some people (on both 'sides' of the debate) being funded by parties with ulterior motives, but that doesn't mean that all climate science is corrupt. For any science to be credible, results have to be published, data needs to be made available for scrutiny, and results/methods etc. need to be testable and repeatable. False claims, incorrect conclusions, mistakes, sloppy methods, fabrications etc. will come out in the wash sooner or later.

It's easy to do a quick Google search and find a news story or an article about how someone somewhere has fudged a dataset, or made a silly claim, or whatever - and neither side of the debate is entirely clean on that front. But it is grossly unfair to judge the entire field of climate science on this basis.

Climate science blogs (again, from both 'sides' of the debate) do a decent job of citing the scientific literature and explaining how certain publications support their main argument, but even they have a tendency to be biased and therefore it is necessary to consider both arguments and to read all of the literature, and not just those publications that fit nicely with your per-conceived views on the subject.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Chicago, New York, and Denver get tons of snow and nobody bats an eye.

It snows two inches in Atlanta and everybody loses their minds.

Edit: CNN loses their minds.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

Yeah seriously. You want to see some snow. This is what it looks like around here in Michigan by the lakeshore. This building I drive by has 12 foot to 14 foot snow drifts! I posted them in the weather thread.

It has been very crazy this year for sure. Not the worst ever, but the worst I personally have seen in the winter.

Early March 2012 it was 87f degrees. THAT was a world record for Michigan and that felt like global warming. Personally I love the hot weather but people around here sure acted like it was the end of the world.