Best Arguments on Climate?

[Electro]

Electro, do you have a problem with nuclear power? If so, what about LFTR, i.e. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors? I understand they're extremely safe and non-polluting. Regular nuclear power seems rather non-polluting as well.

Most people agree that it's healthiest to have clean air, clean water and a clean environment. But people want food and power. So what's wrong with non-polluting technology?

I have nothing against non-polluting power. Nuclear energy surely is better than coal, in my opinion. However, there are other problems like waste management and security risks. Still, it's somewhat cleaner.

[Lloyd]

Electro, here are some pros and cons of LFTR power:
http://www.triplepundit.com/special/ene ... -pros-cons.

Here are designs of LFTRs: https://www.google.com/search?q=lftr+Re ... IQ_AUIBygC.

[dodeca]

Have fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU

[johnm33]

GW is happening and the simplest explanation is what the mainstream says CO2. The whole point of weather is to shift heat from the equator to the poles, so if the poles are warming the planets warming. In the north the ice cover is going to be gone soon, 10-25yrs for ice free august. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYNDT2kProU
In the south ice is being lost from the base of the grounded ice and from the ice shelves from there it spreads far north over the southern ocean freezing in the katabatic winds where it emerges from the edge of the expanding surface sea ice. http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4376
I'll speculate that when the ice is gone in the north the pole will cool by evaporation with a cold pole sw of hudson, another north of the [european] alps and a third north of the himalayas. Thats a very different weather regime and it may take a millenia to settle enough for agriculture as we know it to recover. By then much of what we consider permafrost will have melted out and the northern ocean will reach towards the caspian. This is baked in imho.

[Grey Cloud]

GW is happening and the simplest explanation is what the mainstream says CO2. The whole point of weather is to shift heat from the equator to the poles, so if the poles are warming the planets warming. In the north the ice cover is going to be gone soon, 10-25yrs for ice free august. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYNDT2kProU
In the south ice is being lost from the base of the grounded ice and from the ice shelves from there it spreads far north over the southern ocean freezing in the katabatic winds where it emerges from the edge of the expanding surface sea ice. http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4376
I'll speculate that when the ice is gone in the north the pole will cool by evaporation with a cold pole sw of hudson, another north of the [european] alps and a third north of the himalayas. Thats a very different weather regime and it may take a millenia to settle enough for agriculture as we know it to recover. By then much of what we consider permafrost will have melted out and the northern ocean will reach towards the caspian. This is baked in imho.

What rubbish.
Global warming is not happening - climate change is and always has been.

The whole point of weather is to shift heat from the equator to the poles,

Hey?

In the north the ice cover is going to be gone soon, 10-25yrs for ice free august.

They have already made at least two predictions, to my knowledge, that the N. polar ice cap would be gone by now. Didn't Al Gore VP of the USA and Nobel laureate say so in his propaganda film?
Both polar ice caps expand and contract, seem always to have done.

I'll speculate

Don't speculate, try reading some science instead. And I don't mean science by press-release on pop science websites. Have you read anything about Michael Mann's methodology? Or anything about Bristlecone Pine? Have you followed any of the links posted in this thread?

This is baked in imho

What does 'baked' mean in this context? Is it a scientific term or a N American teenage slang word?

[jacmac]

There are two completely separate ideas, or questions, or assumptions within the tern GLOBAL WARMING.
1. Is the planet warming on average, and if so, how much ?
2. If the planet is warming, how much is due to world wide MAN MADE pollution ?

When people only use Global warming, as a single verb I tune out, not worth my time.
When the two parts are separated intelligent discussion is possible.

My opinion only goes this far: To paraphrase the EU position; When the changing effects of the sun are not included you will not get it right !

Jack

[Lloyd]

Dodeca's earlier post was good, linking to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU, which shows that the government is tampering with temperature data to make it look like present temperatures are higher than in the 1930s, when they're really not.

[Electro]

I'm having a hard time understanding why governments would tamper with temperatures in favor of global warming. Governments all prioritize the economy, that means encouraging the fossil fuel industry.

[Grey Cloud]

I'm having a hard time understanding why governments would tamper with temperatures in favor of global warming. Governments all prioritize the economy, that means encouraging the fossil fuel industry.

Nuclear energy. It's been part of the agenda since the Reagan/Thatcher era. Big corporations run the world, not govts - they're just middle management.

[dodeca]

Tony and others about "the scam" and how it all started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwQ6BiqeBcg

[Grey Cloud]

Tony and others about "the scam" and how it all started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwQ6BiqeBcg

Excellent, thanks for posting.

[johnm33]

Grey Cloud It'strue climate in the historical record has always changed. Feel free to hold on to your opinion that what I say is rubbish, nevertheless time will tell. Weather is caused by the differential temps. and speeds between the equator and the poles. For instance the cold seas emerging from the depths off of north Africa are slower than the surface waters, so they drift to the west. They do this in a convoluted fashion, constantly turning right, circling like a molecule in a wave, but slowly moving west and north. This has an energetic cost and it isn't until the waters get to about 35N that they finally are moving faster than the earths rotational speed and they depart the American coast to head across the atlantic, making the same wasteful right turn eddies as they go. These waters end up in Kara then the arctic before they get recyled south. The atmospheric movement needs a book to describe but essentially where the sun is overhead on any particular day is generally hottest, by the time the air that heats has moved through the Hadley cell it has shed it's heat. So since the sea constantly moves to the north and the air rapidly loses any heat gain, the tropical regions will only warm when the recycled arctic waters emerge from the deep significantly warmer. The poles warm as the sea entering them warm. To us these movements looks like weather.
Who are they? I'm expressing my opinion here no one elses.
My speculation is based on how the ancients described the weather/climate regimes in various parts of the world before the catastrophy that thunderbolts is all about took place. Looking at some of the radar slices through Greenland there are the remnants of the frozen waves they spoke of. Much of the permafrost was caused by the instantaneous freezing that took place when the sea waters that had risen from there beds and moved to the arctic when the earth slowed/ceased spinning. You'll recall that when this took place rivers boiled and people suffered from the heat. Well as it started up again the opposite took place. Google some permafrost pictures it's harder to miss the frozen waves than it is to see them.
Baked in, there's nothing to be done, the permafrost will retreat hundreds of miles from the arctic, greenland will become a series of islands, we may even find some remnants of the fomorians home. The earth will return to the equable climate of the golden age, with an arctic that has a climate of permanent springtime, lets say about 8c in winter and maybe 20c in summer. I haven't paid so much attention to the south but I don't doubt big changes will be happening there too.

[Grey Cloud]

johnm33,

My speculation is based on how the ancients described the weather/climate regimes in various parts of the world before the catastrophy that thunderbolts is all about took place.

Okay, would you have any examples of these ancient descriptions?

Much of the permafrost was caused by the instantaneous freezing that took place when the sea waters that had risen from there beds and moved to the arctic when the earth slowed/ceased spinning.

My own jury is still out on whether a catastrophe caused the ice or caused it to melt. I'd be interested in any evidence. I don't have enough geological knowledge to draw conclusions from images.

I know Formorians more from AD&D than Irish mythology. I'll try and remember to have read tomorrow.

[D_Archer]

I want to add a 'best argument' on Greenland.

Why is it capped with ice at that latitude? And what is expected to happen with it at that latitude?

According to Buildreps* the North Pole can shift and has made shifts in the past, so there was a time when Greenland was the north pole, that would explain the buildup of ice over time and now that it is no longer at the norh pole the melting, you can apply a simple melting formula for such a large chunk off ice and calculate that it is melting as expected since it was no longer at the North Pole. Expect Greenland green again in the future.

Regards,
Daniel

*http://mariobuildreps.com/why-is-greenl ... ed-in-ice/

[johnm33]

"Examples" try 'when the earth nearly died' or 'arctic homeland in the vedas' though if you read up on the fomorians you may find the passage where when they tried to return home they found it covered by miles/mountains of ice/sea, or the account of them being on the high sea when the sea turned solid beneath them. Cross reference with what was in the stomachs/teeth of the mammoths, usually buttercups and the like. I thought this was pretty stanard fare in T-Bolts.
Just for interest here's a transect of greenland http://imgur.com/J5oAtH0 you'll have to stretch it out in imagej, gnu or such like to get a better idea of the wave forms. Here's a bedrock map, if the oceans rose out of their beds and headed north only to freeze as the spin started up again it's pretty clear there's no easy way out. All that cold, and the surrounding mountains, especially next to the ocean would be an easy place for a cold pole to form in summer months when most evaporaton takes place thereabouts, so an ideal place for snow to accumulate. http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/u ... em_map.jpg and last link with some animations but don't assume I agree with their times etc. http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/detail ... ton=recent
Re Mariobuildreps Alaska Canada and Russia do have ice sheets, its just that there's are generally closer to sea level and are thus colonised by hardy life forms and are called permafrost. The Yamal peninsular for instance is rooted about 20m below sea level, much deeper in places but because it rises at most to about [iirc] 45m asl. it presents a bleak but livable platform, Greenland at 2000m+ 6000ft+ not so much.