Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
What planet do *you* live on?

It's a world where gravity, and electromagnetism are in place, bounding the Magic Money Making Moonbat Milking Membrane to only within the loon-0-sphere.

It's a world, where electrons gathering heat, step outward, in discrete steps, increasing volume but not mass, thereby creating the convective mechanism which forces H.E.A.T. to perform the actions which make it visible,

and, since similarly energized molecules tend to expand similarly thus move upward at similar rates, makes them clump and become much more easily measureable.

And detectable due to distortion in the atmospheric air swirling, to things like telescopes.

It's a world where if you've got no evidence

you've got a church.

Like this one: Global Warming Ruled By Court to have Same Legal Status as Religion.

That's your world. Faith based end of the world panic from the people who brought you

Global Cooling
Global Warming
Mannian Statistics
Mannian Physics

End of the World Command Central is a PRIVATE WEBSITE where the "World's Smartest Men" lol feed us UPDATES

on the End of the World.

That'S the world YOU live in, we know that..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/64...

See ya at Church !!

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
What planet do *you* live on?

I live on Earth, third planet in the Sol system. Please feel free to stop by and visit anytime.

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
What planet do *you* live on?

Probably the one where many people know actual "boots on the ground", ie real troops who were there, and others. Their info would of course be anecdotal and only a bit of a larger picture but such observations may fill in some inconvenient blanks in the "official" or "newsworthy" version.

theworldasweknowit wrote:

one faith to rule them all
christianity wont last against gaia
http://twawki.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/one-fa...

And Gaia has a snowflake chance in hell against Islam.

To bad you didn't read the link yourslef. It is a warning about what the AGW movement is all about. I even liked the watermelon description. It is a perfect description of the average enviromentalist.

Forecasts for Future Oil Supplies Are Unrealistic

From many credible and highly placed sources we are today hearing about the dire energy situation that industrialized civilization faces. Industrialized countries have remained dependent on petroleum, and the destructive industrial practices that it fuels, for way too long. As evidence of this consider that fully 50% of the energy consumed in the United States still comes from petroleum. Petroleum is the dominant fuel in the United States, and it was the same story in 1950. The US imports more than 60% of this oil, and between 50% and 60% of that imported oil comes from OPEC countries.

Even though the notion of peak oil is now frequently discussed in newspapers, magazines, TV shows, we the industrialized nations are not moving to new sources of energy, and new simplified low energy lifestyles, fast enough to avoid serious and painful adjustment problems. Dr. Fatih Birol, chief economist with the International Energy Administration, accurately summed it up when he recently said: "We must leave oil before it leaves us." Leaving oil will not only involve adopting alternatives such as wind and solar, it will involve dramatically changing our way of life so that we consume considerably less energy. The lifestyle changes that we must go through are dictated because there is no good substitute for petroleum, and because we just don't have the time to alter the petroleum-based energy infrastructure that has been built over the last 150 years

According to statistics from the United States Energy Information Administration, the worldwide production of conventional oil has been on a plateau for the last several years (about 73 million barrels per day). In spite of a dramatic run up in prices culminating with the price of $147 per barrel in July 2008, producers were unable to bring more oil to market. This fact defies a widely-held but erroneous belief advanced by traditional economists, that producers will bring more oil to market as the price goes up. That of course makes sense if there is an unlimited supply of oil, but as the worldwide production statistics indicate, we seem to have reached peak worldwide production, and it is only down from this point forward. It's time that the economists started adjusting their theories to incorporate the real world of resource constraints.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

Forecasts for Future Oil Supplies Are Unrealistic

Those readers who have some passing familiarity with the concept of peak oil have no doubt seen a picture of the traditional statistical distribution known as a "bell shaped curve." These bell shaped curves make sense to people, because in a world with finite resources, what goes up, must come down. These symmetrical bell shaped curves are however lulling us into an attitude of complacency, leading us to believe that we have decades to move off of oil. This is just not so, and this article discusses five serious reasons why this erroneous perception needs to promptly be abandoned.

The bell shaped curve customarily applied to peak oil was popularized by the late geophysicist Dr. M. King Hubbert. He predicted the total United States production of oil would peak on or about 1970. His prediction was accurate, and this type of curve did relatively well when it came to describing the total production of oil in the United States. But total world production of oil does not have another source that it can draw upon when worldwide supplies dwindle, as the United States did back in 1970. Social and economic panic and upheaval were avoided when the United States hit its internal peak oil because it could easily purchase additional supplies from the world marketplace. The social and economic upheaval that worldwide peak oil will bring about will be marked by hoarding, stockpiling, speculators cornering the market, long-term contracts pushing spot market buyers out of the market, government corruption, widespread rationing, and a host of other problems. These maneuvers will rapidly remove oil from the marketplace, and the intensifying competition for the remaining supplies will cause the price to rapidly go up.

The second reason why the drop off in world oil supplies will be steeper that the increase was involves exports. A very large percentage of the remaining oil supplies, perhaps half, is controlled by countries in the Persian Gulf (Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates). These countries are rapidly industrializing and in the process, as you might expect, their consumption of oil is rapidly increasing. As their production is declining in the years ahead, an increasing proportion of their production will go to meet domestic needs. This means that a decreasing proportion of their already declining production will be offered for export. At some point, there will be no more exports, as these countries will use all available supplies for internal consumption purposes. Countries such as the United States, that are big importers of oil, stand to be quickly cut off from their oil supplies. Thus the available exports of oil will come to a much more rapid end than total world production of oil, which in turn will be much more rapidly decreasing than the symmetrical bell shaped curve would lead us to believe.

The third reason why world supplies of oil will drop off more rapidly than anticipated involves rapidly developing countries, most notably although certainly not limited to India and China. These countries are working hard to be able to support something like an American lifestyle, including high levels of energy consumption. World oil demand has recently been increasing at about 2% per year, but to fuel the recent economic development of these countries, there will be a markedly increasing worldwide demand for oil. For example, Time magazine reports that China's oil imports have doubled over the last five years (about 12% compounded each year). Thus the world will soon be drawing down remaining oil supplies at a faster rate than we were drawing down supplies in the recent past. This accelerated demand for, and the accelerated consumption of oil means that the downside slope of the peak oil curve is going to be much steeper than we currently anticipate.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

Forecasts for Future Oil Supplies Are Unrealistic

The forth reason why world supplies of oil will decline far more rapidly than we anticipate involves modern technology. We are now able to drill for oil in the Artic, more than 10,000 feet below the sea, and in other inhospitable places that we could not economically drill in some fifty years ago. This fact reflects advancements in modern technology, such as computers to model geological deposits of oil. The fact that we have to go to these inhospitable places to get more oil is another indicator that we're running out of it. But this impressive new technology allows us to accelerate our extraction of oil, in an effort to meet the accelerating demand mentioned in the last paragraph. Imagine the bell shaped curve except it is going to be pushed out on the upper right side. In other words, we will be producing slightly below peak levels for a brief while, on a plateau of sorts, and this will be a plateau created by this modern technology. Using elementary calculus, which assumes that the area under the curve remains the same, in other words assuming we have only so much oil available in the world, we can readily determine that when this area is pushed out, another area must be pushed in to compensate. Since everything to the left of this current peak moment is history, and therefore cannot be changed, the only thing that can be changed is the height of the curve (production) in the future. Said a different way, by sustaining our high-energy consumption lifestyle, we are prematurely consuming the oil that would otherwise be left for future generations. In other words, the bell shaped curve will in reality look more like a wave moving to the right (through time), and the wave is just about to come crashing down.

The fifth reason why world oil supplies will decline considerably faster than we now generally believe involves the fact that we produced the least expensive oil first. It is simply common sense, that oil producers would initially focus on the removal from the ground of the oil that was easiest to get to, that was the least expensive to refine, that was the easiest to handle, and that was the least expensive to pump. Reflecting this reality, we now see producers mining the "tar sands" of Canada in an effort to cook the oil out of these sands. Not only is this effort tremendously environmentally destructive, but it consumes a great deal of energy in order to produce oil. Thus the cost of producing each barrel of oil is going up. At the same time, the quality of each barrel thereby produced continues to go down. Combining these two trends, we see that the world will reach a point where it is no longer economical to produce any oil. Mind you, this occurs considerably before the point where the world runs out of oil, and so the curve of world oil production does NOT reflect the relationship that individuals have with the gas tank in their cars. We can't just keep going until we run out. A lot of oil will be left in the ground because it simply won't make sense to produce it. Certain locations will meet this point sooner than others, but as more and more locations do reach this point, they will remove themselves from the roster of the remaining oil producers. This in turn will hasten the descent of available oil supplies.

As these five points argue, the day of reckoning is a lot sooner than many of us would like it to be. We do not have decades to transition to alternative energy. It appears as though we have only a few years. We need to get underway with very serious efforts to transition away from petroleum immediately. Government agencies, businesses, non-profit organizations, families, and individuals should all be thinking hard about what their transition to a post-petroleum world looks like, and then promptly get into action with this transition.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

Hand of God wrote:

Forecasts for Future Oil Supplies Are Unrealistic
Those readers who have some passing familiarity with the concept of peak oil have no doubt seen a picture of the traditional statistical distribution known as a "bell shaped curve." These bell shaped curves make sense to people, because in a world with finite resources, what goes up, must come down. These symmetrical bell shaped curves are however lulling us i....e drawing down supplies in the recent past. This accelerated demand for, and the accelerated consumption of oil means that the downside slope of the peak oil curve is going to be much steeper than we currently anticipate.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

Standard lefty play book technique:

Identify something that everyone participates in. i.e living breathing, sleeping, schools, use of energy.

Proclaim a crisis, an outrage, a disaster a terrible end result for the above identified items.

Proclaim that the inventors of the imaginary scenarios are the saviors from the invented imaginary scenarios.

Of course all that is required to be saved from the imaginary doom is to give great amounts of power to the political left and huge amounts of money.

Simple really: Fail to empower the political left and make them wealthy and you will suffer incalculable doom. Give them money and power and birds will suddenly appear whenever they are near.

note: Many play the political left game even though tey may not care one hoot about left\right. for them it is just money.

==

Bootleggers, Baptists, and Global Warming

the "bootleggers and Baptists" theory of regulation. Yandle points out that in the South, Sunday closing laws make it illegal to sell alcohol on Sunday. These laws are maintained by an inadvertent coalition of bootleggers and Baptists. The Baptists (and other religious denominations) provide the public outcry against liquor on Sunday, while the bootleggers (who actually sell liquor on Sunday) quietly persuade legislatures and town councils to maintain the closing laws.

"Bootleggers, Baptists, and Global Warming" explains that something similar is happening with the treaty negotiations over climate change.

http://www.perc.org/articles/article193.php

==

World Climate Report editor Dr. Patrick J. Michaels has just written a book cataloging dozens of similar instances. The reason is obvious.

The scientific community has a financial incentive to spout gloom and doom. Doing so generates oodles of money from our single sugar daddy, the federal government.

No one ever leverages billions out of or Nation’s Capital (the current annual outlay for “global change” research is $4 billion) unless they threaten the worst.

Then the political process takes credit for saving us from certain destruction.

And the media, addicted to “if it bleeds, it leads” stories, without questioning, print the worst.

Don’t expect scientific peer review to stop this process. To gain expert-review status, a scientist has to also have oodles of federally funded research.

Who would rationally derail this gravy train?

So, papers arguing against the end of the world (which are obviously correct) are much harder to publish, while any problems with apocalyptic submissions are either glossed over or ignored.

All of which guarantees that my colleagues

are going to continue to scream bloody climate murder with impunity.

It is simple economics interacting with politics, as evinced by unquestioningly published absolute nonsense.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2...

Standard lefty play book technique:

Identify something that everyone participates in. i.e living breathing, sleeping, schools, use of energy.

Proclaim a crisis, an outrage, a disaster a terrible end result for the above identified items.

Proclaim that the inventors of the imaginary scenarios are the saviors from the invented imaginary scenarios.

Of course all that is required to be saved from the imaginary doom is to give great amounts of power to the political left and huge amounts of money.

Simple really: Fail to empower the political left and make them wealthy and you will suffer incalculable doom. Give them money and power and birds will suddenly appear whenever they are near.

note: Many play the political left game even though tey may not care one hoot about left\right. for them it is just money.

==

Bootleggers, Baptists, and Global Warming

the "bootleggers and Baptists" theory of regulation. Yandle points out that in the South, Sunday closing laws make it illegal to sell alcohol on Sunday. These laws are maintained by an inadvertent coalition of bootleggers and Baptists. The Baptists (and other religious denominations) provide the public outcry against liquor on Sunday, while the bootleggers (who actually sell liquor on Sunday) quietly persuade legislatures and town councils to maintain the closing laws.

"Bootleggers, Baptists, and Global Warming" explains that something similar is happening with the treaty negotiations over climate change.

http://www.perc.org/articles/article193.php

==

World Climate Report editor Dr. Patrick J. Michaels has just written a book cataloging dozens of similar instances. The reason is obvious.

The scientific community has a financial incentive to spout gloom and doom. Doing so generates oodles of money from our single sugar daddy, the federal government.

No one ever leverages billions out of or Nation’s Capital (the current annual outlay for “global change” research is $4 billion) unless they threaten the worst.

Then the political process takes credit for saving us from certain destruction.

And the media, addicted to “if it bleeds, it leads” stories, without questioning, print the worst.

Don’t expect scientific peer review to stop this process. To gain expert-review status, a scientist has to also have oodles of federally funded research.

Who would rationally derail this gravy train?

So, papers arguing against the end of the world (which are obviously correct) are much harder to publish, while any problems with apocalyptic submissions are either glossed over or ignored.

All of which guarantees that my colleagues

are going to continue to scream bloody climate murder with impunity.

It is simple economics interacting with politics, as evinced by unquestioningly published absolute nonsense.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2...

Forecasts for Future Oil Supplies Are Unrealistic? Who would you beleve, some green advocate or an engineer?

In the cruise ship industry, the battle for bragging rights has turned into a QE2-size slugfest. In 2003, Cunard stole the crown for world’s largest cruise ship when it launched the 151,410-ton Queen Mary 2; three years later Royal Caribbean topped it with the 154,000-ton Freedom of the Seas. Now, Royal Caribbean is set to raise the stakes yet again with the 220,000-ton Genesis, slated to launch in 2009 from a shipyard in Turku, Finland.(A second Genesis will launch a year later.) Why is bigger better?“Having more real estate, we can provide more deck area,” says Royal Caribbean’s Harri Kulovaara.“That means more entertainment options and better amenities.”

Make no mistake, Genesis will be no lumbering behemoth. The ship’s three main propellers will swivel 360 degrees on independent bearings. All will be driven by electric motors powered by the ship’s central bank of six diesel generators...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/extre...

Climate mitigation technology (stopping CO2 emissions) isn't something slick like your laptop, isn't something like Babbage's Difference Engine or even an abacus. It's more like early man using pebbles to help understand the concept of counting. The first cavemen started by counting birds, that didn't work, hence the ancient wisdom, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Don't be overly impressed by novel ideas.

Past climate of the northern Antarctic Peninsular informs global warming debate

The seriousness of current global warming is underlined by a reconstruction of climate at Maxwell Bay in the South Shetland Islands of the Antarctic Peninsula over approximately the last 14,000 years, which appears to show that the current warming and widespread loss of glacial ice are unprecedented.

"At no time during the last 14 thousand years was there a period of climate warming and loss of ice as large and regionally synchronous as that we are now witnessing in the Antarctic Peninsula," says team member Dr Steve Bohaty of the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton (NOCS), home of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science (SOES)."

The findings are based on a detailed analysis of the thickest Holocene sediment core yet drilled in the Antarctic Peninsula. "By studying the climate history of the past and identifying causes of these changes, we are better placed to evaluate current climate change and its impacts in the Antarctic," says Dr Bohaty.

As part of a 2005 research cruise aboard the American icebreaker RV/IB Nathanial B. Palmer, the scientists drilled down through the sediments at Maxwell Bay, a fjord at the northwest tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. They drilled down as far as the bedrock, obtaining a nearly complete 108.3-metre sediment core.

Back in the lab, they performed a battery of detailed sedimentological and geochemical analyses on the core. Radiocarbon dating showed that the oldest sediments at the bottom of the core were deposited between 14.1 and 14.8 thousand years ago, and sedimentation rates at the site varied from 0.7 to around 30 milimetres a year through the Holocene; that is, the geological period that began around 11,700 years ago, continuing to the present.

They conclude that ice was grounded in the fjord during the Last Glacial Maximum - the height of the last ice age - and eroded older sediments from the fjord. Later, the grounded ice retreated, leaving a permanent floating ice canopy.

The evidence points to a period of rapid glacial retreat from 10.1 to 8.2 thousand years ago, followed by a period of reduced sea-ice cover and warm water conditions occurring between 8.2 and 5.9 thousand years ago. An important finding of the study is that the mid-Holocene warming interval does not appear to have occurred synchronously throughout the region, and its timing and duration was most likely influenced at different sites by local oceanographic controls, as well as physical geography.

Following the mid-Holocene warming interval, the climate gradually cooled over the next three thousand years or so, resulting in more extensive sea-ice cover in the bay. But the researchers find no evidence that the ice advanced in Maxwell Bay during the so-called Little Ice Age in the sixteenth to mid-nineteenth century.

The Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed 3°C in the past five decades, with increased rainfall and a widespread retreat of glaciers. "Atmospheric warming trends linked to global climate change are an obvious culprit for the observed regional climate changes," say the researchers.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

Hand of God wrote:

Past climate of the northern Antarctic Peninsular informs global warming debate
The seriousness of current global warming is underlined by a reconstruction of climate..........nds linked to global climate change are an obvious culprit for the observed regional climate changes," say the researchers.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...

""At no time during the last 14 thousand years was there a period of climate warming and loss of ice as large and regionally synchronous as that we are now witnessing"

Only in the fanciful crisis peddling imaginations of alarmist con men.

The video showing the real facts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Hand of God wrote:

Past climate of the northern Antarctic Peninsular informs global warming debate...

If you were to search the world for a place least touched by man, you'd land in Antarctica. This is arcana, lore not climate science. The climate outside your window has been cooling all this century, so what do the warmists do? Look somewhere else.

Thank you Satan. Yes we can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

letschanceit wrote:

<quoted text>excuse me but stellar evolution was a hypothesis and they used computerized models to help theorize it. kind of like what they're doing with AGW. they're scientific theories. when the refuters supply some empirical data to dispute the AGW theory, let us know. until then laugh it up funny boy-your fighting a losing battle.
also, I agree the climate is changing, and always will. but, the climate wasn't always habitable for humans and someday may no longer sustain us. you believe we can't affect any change? science is disagreeing with you.

Excuse me , but the sun is a fusion device . Fusion / atomic theory is one of the most studied and most thoroughly (sp?) understood of all sciences . All of it verifies by repeatable and verifiable experiments. A Hydrogen weapon is based on the very same principles that the sun operates under . In NO way is it philosophical, or hypothetical. And hydrogen weapons were designed and invented by REAL scientists , ones who knew what they were doing , ones who used a slide rule and a pencil and paper , men who were truly ingenious . They had absolutely NOTHING in common with the nincompoops who champion this AGW hallucination , and your ALLEDGED scientists , who believe in this popular hallucination , would be thrown out of any building where real legitimate science is conducted . Furthermore , the truly smart guys would have a field day making ridicule and jokes about the wanna be's . Everything I wrote is absolute . By the way , the smart guys didn't get it wrong like you have. The proof is in the actual working product . It works first time , every time , can be repeated and all of the math as to projected yield EXACTLY matches with the product performance. That means the sun will behave in the exact manner as previously described , and that is how it will end . The End. HaHaHa!!! Have a nice dream. Reflect on your future . And your deluded concept of science . Never a thought deeper than a mud puddle for you . eh ?
By the way ... There will NEVER be an actual working hydrogen power plant on earth . Humans can not match the required conditions to make it so . Nor can a continuous fusion reaction be contained . Another do-gooder pipe dream.
Wind power is promising... If we could capture the wind energy of the AGW proponents . It'd make enough energy to break the warp speed barrier .( Infinate power )

letschanceit wrote:

<quoted text>....wow, no need to get all philosophical on me. BTW if you could pee at 30,000 feet it would freeze you wouldn't get wet you'd get hit with pee-cycles. and we sent things into space with messages on them that me outlast the planet. if there is other intelligent life we may be remembered as a race of sentient, intelligent beings, despite you. who cares what the deniers think? who cares about who cares? the fact remains that the same scientific means that "prove" your solar Apocalypse theory proves the AGW theory. got anything other than others' opinions? forgive me for interrupting your tickle fight. carry-on.

My reply: See the previous post . It seems i wrote the reply for this post as an answer to the wrong one of your posts . I dunno why that post came up twice, one after the other.

Oh yeah , almost forgot . Ha - Ha !!! Still laughing at your failure to get a life ......

Supplies of wind and solar energy on accessible land dwarf the energy consumed by people around the globe.
The authors’ plan calls for 3.8 million large wind turbines, 90,000 solar plants, and numerous geothermal, tidal and rooftop photovoltaic installations worldwide.
The cost of generating and transmitting power would be less than the projected cost per kilowatt-hour for fossil-fuel and nuclear power.
Shortages of a few specialty materials, along with lack of political will, loom as the greatest obstacles.
In December leaders from around the world will meet in Copenhagen to try to agree on cutting back greenhouse gas emissions for decades to come. The most effective step to implement that goal would be a massive shift away from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy sources.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/...