Global Warming
- Started
- Last post
- 643 Responses
- utopian4
Map projects where climate change will kill the most people.
Climate change is projected to cause higher mortality in many parts of the United States, according to a new report published in the journal Science.
The country as a whole could see about 5.4 more deaths per 100,000 people for every degree Celsius the temperature rises. But the South is expected to be hardest hit, with many counties in Texas and Florida seeing 20 to 40 more deaths for every 100,000 residents by the end of the century.
- Ironic how Texas and Florida will be the first to go.formed
- ironic? no. more like telling.
https://www.theatlan…imbecile - etc. etc.
https://www.google.c…imbecile - yes ironic, considering they've outlawed teaching actual science about the issue theremonospaced
- You mean global warming?Hayoth
- i feel globally warmer.ApeRobot
- so the north drives industry, the south suffers yet the south are the loudest climate change deniers. perfect lol._niko
- Isn't that map fairly close to where guns kiil most people, if you bump up the red in the northeast (Chicago, etc.)?BustySaintClaire
- also the areas most in need of universal healthcare, but it's loudest opponents. Retarded._niko
- utopian2
Iceberg the size of Delaware to break off from Antarctica
A large sheet of ice is set to break away from Antarctica and scientists say it will be one of the largest breaks of its kind recorded.
Larsen C -- a sprawling sheet of ice in western Antarctica -- is currently attached to its parent shelf by 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) of ice, according to UK-based research team Project MIDAS.
Once it splits, the crack will produce an iceberg around 5,000 square kilometers (1,930 square miles) -- approximately the size of the state of Delaware.- As reported on Breitbart Newsutopian
- I don't get the image.teh
- https://www.youtube.…imbecile
- monospaced4
- If I ever wanted to become a dictator and have a country full of surfs I would make sure the members of QBN were citizens of my great country,Hayoth
- Does this NASA link mean anything to you or are you going to go from global cooling to global warming to climate change?Hayoth
- http://www.nasa.gov/…Hayoth
- LOL chill. I'm not Brian Coxmonospaced
- ah yes, hayoth the Alex Jones loyalist.inteliboy
- because out of all the manipulation and scheming that surrounds climate change it's those evil scientists at Nasa.inteliboy
- Things can only get better?Chimp
- utopian4
Arctic stronghold of world’s seeds flooded after permafrost melts.
It was designed as an impregnable deep-freeze to protect the world’s most precious seeds from any global disaster and ensure humanity’s food supply forever. But the Global Seed Vault, buried in a mountain deep inside the Arctic circle, has been breached after global warming produced extraordinary temperatures over the winter, sending meltwater gushing into the entrance tunnel.
- Fail of the day?Maaku
- who in the fuck would put it there?teh
- The scientists' who never would of thought that the North Pole would melt...but global warming is proving everyone wrong, except Trump and the GOP.utopian
- lol fucking shit. fail of the century.sarahfailin
- what's the problem? plant these seeds near the vaultdrgs
- lol at not making it water proofset
- Haha, stoopid HumAnzrobthelad
- One job!!!futurefood
- And this thing was only built what, 8 years ago?ETM
- Because melting ice caps is funny.face_melter
- It's okay, warm ice is make water, we iz water mostly. Winz.robthelad
- The seeds are safe. Sensationalist headline. Just look it up.ESKEMA
- utopian2
Rapid warming and disintegrating polar ice sets the stage for ‘societal collapse
Carbon pollution is destabilizing both the Arctic and Antarctic.
The Arctic and Antarctic are seeing an accelerated collapse of both sea and land ice.
When you add in Trump’s aggressive agenda to undo both domestic and global climate action, we are facing the worst-case scenario for climate change — and one new study finds that the worst case is “societal collapse.”
The unprecedented drop in global sea ice we reported on last month has continued. Arctic sea ice reached a new record low, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reports.
"Drill Baby Drill" - GOP
- RealDonaldTrump3
- lolmonospaced
- Trumps boy Chachi!utopian
- What a fud,face_melter
- Charles (in charge), NOOO!!!ideaist
- utopian3
Scientists disprove global warming took a break
Washington (AFP) - A reported pause in global warming between 1998 and 2014 was false, according to US-British research published Wednesday that confirmed the findings of a controversial US study on ocean warming.
Scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of York, England, corroborated the results of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) research paper in 2015.
Their findings were reported in the US journal Science Advances.
The NOAA paper had shown ocean buoys now used to measure water temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than older ship-based systems.
The switch to buoy measurements had hidden some of the real-world warming during the 1998-2014 period, the NOAA scientists concluded.
The NOAA paper had drawn outrage from some scientists who insisted there had been a "global warming hiatus" and from critics who consider global warming a hoax.
The US House of Representatives, controlled by the Republican Party, had even demanded the NOAA scientists provide lawmakers with their email exchanges about the research.
The US government agency agreed to transmit data and respond to scientific questions but refused to hand over the emails of the study's authors, a decision supported by scientists worried about political interference.
"Our results mean that essentially NOAA got it right, that they were not cooking the books," said Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student in UC Berkeley's Energy and Resources Group and lead author of the new study.
- 'Hiatus' debunked -
The International Panel on Climate Change, in a report published in September 2013, said the average global warming between 1951 and 2012 had been 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade.
But between 1998 and 2012, warming had amounted to only 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade, indicating a 'global warming hiatus.'
The 2015 NOAA analysis, which was adjusted to correct for the "cold bias" of buoy measurements, found there was no detectable slowdown in ocean warming over the previous 15 years.
Reporting in the journal Science, the NOAA scientists said the oceans has actually warmed 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade since 2000, nearly twice as fast as the earlier estimates of 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade.
That brought the rate of ocean temperature rise in line with estimates for the previous 30 years, between 1970 and 1999.
The new study uses independent data from satellites and Argo floats, a worldwide satellite-based location and data collection system, as well as from buoys.
The information gathered confirmed the NOAA results in 2015 were correct, the scientists said.
"We were initially skeptical of the NOAA result, because it showed faster warming than a previous updated record from the UK Met Office," said Kevin Cowtan of the University of York.
"So we set out to test it for ourselves, using different methods and different data. We now think NOAA got it right, and a new dataset from the Japan Meteorological Agency also agrees," he said.
Science is not a belief system...it's a system of facts.
- don't worry too much about this shit, look at your "California has 1 year of water stored" post from over a year ago._niko
- the 5 year stretch was the worst ever but it's had its ups and downs historically.
http://www.laalmanac…_niko - Thanks for posting fake news again.Hayoth
- I found the article on Breitbart Newsutopian
- i_monk1
England will get colder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shu…
- GeorgesII1
maybe the earth is just doing a major clean up,
as far as I know, we're the most parasitic specie here.
- panacea-1
Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/scien…The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.
Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.
‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.
- BrokenHD1
ITS THE KOCH BROTHERS THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MASS DISINFO CAMPAIGN IN THE US. ALL TO PROTECT THEIR OIL ENTERPRISES. THEY ARE ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR MOST OF THE MONETARY ATTACHES ON THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. IF ANY ONE SHOULD BE FINED AND IMPRISONED FOR GLOBAL WARMING... shit sorry all caps
- freedom0
Why do republicans say they don't believe scientists?
Are they being pressured by lobbyists or are they really dumb?
- GeorgesII-1
fuck you trees!!
- :(utopian
- eheheh I've been had
https://i.imgur.com/…GeorgesII - lolmoIdero
- set1
Bring it on! England is far too cold.
- nb5
"Come with me if you want to live."I see your questions.
Each and every time I post on my Facebook page or tweet about my crusade for a clean energy future, I see them.
There are always a few of you, asking why we should care about the temperature rising, or questioning the science of climate change.
I want you to know that I hear you. Even those of you who say renewable energy is a conspiracy. Even those who say climate change is a hoax. Even those of you who use four letter words.
I've heard all of your questions, and now I have three questions for you.Let's put climate change aside for a minute. In fact, let's assume you're right.
First - do you believe it is acceptable that 7 million people die every year from pollution? That's more than murders, suicides, and car accidents - combined.
Every day, 19,000 people die from pollution from fossil fuels. Do you accept those deaths? Do you accept that children all over the world have to grow up breathing with inhalers?
Now, my second question: do you believe coal and oil will be the fuels of the future?
Besides the fact that fossil fuels destroy our lungs, everyone agrees that eventually they will run out. What's your plan then?
I, personally, want a plan. I don't want to be like the last horse and buggy salesman who was holding out as cars took over the roads. I don't want to be the last investor in Blockbuster as Netflix emerged. That's exactly what is going to happen to fossil fuels.
A clean energy future is a wise investment, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either wrong, or lying. Either way, I wouldn't take their investment advice.Renewable energy is great for the economy, and you don't have to take my word for it. California has some of the most revolutionary environmental laws in the United States, we get 40% of our power from renewables, and we are 40% more energy efficient than the rest of the country. We were an early-adopter of a clean energy future.
Our economy has not suffered. In fact, our economy in California is growing faster than the U.S. economy. We lead the nation in manufacturing, agriculture, tourism, entertainment, high tech, biotech, and, of course, green tech.
I have a final question, and it will take some imagination.
There are two doors. Behind Door Number One is a completely sealed room, with a regular, gasoline-fueled car. Behind Door Number Two is an identical, completely sealed room, with an electric car. Both engines are running full blast.
I want you to pick a door to open, and enter the room and shut the door behind you. You have to stay in the room you choose for one hour. You cannot turn off the engine. You do not get a gas mask.
I'm guessing you chose the Door Number Two, with the electric car, right? Door number one is a fatal choice - who would ever want to breathe those fumes?This is the choice the world is making right now.
To use one of the four-letter words all of you commenters love, I don't give a damn if you believe in climate change. I couldn’t care less if you're concerned about temperatures rising or melting glaciers. It doesn't matter to me which of us is right about the science.
I just hope that you'll join me in opening Door Number Two, to a smarter, cleaner, healthier, more profitable energy future.
- Arnie
- Well put Arnie!inteliboy
- +1OBBTKN
- Come with me if you want to live. Hahah. He should have written that.monospaced
- everytime you try to save the world via interwebs the climate suffers due to large carbon footprint of internetsDillinger
- Great stuff. The sooner we stop burning shit, the better. Don't you think Arnie?Ianbolton
- why electric and not fuel cells? plus anyone who cares about the manmade cc change should be happy people die because it helps solve the climate problem. IRONYdeathboy
- yurimon-2
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-…
Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'
- And the environmentalists attempting to "Save the Rainforests" cheer loudly!!! Hooray...drake-von-drake
- Hmmm thought you guys were saying above it wasn't caused by CO2 and just "natural warming cycle"...yuekit
- Its more along the path that plant life benefits from co2's im not sure about the other info they are throwing in, in trying play up the warming.yurimon
- nothing to see here, just your average, cyclical shit, previously captured in the rock recorddrake-von-drake
- If CO2 emissions cause such a dramatic change in plant growth, why wouldn't it affect climate as well?yuekit
- there is talk that we are preventing an ice age but i dont know. I think there are so many factors for climate, im not sure we will have down in a decade.yurimon
- climate models are faulty. so you guess as good as any, only thing as big concern is false politics in all this driving this issue more then the science.yurimon
- No doubt there are some green and alternative energy companies that stand to benefit. But overall self interest would lie much more on the side of not doingyuekit
- anything so that you don't slow economic growth. No politician wants to be the one that slows the economy, even if the long term consequences end up havingyuekit
- a much higher cost. So there's your conspiracy, much more realistic than a bunch of scientists around the world all making stuff up.yuekit
- Such the contrarianutopian
- you mean the email debacle with fake data being used to prop up global warming? stuff like that?yurimon
- There was no fake data, just emails showing scientists debating over what their research showed, exactly what you would expect.yuekit
- when you examine how money, politics, university grants, corps work together with science you will understand.yurimon
- What part of the science do you think is wrong? It's well established that gases like CO2 and methane produce a greenhouse effect when added to atmosphere.yuekit
- That's one of the reasons why the Earth's climate is different from those of other planets, and also different from how it was in the past.yuekit
- Considering the amount of CO2 and other emissions pumped into the air by billions of people driving cars, factories, etc. it's a pretty basic cause and effect.yuekit
- how many particles per billion?yurimon
- drake-von-drake-6
LMFAO!
Sanders' Energy Policies Would Actually Increase Global Warming
https://pjmedia.com/trending/201…“Wouldn’t those proposals drive the country back to coal and oil, and actually undermine your fight against global warming?” Errol Louis, one of the debate moderators, asked Sanders during Thursday’s debate in Brooklyn, New York.
“No, they wouldn’t,” Sanders shot back. He called for a massive increase in the use of renewable energy, especially solar power, and said that if the United States took the climate threat as seriously as it did the Nazis in World War II, the country could in a few years radically transform its entire energy system.
Energy analysts, if not Sanders supporters, view askance his proposals that could undermine the twin pillars of the progress that the United States has made. Fracking for natural gas has helped utilities mothball dirty coal plants. And nuclear power provides 20 percent of U.S. electricity — and all of it is emissions free. Both energy sources would be targeted by Sanders, yet very hard to replace.
“There is a basic reality here, which is that nuclear energy is the single-largest source of zero-emissions electricity in the United States,” Josh Freed, vice president of clean energy at Third Way, a centrist think tank, told Foreign Policy. “If you care about climate change, that should be a very significant influence on your policy.”
- zero emissions until that shit explodes, then you would wish they were only emissionsmoldero
- climate changes all the time. its a cycle.yurimon
- ^ undisputeddrake-von-drake
