Bountiful Precipitation and Full Reservoirs in California

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
Those arguing against climate change are the same exact people that swore to God that smoking didn't cause cancer. They'll argue against it until they actually die from it.

It's like being on the Titanic and swearing that just because the ship is taking on water and beginning to list doesn't mean it's actually sinking.

Yeah. Sure. Right.

Good luck with that.
 

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
Those arguing against climate change are the same exact people that swore to God that smoking didn't cause cancer. They'll argue against it until they actually die from it.

It's like being on the Titanic and swearing that just because the ship is taking on water and beginning to list doesn't mean it's actually sinking.

Yeah. Sure. Right.

Good luck with that.
A much larger percentage of scientists deny climate change that British MPs who ask pointed questions to the British PM about the "false-flag" Syrian chemical weapon attack. @ttystikk, do you deny man-made climate change?
 

captainmorgan

Well-Known Member
dead zones are from animal waste and fertilizer run off, not climate change, you absolute moron.


Glacier National Park Quietly Removes Its "Gone By 2020" Signs


This article was written by Roger I. Roots and originally published at RogerRoots.com

May 30, 2019. St. Mary, Montana.

Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030.



In recent years the National Park Service prominently featured brochures, signs and films which boldly proclaimed that all glaciers at GNP were melting away rapidly. But now officials at GNP seem to be scrambling to hide or replace their previous hysterical claims while avoiding any notice to the public that the claims were inaccurate. Teams from Lysander Spooner University visiting the Park each September have noted that GNP’s most famous glaciers such as the Grinnell Glacier and the Jackson Glacier appear to have been growing - not shrinking - since about 2010. (The Jackson Glacier—easily seen from the Going-To-The-Sun Highway—may have grown as much as 25% or more over the past decade.)



The centerpiece of the visitor center at St. Mary near the east boundary is a large three-dimensional diorama showing lights going out as the glaciers disappear. Visitors press a button to see the diorama lit up like a Christmas tree in 1850, then showing fewer and fewer lights until the diorama goes completely dark. As recently as September 2018 the diorama displayed a sign saying GNP’s glaciers were expected to disappear completely by 2020.

Video of the diorama two years ago.

But at some point during this past winter (as the visitor center was closed to the public), workers replaced the diorama’s ‘gone by 2020’ engraving with a new sign indicating the glaciers will disappear in “future generations.”

Video of the diorama in May 2019.

Almost everywhere, the Park’s specific claims of impending glacier disappearance have been replaced with more nuanced messaging indicating that everyone agrees that the glaciers are melting. Some signs indicate that glacial melt is “accelerating.”



A common trick used by the National Park Service at GNP is to display old black-and-white photos of glaciers from bygone years (say, “1922”) next to photos of the same glaciers taken in more recent years showing the glaciers much diminished (say, “2006”). Anyone familiar with glaciers in the northern Rockies knows that glaciers tend to grow for nine months each winter and melt for three months each summer. Thus, such photo displays without precise calendar dates may be highly deceptive.

Last year the Park Service quietly removed its two large steel trash cans at the Many Glacier Hotel which depicted “before and after” engravings of the Grinnell Glacier in 1910 and 2009. The steel carvings indicated that the Glacier had shrunk significantly between the two dates. But a viral video published on Wattsupwiththat.com showed that the Grinnell Glacier appears to be slightly larger than in 2009.

The ‘gone by 2020’ claims were repeated in the New York Times, National Geographic, and other international news sources. But no mainstream news outlet has done any meaningful reporting regarding the apparent stabilization and recovery of the glaciers in GNP over the past decade. Even local Montana news sources such as The Missoulian, Billings Gazette and Bozeman Daily Chronicle have remained utterly silent regarding this story.

(Note that since September 2015 the author has offered to bet anyone $5,000 that GNP’s glaciers will still exist in 2030, in contradiction to the reported scientific consensus. To this day no one has taken me up on my offer. –R.R.)

* * *

I live very close to Glacier National Park, and while the media has been saying for years that the glaciers are "disappearing", there has been no significant change in the park's glaciers in the time I have resided here. The news above only reinforces the reality that if the climate is "changing", it is only getting colder, NOT warmer....


I'll try to type slow for you stupid, sea temperature is a major factor in algae blooms.
 

hotrodharley

Well-Known Member
“As California grappled with a record-breaking heatwave last week, the state saw 236 wildfires – one of which grew to more than 2,500 acres before it was largely contained. So far this year, California has faced 1,746 wildfires, burning through more than 15,500 acres of land.”

“The fires have mostly been fueled by the grass and brush that came up during an especially wet winter and mild spring, said Scott McLean, a spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, known as Cal Fire. “Of course, we’re hoping it’ll be better this year than in 2018. But it’s at a point where we cannot be complacent,” he said. “The fires are starting – they’re starting very easily.”

There’s your bountiful precipitation coming right back to bite you on the ass.

https://apple.news/AjWIyW3xUNC6u-rW7s8IXkg
 

doublejj

Well-Known Member
“As California grappled with a record-breaking heatwave last week, the state saw 236 wildfires – one of which grew to more than 2,500 acres before it was largely contained. So far this year, California has faced 1,746 wildfires, burning through more than 15,500 acres of land.”

“The fires have mostly been fueled by the grass and brush that came up during an especially wet winter and mild spring, said Scott McLean, a spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, known as Cal Fire. “Of course, we’re hoping it’ll be better this year than in 2018. But it’s at a point where we cannot be complacent,” he said. “The fires are starting – they’re starting very easily.”

There’s your bountiful precipitation coming right back to bite you on the ass.

https://apple.news/AjWIyW3xUNC6u-rW7s8IXkg
Need to rake the forests....."Donald Trump"
 

hotrodharley

Well-Known Member
Every silver lining is around a dark cloud. Spent 2 years with the Larimer County Sheriffs Department - Emergency Services Division. The Yellowjacket Hot Shots. Water = Green. Green w/o water = Brown.
 

squarepush3r

Well-Known Member
why have CO2 levels skyrocketed to 400+ PPM after staying between 280-320 PPM for the last 800,000+ years?
Man made CO2 emissions (fossil fuels) are clearly raising the global CO2 levels, that is not disputed, and its easy to test anywhere in the world just by measuring the CO2 levels.

The part that is disputed, is that higher atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in temperature, this is what AGW theory claims, and scientifically it seems like it doesn't hold water or is a valid theory.


Global Temperature
LATEST ANNUAL AVERAGE ANOMALY:
2018
0.8 °C



This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. Eighteen of the 19 warmest years all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The time series below shows the five-year average variation of global surface temperatures. Dark blue indicates areas cooler than average. Dark red indicates areas warmer than average.


View attachment 4348154
Cute article, kid. What's your source? Cliffmass blogspot? Yeah, mine's NASA.

Your argument is invalid.

(Source: NASA. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory | California Institute of Technology
Site Editor: Holly Shaftel
Site Manager: Randal Jackson
Science Editor: Susan Callery

Site last updated: May 28, 2019)

Note: Arguing politics is one thing. Cherry pick all you like, all of you, regardless of political status. To quote Neil Degrasse Tyson, "you can't cherry pick science." Ergo, be conservative/progressive all you like... but when it comes to science, 98% of climatologists and other scientists agree, global warming is real; mankind's acceleration of global warming is real. Don't be a chode. The arguing back and forth regarding political ideology is cute and I sometimes stop by here and read it for entertainment purposes. This is not cute. This is the future of not just our species, but life as we know it on planet Earth.

"We are not your enemy, Banner. Try to think." -Thor, god of thunder, Marvel Comics.
Global temperature records are mostly through manipulated temperature data now. Its not actual thermometer readings, they run it through their "climate change computer model" and output the temperature that corresponds with their predictions better. Hence fake science claim.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/02/21/analysis-climate-change-heat-records-are-a-huge-data-manipulation/
 

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
Man made CO2 emissions (fossil fuels) are clearly raising the global CO2 levels, that is not disputed, and its easy to test anywhere in the world just by measuring the CO2 levels.

The part that is disputed, is that higher atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in temperature, this is what AGW theory claims, and scientifically it seems like it doesn't hold water or is a valid theory.




Global temperature records are mostly through manipulated temperature data now. Its not actual thermometer readings, they run it through their "climate change computer model" and output the temperature that corresponds with their predictions better. Hence fake science claim.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/02/21/analysis-climate-change-heat-records-are-a-huge-data-manipulation/
You really don't have to prove you're an idiot.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Man made CO2 emissions (fossil fuels) are clearly raising the global CO2 levels, that is not disputed, and its easy to test anywhere in the world just by measuring the CO2 levels.

The part that is disputed, is that higher atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in temperature, this is what AGW theory claims, and scientifically it seems like it doesn't hold water or is a valid theory.




Global temperature records are mostly through manipulated temperature data now. Its not actual thermometer readings, they run it through their "climate change computer model" and output the temperature that corresponds with their predictions better. Hence fake science claim.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/02/21/analysis-climate-change-heat-records-are-a-huge-data-manipulation/
Higher co2 levels cause higher temps

This is grade school science little stupid girl
 

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
Man made CO2 emissions (fossil fuels) are clearly raising the global CO2 levels, that is not disputed, and its easy to test anywhere in the world just by measuring the CO2 levels.

The part that is disputed, is that higher atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in temperature, this is what AGW theory claims, and scientifically it seems like it doesn't hold water or is a valid theory.




Global temperature records are mostly through manipulated temperature data now. Its not actual thermometer readings, they run it through their "climate change computer model" and output the temperature that corresponds with their predictions better. Hence fake science claim.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/02/21/analysis-climate-change-heat-records-are-a-huge-data-manipulation/
Moron, the shape of the Earth is disputed, but that doesn't make it flat. While you are correct that it has not been proven (very little is in scientific terms), the great preponderance of evidence is that man-made CO2 emissions cause climate change that will disrupt human civilization in a very negative way.
 

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
We know CO2 causes increased heat. We actually have a classic, live model of it in action.

It's called Venus.

Venus and Earth are called sister planets for a reason - they're similar in nearly every way: Size, orbital area from the sun, volcanic action, the whole lot.

The major difference is the atmosphere. Earth's atmosphere contains roughly .04% carbon dioxide. Human's have actually increased that by a great amount in just the last 100 years and it is taking a toll already.

At present, Earth's average temperature is 58.3 degrees F. In 1880, it was 56.9 degrees. That's a hell of a huge increase and the only thing that has contributed to it is us.

On Venus, a planet like earth in nearly ever way, the atmosphere contains 96.5% carbon dioxide. The average temperature on Venus is a whopping 872 degrees F.

Venus is what the earth will eventually become very much like if we don't clean up our act.

Any argument against climate change is moronic. We all know it's happening. But, like smoking, the GOP will do nothing. They'll take payoffs and lie about it and pretend it doesn't exist so they can get rich.

They'll never do anything about it until, of course, it is they who start to die from it. Then, when it's too late, they'll finally leap into action.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
The part that is disputed, is that higher atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in temperature, this is what AGW theory claims, and scientifically it seems like it doesn't hold water or is a valid theory.
https://www.environment.gov.au/protection/air-quality/air-pollutants

It is not just co2 either, but about the other thing...


This basically covers it, add in everything else getting pumped into our sky by industry, cars, planes, etc, and we are really just a very dirty species. This is leaded gas all over again just way more spread out.
 

zeddd

Well-Known Member
Man made CO2 emissions (fossil fuels) are clearly raising the global CO2 levels, that is not disputed, and its easy to test anywhere in the world just by measuring the CO2 levels.

The part that is disputed, is that higher atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in temperature, this is what AGW theory claims, and scientifically it seems like it doesn't hold water or is a valid theory.




Global temperature records are mostly through manipulated temperature data now. Its not actual thermometer readings, they run it through their "climate change computer model" and output the temperature that corresponds with their predictions better. Hence fake science claim.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/02/21/analysis-climate-change-heat-records-are-a-huge-data-manipulation/
So muppet, scion of bad choices and low intellect, let’s do some science. Plants favour the isotope 12 C re uptake of CO2, over the other isotopes of carbon occurring in nature such as 13 C and 14C. Fossil fuels were once plants or animals most of which ingested plants. When fossil fuels are burned, the resulting carbon dioxide emissions are higher in the 12 C:13C:14C ratios than atmospheric CO2 implying that the elevated 12 C ratio in the overall emissions from fossil fuels is man made. Z
 

Grandpapy

Well-Known Member
Perhaps one day we'll figure out how to vent the dome.
Until then @squarepush3r 2nd grade teacher Mrs. Smith is waiting on you to return the class Terrarium, it's Jonney's turn to take it home for the week.

Billions of CF of gas over the course of 70 yrs.
bakken1.jpg

All from ONE non profitable Oil industry byproduct. (who wants to pay to pipe gas if the well dies in 2 yrs?)
 
Top