NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing - (1 Viewer)

Who remembers this?


And you insist on believing the scientists and calling those who don't follow the herd stupid...

Currently, I believe the consensus of the moment among weather-guessers is that we are EXITING an Ice Age, which is why the climate is getting hotter. So... 40 years ago we were heading to an Ice Age. And now we are heading away from one. Shows how much WE know.

Sorry, all you folks who believe in human-generated climate change as the villain in this piece. To me, the REAL villains are the folks who believe we know what we are talking about when we talk about the weather. If we can't recognize the complexities of these long-term natural weather cycles then perhaps we shouldn't be talking about the relatively small perturbations to weather that Man contributes.
 
They should invite one of those cardi-b types to roll around on the floor for them during a concert. Oh wait, they already do that
 
I was actually thinking of a rather massively sized female who's in the same general genre and frequently brags about how proud she is of her weight, or something like that. But couldn't remember her name. Oh yeah. Lizzo, I just remembered
 
I have no romantic interests in Lizzo - but she DOES play a mean flute, and I am NOT making a sexual joke.
 
Weather is very local and the closer you are to a weather station, the more accurate your forecasts will be. We have an interesting phenomenon in my town. The Merritt Parkway is generally the dividing line for rain/snow or # of inches if it is all snow. This is due to the effect of the southern part of town bordering a large body of salt water which is always above freezing. Temperatures closer to the shore tend to be warmer in the winter than the temperature in Hartford and cooler in the summer. It is sort of amazing what a difference 50 miles miles and a body of water make.

Given the variables, we can't predict the weather with 100% accuracy so it is hubris to insist that we can predict climate change and what causes it. Humans have only existed on this planet for a brief moment in time. We were never here to create any of the previous climate events so why are some people so convinced that we are the proximate cause of any climate change. Granted, humans do have some impact on their immediate vicinity. Cities are always hotter than the surrounding countryside due to the concentration of large buildings and asphalt. And we still pollute more than we should.
 
I've got a similar issue with Lake Ponchartrain, Lake Maurepas, and Lake Borgne - three bodies of water north of the City of New Orleans and of my home unincorporated community called Metairie. We are "south shore" and get different weather than the folks on the "north shore" only 24 miles away. But then, we are north of the Gulf of Mexico and a lot of wetland bayous and small lakes, so we get different weather from the folks south of us by about 25-30 miles. I agree with you, Pat, that we don't know enough to be sure of climate influences.

If you were to ask me what has had the most effect on our boiling hot cities, I would say "concrete roads and sidewalks." Or worse, asphalt (which is darker so absorbs energy better.)
 
I bought an interesting book a few years ago about how we should be building cities and individual homes in the suburbs. Just the difference between a black roof and a white roof over a few square miles of a city is enormous. Shade grown crops in the south of Spain have actually changed the climate in certain areas. If you look using Google Earth, it looks like there's miles of snow cover but it is white cloth shading the crops;) Including increasing rainfall and humidity. Then there is the possibility of lawns on roofs. Granted, dirt is heavy so you can't necessarily retrofit existing buildings with green spaces on the roof but you can sure build new buildings that way. Or paint the roofs white in summer and then black in the winter. Then there is controlling how windows are placed to control heat gain/loss just for starters.

For the suburbs, it depends on where in the country you are building. In most areas, we should be building water catchment systems and using the captured water to water our lawns and flush our toilets. If we're trying to be off grid, you have to go further to make it drinkable but just using rainwater for "gray" water uses goes a long way toward conserving our fresh water supply and reducing the burden on water treatment plants. We really don't need to be flushing toilets with purified water. In the mild winter parts of the country, our driveways should be checkerboards of green plants with stone or concrete blocks. In the drier parts of the countries, every new house that is built should have solar panels sufficient to provide daytime power for most days. You don't have to power the whole house 24/7 unless you want to be "off grid". A little goes a long way for many of these "green" options. As Elon improves the storage batteries, we can move to whole house power once we have batteries that can store a week's worth of power - but not in areas with hard winters. The risk is too high. Just ask the families of the folks who died in Texas a few years ago when their solar and wind farms froze up and ended up killing people.
 
According to sources, Pennyworth began raving about how cows and cow farmers seemed to be set on destroying our planet while storming up and down the aisle of his private airplane, which was burning about 11 gallons of jet fuel a minute.
PS: This is sarcasm. However, there is a real backstory.
Denmark is moving ahead with the world’s first carbon tax on agriculture, with cattle farmers set to be charged almost €100 a year for the greenhouse gas emissions from each of their cows.
 

PS: This is sarcasm. However, there is a real backstory.

Have liberals ever come up with a solution that doesn't just involve spending or charging more money? Can anyone think of anything?
 
It is still winter in Australia and we are experiencing summer temperatures with many locations having maximums up to 17 degrees Celcius (30 F) above average for this time of year.

The snowfields have melted after being blasted by hot winds "like they were coming from a hair dryer".

Down on the west coast of Tasmania, they have experienced record wind speeds of almost 160 kph (100 mph).

Many former climate change deniers are now acknowledging this is not just random weather.
 
Nah, it's cyclical it's happened before it will happen again and again.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, all you folks who believe in human-generated climate change as the villain in this piece.
Kamala assured us yesterday that she hasn't changed her position on this. She KNOWS climate change is "real". That's code for human-caused.
 
Kamala assured us yesterday that she hasn't changed her position on this. She KNOWS climate change is "real". That's code for human-caused.
In her "live" edited prerecorded interview where she answered no softball questions from CNN.
 
Not live, not spontaneous, not real, 100% liberal.

1725044660585.png
 
I've always said Joe Biden is shadier than tinted windows, now Kamala Harris is phonier than a telephone - but that doesn't sound quite right. Better versions welcome
 
oh man that's awful - he should sue, that's liar liar harris, as usual.

biden and harris are both just constantly lying
 
Scientists have captured Earth’s climate over the last 485 million years. Here’s the surprising place we stand now.
An ambitious effort to understand the Earth’s climate over the past 485 million years has revealed a history of wild shifts and far hotter temperatures than scientists previously realized — offering a reminder of how much change the planet has already endured and a warning about the unprecedented rate of warming caused by humans.
This article appears to be behind a paywall on a regular computer. No paywall on my Android phone.
The significance of this article is that it points to the fact that the climate extremists miss, actually avoid, certain themes in an attempt to mislead the public.
  1. What is the correct temperature for Earth?
  2. The viewpoint of the climate extremists is anthropocentric. Yet they attempt to (falsely) sell their viewpoint as saving the Earth. It is not from the viewpoint of allowing natural selection to progress in response to the changes in the environment. The Earth will endure whether man exists people exist or not.
  3. The climate extremists mystically believe that global warming can be "solved" through the application of hocus pocus technology instead of considering the claimed cause, which is human population. If they really wish to "solve" the problem they should be promoting population control. Moreover many of the global warming extremists, don't even bother to change their environmental habits to comply with the environmental requirements they attempt to impose on the general population.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom