|
|||||
|
|
|
|         
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||||||
If he'd won, the GOP would have got in next time, only 8 years of Bush could have made the South go "ok, we'll try the nigra, after Bush the thought of McCain is too stupid to imagine, y'all." and I've actually heard people say this. These are committed redneck southerners and it's not that they like Obama but rather they *really* disliked da stupid. It burnzzzz.. And stupid is as stupid does could not be more apparent than with Bush and McCain. This Is why Hillary will lose to nearly anybody this side of Sarah Palin also btw.
Gore predicted the poles would be ice free by this year and has vested interests in this. Nasa's response? "Not much change in 30 years really".
30 years of global warming yet no change in Arctic ice Source: NASA, url in image http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/nasa_arctic_ice.png
Denial of this going to make that moron Cruz look like a genius with Gore the last man standing, in a frozen mile high ice sheet north of Toronto saying "any day now"
It did melt, but for five years it's been growing back:
5 year global sea ice growth Source: US National Snow and Ice Data Center visualization of NASA data. http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/sea-ice-trend.png
Polar ice doesn't doesn't grow back because it's a warming world and you don't have enough weasel words to explain this.
That ice you moaned on about so much to not reflect back sunlight because it was missing is now back. If the loss of the ice means it gets hotter because of less reflected sunlight then more ice will make it colder for you can not have one without the other and it doesn't matter what kind of ice it is or how old it is what matters is you can see white from space
If you can it'll reflect back sunlight and cool things down compared to less ice as it was a decade ago. Is it warm right now? Yes, there was a warming trend from 1978-1998. But it hasn't increased since then and it's cooling, hence the frozen arctic and that will now speed cooling up the same way the reverse sped warming up. Unless you find flaw in fact or logic, the world is irrefutably cooling and about to get cooler.
That is if the world wasn't warming enough to the point where it all froze where it was not frozen before and now reflects back light so it will get even colder, it doesn't eem prudent to me to say it's still warming especially given the temperature chart has shown a steady decline.
Land and sea combined global average temperature:1998- now Source: NASA/NOAA http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/annot-land_ocean.png
Especially as all this cooling occurred while CO2 was ising and even that has now stopped.
CO2 stopped rising Source: IEA http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2015/march/global-energy-related-emissions-of-carbon-dioxide-stalled-in-2014.html
That theory that man made all these extra parts per million of Co2 and that cooked the planet is nonsense and because your hypothesis disagrees with nature it doesn't mean nature is wrong, to paraphrase Feynman, who would also point out all your models failed.
Comparison of climate model projections to actual measured temperature. Bonus photo of Feynman http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/feynman.jpg
At this point it seems more prudent to suggest co2 rises when it gets warm in the subsequent increase biomass consumes it and it gets cold again. Because that's what actually happened:
Two of the many papers pointing out biomass is up.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract https://web.archive.org/web/20130607223311/http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2013/2013-24.shtml
Even the Sahara is regreening. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
Global warming turned out to drive global greening, probably a good deal in our polluted world, since plants digest pollution. (See Google, there are hundreds of thousands of things written on this)
That we cut down half the worlds trees in the last 100 years probably amounts for the small number of parts per million that increased for a while.
The history of earth's climate as far back as you want to look (and note were in as thermal slump right now, the world is supposed to be warmer than this) is a series of ups and downs on a fractal scale - no matter how much you blow it up or shrink it down you see the same pattern - ups and downs. If climate did not change that would be quite foreign and temperatures of late are ot in any way unusual and in fact careful examination of the last 2000 years readings show it's been much much warmed than t is now many times in the recent past.
Earth's historical record for 4.5 billion years http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/historical_temp.png
The earth is dong what it's always done and what it's supposed to do and I'd worry more about those trees you're cutting down and abut the pollution. Nobody can deny that mess in the gulf or fukushima and we're dangerously close to getting used to these as the new normal while giving them little or no attention instead spending all our time worry about an endless media campaign about a trick played with misleading statistics.
Attenuation of the term "pollution" in literatures as a function of an increase in the term "climate change" and "global warming" Source: Google Ngram viewer - all books/websites http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/pollution-ngram.png
THAT'S the problem with Gore. You do get points for admitting when you're wrong and dogmatic insistence on a broken hypothesis is a foolish notion, and the mark of a cult, not scientific enlightenment.
