myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 551, 552, 553 ... 568, 569, 570  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 8822
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:
real-human wrote:
nw30 wrote:
real-human wrote:
nw30 wrote:
We all know that when there is a poll asking people what they think the most important issues facing us are, Global Warming always comes at or near the bottom of the list.
When you get things like this, there is little doubt as to why.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chilling: Play titled ‘Kill Climate Deniers’ launches theatrical run

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/1/kill-climate-deniers-play-launches-theatrical-run/


the rape and molestation and raping 13 years olds is a low priority of the people too,

How sick in a hysterically sad sort of way, it doesn't matter what thread you're on, or what the thread subject is, it always come back to raping a 13 year old.
Your mind is truly stuck in a sick place.


IQ30 you are such a low level thinker.... here let me fill in the gaps because you just are such a low level thinker...

well idiot you used a moonie publication who went after Clinton for how many years because of a affair and that was a high priority to right wingers special the rich trust fund and religious wacko media owners.

Where now the right wing media would not even ask for a independent counsel for Trump who had a lawsuit before he was elected that he beat and savagely raped a child when she was 13 at trums best friends home who is a convicted serial pedophile with an estimated 60 payoff to girls he raped as 13-14 year olds. Ya trump claims he has paid off more than 100. Clintons handful of consensual affairs that went to impeachment because he said he did not have sexual relations which was not a crime in the first place. Raping children is a crime that you and your right wingers are fine with.

Again so when your washington times a ultra religious moony publication determines what are priorities I say well they did with clinton on what appears to be nothing compared to trump beating and raping children... and threatening to kill them and their family. Boy does that sound like trumps life MO.

You just can not handle the truth... you low level thinker... IQ of 30

Again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again. As if repetition will send us all to join you in your bunker.
How about you just start your own website, "How to get away with raping a 13 year old", and then you could just send us all your link. But you better be offering a free tee shirt or we won't show up, it could have an image of a sexy 13 year old on it.

In the mean time, just talk about the glories of global warming here, that's what it's for.


we had how many years of clinton investigations you whinny little low level thinker.

you posted a what you thought a thought from the lead of that front rev moonie another right-wing hero owning the washington times that never made a prophit...

Till that girl gets her day in court including a special prosecutor anytime you bring up the washington times and what is important expect me to give you double the years you gave about Clinton and you have not stopped even after he left. You even went after his wife from the get go.

yet you do not go after trumps third wife that she violated usa law in working in the porno industy illegally and did not report her illegal work to get citizenship... Again his wife is aware he raped a child and she stays with him. Ya she knows that when she had her son, the donald was doing another porn star.

now bunker man is your malibu barfie he admitted that he wears tin foil all the time while dangling gold out if his reach...

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 5070
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's all yours Dean
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 8822
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:
It's all yours xxxx


oh troll post, by IQ30 a very low level thinker...

typical right winger slinging hate and mud because they are so intellectually, morally, inferior and just full of themselves with their they are the true victim of slavery... Low IQ30 wants us to believe he is the real victim... That's why he and his kind wear sheets and blow up federal buildings and those who do are heroes and the base of his party.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 8822
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

this is what right wingers support.... not getting to the truth where this lady has her day in court with trump for raping her when she was 13....








https://www.advocate.com/politics/2017/10/11/editor-lists-all-women-said-president-trump-sexually-assaulted-them

https://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/rapequotes.asp



https://splinternews.com/here-are-all-the-times-donald-trump-has-been-accused-of-1793860459

Quote:
According to the suit, Trump tied her to a bed, exposed himself to her and then raped her in a "savage sexual attack." Doe says she screamed for him to stop at which point he struck her in the face while screaming "that he would do whatever he wanted." In a statement filed with the lawsuit, Doe says Trump threatened to ruin her life and her family's life if she ever told anyone about the incident:


here is the 13 year olds suit, that no major media put front page...

again this girl was 13 years old when trump did this. I say did this because he never filed a response in court and said he would sue all these females and he has not. so he is a liar again. and I say since he has the money and the biggest suer on earth, and this is the most severe accusation with witnesses to back it up at his friends home who has been convicted of raping children and at least 30-60 settlements, who has all of trumps personal numbers to doorman and so on, and trump lied and later said he did not know the serial pedophile Jeffy epstien. Well trump did not remember he was in photos with him, in interviews praising his good friends and in a government raid on the pedophile found all trumps personal numbers.

When is the major media going to cover it?

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3125

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Talking about warming and weather, it seems that it continues to be pretty stormy in Baja, but it's clear sailing north of the border.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 7725

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NOAA Data Tampering Approaching 2.5 Degrees
Posted on March 20, 2018 by tonyheller
NOAA’s US temperature record shows that US was warmest in the 1930’s and has generally cooled as CO2 has increased. This wrecks greenhouse gas theory, so they “adjust” the data to make it look like the US is warming.

The NOAA data tampering produces a spectacular hockey stick of scientific fraud, which becomes the basis of vast amounts of downstream junk climate science. Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 11016
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did I mention already today that Bard and NW constantly troll for the most disreputable sources so they can post fake news? Tony Heller is a liar. https://climatecrocks.com/tag/steven-goddard/


https://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 5070
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Waaaaay too much fear mongering.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Paris Climate Accords Are Looking More and More Like Fantasy
March 25, 2018

Remember Paris? It was not even two years ago that the celebrated climate accords were signed — defining two degrees of global warming as a must-meet target and rallying all the world’s nations to meet it — and the returns are already dispiritingly grim.
This week, the International Energy Agency announced that carbon emissions grew 1.7 percent in 2017, after an ambiguous couple of years optimists hoped represented a leveling off, or peak; instead, we’re climbing again. Even before the new spike, not a single major industrial nation was on track to fulfill the commitments it made in the Paris treaty. To keep the planet under two degrees of warming — a level that was, not all that long ago, defined as the threshold of climate catastrophe — all signatory nations have to match or better those commitments. There are 195 signatories, of which only the following are considered even “in range” of their Paris targets: Morocco, Gambia, Bhutan, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, India, and the Philippines. This puts Donald Trump’s commitment to withdraw from the treaty in a useful perspective; in fact, his spite may ultimately prove perversely productive, since the evacuation of American leadership on climate seems to have mobilized China, eager to claim the mantle and far more consequential to the future of the planet because of its size and relative poverty, to adopt a much more aggressive posture toward climate. Of course those renewed Chinese commitments are, at this point, just rhetorical, too.

But this winter has brought even worse news than the abject failure of Paris compliance, in the form of a raft of distressing papers about what beyond compliance is required to stay below two degrees. Were each of those 195 countries to suddenly shape up, dramatically cutting back on fossil fuels to bring emissions in line with targets, that would still be not nearly enough to hit even Paris’s quite scary target. We don’t just need to draw down fossil fuels to stay below two degrees; doing so also requires “negative emissions” — extracting carbon from the atmosphere, essentially buying back some amount of existing fossil-fuel pollution through a combination of technological and agricultural tools. As Chelsea Harvey, among others, has pointed out, in 2014, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — now somewhat outdated, but still more or less the gold-standard single source for big-picture perspective — presented more than 100 modeled scenarios that would keep global temperatures below two degrees of warming. Nearly all of them relied on negative emissions. These tools come in two forms: technologies that would suck carbon out of the air (called CCS, for carbon capture and storage) and new approaches to forestry and agriculture that would do the same, in a slightly more old-fashioned way (bioenergy carbon capture and storage, or BECCS).

According to these recent papers, both are something close to fantasy: at best, uneconomical and entirely untested at scale, and, at worst, wholly inadequate to the job being asked of them. A new report of the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council found that negative-emissions technologies have “limited realistic potential” to even slow the increase in concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere — let alone meaningfully reduce that concentration. A letter in Nature Climate Change described the forestry and agricultural technologies, as imagined, “difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries” — that is, it would impose such devastating costs in terms of forest cover, biodiversity, agriculture, and fresh water that doing so “might undermine the stability and resilience of the earth system,” lead author Vera Heck writes.

To keep us on track for Paris, BECCS “would require plantations covering two to three times the size of India — a third of the planet’s arable land,” Jason Hickell has calculated — and more than double that which is presently used to produce all the world’s agriculture. “Not only would this make it impossible to feed the world’s population, it would also be an ecological disaster.” Staying within those boundaries, and sparing the planet from those self-inflicted disasters, would mean deploying BECCS at such a small scale it could only offset, at best, one percent of annual emissions. Which means, all told, that the pathway to two degrees is getting so slim you can hardly see it; at present, it depends on emissions commitments literally no nation is keeping and technologies no one has seen work, and which many scientists now believe cannot possibly work. This is not good.

How not good? Another new paper sketches in horrifying detail what this failure would mean, though its findings are smuggled in under cover of rhetorical optimism. In the new issue of Nature Climate Change, a team lead by Drew Shindell tried to quantify the suffering that would be avoided if the planet were kept below 1.5 degrees of warming, rather than two degrees — in other words, how much additional suffering would result from that additional half-degree of warming. Their answer: 150 million more people would die from air pollution alone in a two-degree-warmer world than in a 1.5-degree-warmer one.

Numbers that large can be hard to grasp, but 150 million is the equivalent of 25 Holocausts. It is five times the size of the death toll of the Great Leap Forward — the largest non-military death toll humanity has ever produced. It is three times the greatest death toll of any kind: World War II. The paper’s math is speculative, of course, and there will surely be those who take issue with its methodology. But it also looks at deaths solely from air pollution — not from heat waves, drought, agricultural failure, pandemic disease, hurricanes and extreme weather, climate conflict, and more. And the paper reaches that figure, 150 million, only for a world that is two degrees warmer, when everything we are seeing now tells us that two degrees, always an optimistic target, is becoming more and more of a long shot.

That is all to say, it is a virtual certainty that we will inflict, thanks to climate change, the equivalent of 25 Holocausts on the world. Or rather, thanks only to the air pollution associated with climate change. We are almost sure to break two degrees of warming, and those numbers do not reflect any of the other — quite considerable — effects of climate change. So 25 Holocausts is our absolute best-case outcome; the likely suffering will be considerably higher still. “We are locking in place a scale of suffering that has no precedent in our history,” David Roberts wrote on Twitter. “Imagine the horror we would feel if we valued human life like we claim to.”


This kind of indifference is, unfortunately, nothing new when it comes to climate. In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol extended the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change into a binding international treaty, committing all nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to “a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” You don’t hear much about Kyoto anymore, despite its landmark status, because it was completely ineffective; the 20 years that followed the treaty produced more carbon emissions than the 20 years that preceded it, and brought us where we are today, in dire straits. In 2003, Ken Caldeira calculated that the world would need to add about a nuclear power plant’s worth of clean-energy capacity every day between 2000 and 2050 to avoid catastrophic climate change — 1,100 megawatts of clean power capacity every 24 hours. At the moment, 15 years on and in the midst of what we keep hearing described as a green-energy revolution, we are adding about 151 — barely 10 percent. Paris is very quickly starting to look like Kyoto.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/the-paris-climate-accords-are-starting-to-look-like-fantasy.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wsurfer



Joined: 17 Aug 2000
Posts: 690

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:
Waaaaay too much fear mongering.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Paris Climate Accords Are Looking More and More Like Fantasy
March 25, 2018

Remember Paris? It was not even two years ago that the celebrated climate accords were signed — defining two degrees of global warming as a must-meet target and rallying all the world’s nations to meet it — and the returns are already dispiritingly grim.
This week, the International Energy Agency announced that carbon emissions grew 1.7 percent in 2017, after an ambiguous couple of years optimists hoped represented a leveling off, or peak; instead, we’re climbing again. Even before the new spike, not a single major industrial nation was on track to fulfill the commitments it made in the Paris treaty. To keep the planet under two degrees of warming — a level that was, not all that long ago, defined as the threshold of climate catastrophe — all signatory nations have to match or better those commitments. There are 195 signatories, of which only the following are considered even “in range” of their Paris targets: Morocco, Gambia, Bhutan, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, India, and the Philippines. This puts Donald Trump’s commitment to withdraw from the treaty in a useful perspective; in fact, his spite may ultimately prove perversely productive, since the evacuation of American leadership on climate seems to have mobilized China, eager to claim the mantle and far more consequential to the future of the planet because of its size and relative poverty, to adopt a much more aggressive posture toward climate. Of course those renewed Chinese commitments are, at this point, just rhetorical, too.

But this winter has brought even worse news than the abject failure of Paris compliance, in the form of a raft of distressing papers about what beyond compliance is required to stay below two degrees. Were each of those 195 countries to suddenly shape up, dramatically cutting back on fossil fuels to bring emissions in line with targets, that would still be not nearly enough to hit even Paris’s quite scary target. We don’t just need to draw down fossil fuels to stay below two degrees; doing so also requires “negative emissions” — extracting carbon from the atmosphere, essentially buying back some amount of existing fossil-fuel pollution through a combination of technological and agricultural tools. As Chelsea Harvey, among others, has pointed out, in 2014, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — now somewhat outdated, but still more or less the gold-standard single source for big-picture perspective — presented more than 100 modeled scenarios that would keep global temperatures below two degrees of warming. Nearly all of them relied on negative emissions. These tools come in two forms: technologies that would suck carbon out of the air (called CCS, for carbon capture and storage) and new approaches to forestry and agriculture that would do the same, in a slightly more old-fashioned way (bioenergy carbon capture and storage, or BECCS).

According to these recent papers, both are something close to fantasy: at best, uneconomical and entirely untested at scale, and, at worst, wholly inadequate to the job being asked of them. A new report of the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council found that negative-emissions technologies have “limited realistic potential” to even slow the increase in concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere — let alone meaningfully reduce that concentration. A letter in Nature Climate Change described the forestry and agricultural technologies, as imagined, “difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries” — that is, it would impose such devastating costs in terms of forest cover, biodiversity, agriculture, and fresh water that doing so “might undermine the stability and resilience of the earth system,” lead author Vera Heck writes.

To keep us on track for Paris, BECCS “would require plantations covering two to three times the size of India — a third of the planet’s arable land,” Jason Hickell has calculated — and more than double that which is presently used to produce all the world’s agriculture. “Not only would this make it impossible to feed the world’s population, it would also be an ecological disaster.” Staying within those boundaries, and sparing the planet from those self-inflicted disasters, would mean deploying BECCS at such a small scale it could only offset, at best, one percent of annual emissions. Which means, all told, that the pathway to two degrees is getting so slim you can hardly see it; at present, it depends on emissions commitments literally no nation is keeping and technologies no one has seen work, and which many scientists now believe cannot possibly work. This is not good.

How not good? Another new paper sketches in horrifying detail what this failure would mean, though its findings are smuggled in under cover of rhetorical optimism. In the new issue of Nature Climate Change, a team lead by Drew Shindell tried to quantify the suffering that would be avoided if the planet were kept below 1.5 degrees of warming, rather than two degrees — in other words, how much additional suffering would result from that additional half-degree of warming. Their answer: 150 million more people would die from air pollution alone in a two-degree-warmer world than in a 1.5-degree-warmer one.

Numbers that large can be hard to grasp, but 150 million is the equivalent of 25 Holocausts. It is five times the size of the death toll of the Great Leap Forward — the largest non-military death toll humanity has ever produced. It is three times the greatest death toll of any kind: World War II. The paper’s math is speculative, of course, and there will surely be those who take issue with its methodology. But it also looks at deaths solely from air pollution — not from heat waves, drought, agricultural failure, pandemic disease, hurricanes and extreme weather, climate conflict, and more. And the paper reaches that figure, 150 million, only for a world that is two degrees warmer, when everything we are seeing now tells us that two degrees, always an optimistic target, is becoming more and more of a long shot.

That is all to say, it is a virtual certainty that we will inflict, thanks to climate change, the equivalent of 25 Holocausts on the world. Or rather, thanks only to the air pollution associated with climate change. We are almost sure to break two degrees of warming, and those numbers do not reflect any of the other — quite considerable — effects of climate change. So 25 Holocausts is our absolute best-case outcome; the likely suffering will be considerably higher still. “We are locking in place a scale of suffering that has no precedent in our history,” David Roberts wrote on Twitter. “Imagine the horror we would feel if we valued human life like we claim to.”


This kind of indifference is, unfortunately, nothing new when it comes to climate. In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol extended the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change into a binding international treaty, committing all nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to “a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” You don’t hear much about Kyoto anymore, despite its landmark status, because it was completely ineffective; the 20 years that followed the treaty produced more carbon emissions than the 20 years that preceded it, and brought us where we are today, in dire straits. In 2003, Ken Caldeira calculated that the world would need to add about a nuclear power plant’s worth of clean-energy capacity every day between 2000 and 2050 to avoid catastrophic climate change — 1,100 megawatts of clean power capacity every 24 hours. At the moment, 15 years on and in the midst of what we keep hearing described as a green-energy revolution, we are adding about 151 — barely 10 percent. Paris is very quickly starting to look like Kyoto.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/the-paris-climate-accords-are-starting-to-look-like-fantasy.html


Key quote:
This kind of indifference is, unfortunately, nothing new when it comes to climate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 11016
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Buried in the details of NW's post is this estimate:

Quote:
150 million more people would die from air pollution alone in a two-degree-warmer world than in a 1.5-degree-warmer one


You don't have to believe that, I'm pretty skeptical. But even 10% of that is 15 million people. All for higher profits for oil companies--and their stockholders.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 551, 552, 553 ... 568, 569, 570  Next
Page 552 of 570

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group