What ice age? News flash: Our glaciers are melting at a staggering pace.
Since the turn of the century, scientists report we've lost 270 billion--with a B---tons of ice which raises the global sea level.
How DARE my Weather Man talk about Global Warming!!!
- Thread starter DaShuckster
- Start date
Since the turn of the century, scientists report we've lost 270 billion--with a B---tons of ice which raises the global sea level.
Sea Levels are up 10 to 12 inches since 1880, It should be noted the 1880 is at the end of the mini Ice age.
The belief is over the next 30 t0 40 years it will go up another 10 to 12 inches.
It is going to be a real problem, but it is mostly manageable. Which is now highly populated shoreline will be gone and people and buildings will have to go or be fortified to handle the new conditions.
We don't even know what conditions are best for most life on planet Earth, We do know that Ice ages are not.
We may today be in the goldilocks zone, or it could be where we will be in 20 to 30 years.
We have increased fuel mileage, better lighting, cleaner power plants, more efficient homes and will continue to improve on all of that, but China, India and others are going to wipe out all of those gains and then some. Lets be honest the people leading the push are willing to do nothing. Al Gores mansion uses 21x times the average persons home power. Flying private jets is a massive waste. Almost none of them will make the changes needed to slow the effects. We are doomed to dealing with those effects, and we will.
The belief is over the next 30 t0 40 years it will go up another 10 to 12 inches.
It is going to be a real problem, but it is mostly manageable. Which is now highly populated shoreline will be gone and people and buildings will have to go or be fortified to handle the new conditions.
We don't even know what conditions are best for most life on planet Earth, We do know that Ice ages are not.
We may today be in the goldilocks zone, or it could be where we will be in 20 to 30 years.
We have increased fuel mileage, better lighting, cleaner power plants, more efficient homes and will continue to improve on all of that, but China, India and others are going to wipe out all of those gains and then some. Lets be honest the people leading the push are willing to do nothing. Al Gores mansion uses 21x times the average persons home power. Flying private jets is a massive waste. Almost none of them will make the changes needed to slow the effects. We are doomed to dealing with those effects, and we will.
Polish up your backside so you can kiss your A$$ goodbye.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/is-climate-catastrophe-really-10-years-away.pdf
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/is-climate-catastrophe-really-10-years-away.pdf
Why are you posting this link instead of the link to your Nobel Prize for proving wrong thousands of PhD's armed with a top 10 most powerful supercomputer?
Hell, you don't have to be a climatologist to look around and realize, "Damn, storms are more violent than they used to be!" and "Crap, how many more days of 100-plus temps are we gonna get this month?" to figure out the weather is changing.
# of 100 degree days in orlando by the year
As for Florida I don't see any difference in the storm # or strength. Problem here is the state is far heavier populated, especially on the coast. More homes on the beach mean more damage. When we moved to the space coast in 1957 our town had <12k people when my parents arrived, now it is 35k. So yes storms do more damage.
As for Florida I don't see any difference in the storm # or strength. Problem here is the state is far heavier populated, especially on the coast. More homes on the beach mean more damage. When we moved to the space coast in 1957 our town had <12k people when my parents arrived, now it is 35k. So yes storms do more damage.
Last edited:
Hey guys, the pool cleaner with a high school degree said 99.7% of all climate scientist PhDs along with NOAA and every other weather organization in the world is wrong because he counted the number of 100 degree days in one town.
For Christ's sake you are too goddamn stupid to understand just how goddamn stupid you are.
In defense of goodknightfl, he engages in actual discussions. We may disagree with his takes but they are better than grade school trolling, nonsense manifesto writing, or the latest death watch announcement.
Shuck asked a direct question on 100-degree days, In orlando they have not gone up, in fact they were worse in the 20's and in the 40's.
As for Hurricanes FL has had 3 in the last 4 years, one cat 3 1 cat 2 and 1 cat , not at all unnormal. 2016 thru 2019 had 4 one cat 4, still pretty average, before that 06 thru 15 we had 0, very quiet, far below normal. then 04 and 04, we had 2 active years with 8 total then you go back to normal #s for another 20 plus years. Also checked Ga, and their #s and strength are very average. I skimmed thru La, and SC and saw no signs of it being worse there either.
Storms are not worse today, but Damage is worse because what was fairly low population, is now much denser. (which describes your mind)
Bottom line is you are the uninformed stupid one on the board not me. U spend your time listening to the Al Gores of the world who make a fortune spinning this BS.
Hurricanes many not be becoming more frequent, but the ones we're getting are more intense -- making them more dangerous -- than in the past..
I just showed you Florida, they are not getting more intense, Same is true for Georgia, and with quick looks at SC and NC the same holds true. LA and MISS are also pretty similar. Stats show the opposite of what you say. In La/MS there was Katrina , but Camile in the 60's was a bigger badder storm. Damage was heavier with Katrina mainly because more people live there. Facts are strange things. I did not look at Texas, that could be a different story.
Bottom line is there are not more storms, and they are not more intense. We only have good records for at most 200 years before that is at most a guesstimate. Off shore storms were not seen unless a ship happened to get caught in it. Intensity is even a bigger guess, as they didn't have 1/2 of the equipment we have now. ( example labor day storm in the key in the 1935, they have as 175 mph winds, did they really have an accurate way to measure that then? That storm was virtually the same as Andrew that hit florida in the 1990's. The damage was similar other than population and buildings were far less in 1935. 401 died in that storm.
I'm far from an expert on the subject, so I "googled" 'Are storms getting more intense?' and what came up on Page 1 was the following:
- A NYTimes article on "Atlantic Hurricanes" saying, there was more rapid intensification of storms along the east coast of the United States, in the southern Caribbean, and in the eastern Atlantic from 2001 to 2020 compared with 1970 to 1990. In the Gulf of Mexico, however, there is less rapid intensification now compared with previous years.
- A Science News article with the headline, Hurricanes are getting more dangerous but may or may not be as frequent; and
- A Fact Check article saying as difficult as they are, there are no more hurricanes today than there were a 100 years ago. As you stated, it said the skyrocketing population along the coast means they are far more costly and destructive than they were in the past (including flooding from the storm surges.)
Glad you decided to do a bit of research. The bottom line is nothing has changed Hurricane wise. everything is within norms as far back as we can look. If you actually wanted to go back 18 years we are below the historical norm. I don't argue global warming is happening, but the predictions by the scientist have continually been wrong, as far as the catastrophic results. There has been study after study saying we have 8, 10, or 12 years or it is too late, and those articles go back to the 1980's. The #1 global fix the UN and others want is a international carbon tax which will enrich elites and seriously hurt the masses.
Even if the West cut emissions in 1/2 (not going to happen), China, India and others will add in that much more as they develop. You are better putting more $$ into dealing with whatever the new normal is going to be. That does not mean we don't continue to get more efficient, the 2 things do not compete with each other.
One cool new tech being developed I saw last week is a company has/is developing a device that separates the Co2 in the air, and they end up with carbon which can make anything we now use it or it can be stored safely underground, and you have a fuel which is carbon neutral.
Even if the West cut emissions in 1/2 (not going to happen), China, India and others will add in that much more as they develop. You are better putting more $$ into dealing with whatever the new normal is going to be. That does not mean we don't continue to get more efficient, the 2 things do not compete with each other.
One cool new tech being developed I saw last week is a company has/is developing a device that separates the Co2 in the air, and they end up with carbon which can make anything we now use it or it can be stored safely underground, and you have a fuel which is carbon neutral.
Like anything else, I suspect it's more a matter of exaggeration. But it is an undeniable fact that the Earth's glaciers are melting away and the polar ice caps are disappearing. There is no denying the consequences of it are significant.
I'm still in absolute awe of a goddamn high school degree earning pool cleaner thinking his opinion is worth the same as literally thousands of trained PhD's armed with some of the top 10 most powerful supercomputers on earth.
What in the actual hell is wrong with you?
What in the actual hell is wrong with you?
Last edited:
My opinion is worth exactly yours is. NOTHING. I really don't have an opinion, I accept it is happening, I accept that we can't do much to change that fact. I accept that my Grandkids are going to have to live with the results of the warming, whatever that means.
What I don't accept is all the end of the world in 10 years bullshit those scientists have been spouting for 40 years. The weather has not dramatically changed over the course of those 40 years. Humans are adaptable beings and will do just that.
I never do or have been a person that overreacts to change.
What I don't accept is all the end of the world in 10 years bullshit those scientists have been spouting for 40 years. The weather has not dramatically changed over the course of those 40 years. Humans are adaptable beings and will do just that.
I never do or have been a person that overreacts to change.
Well it has been 5 1/2 years since AOC said world will end in 12 years. So i think we all need to quit worrying about Election, gun control, free speech, and Abortion, Eat, Drink, have lots of sex, and be happy. 6 1/2 years it is going to be all over.
Unless of course her prediction is as good as Al Gore, Simon Stiell, James Hansen, and plenty more, then we may have a little more time.
Unless of course her prediction is as good as Al Gore, Simon Stiell, James Hansen, and plenty more, then we may have a little more time.
I know the highschool drop out is parroting the talking Barbies on Fox News, but for anyone who cares what actual scientists think:
I don't argue those charts. Keep in mind that the 1850's were the mini Ice age, which was a horrid time for man kind. We know the world has been much warmer and Colder than now, and we are some where in the middle. We don't have any idea what Temp is ideal or if any temp is ideal. What I do know is if ocean rises 3 ft cocoa beach will go away the Banana river will be part of atlantic and my property will be within 500 feet of beach an worth much more than it is now.I know the highschool drop out is parroting the talking Barbies on Fox News, but for anyone who cares what actual scientists think:
How come when I cleaned pools over the summer between 3rd and 4th grade, I wasn’t as smart as @goodknightfl ?
Was it attention-grabbing hype? Of course it was. We've never seen that from a Congresswoman before, right?
But her source was a report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released back in 2019 that predicted that there's only a dozen years left to keep global warming to a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Any higher, even by half a degree, would significantly increase risks of floods, drought, extreme heat and potential poverty for hundreds of millions.
B-B-But there's we're not seeing any evidence of THAT, right?
I'll never forgive Gore for turning climate change into a political issue. But while he may have exaggerating how quickly the climate was changing, he got a hell of a lot more right than he did wrong. He was laughed at by conservatives when he said back in 2009 that there was a good chance that in the future the ice in the Artic would disappear over the summer months. Guess what folks?
according to this chart it has actually slightly increased since 2010
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-summer-minimum#:~:text=Between 1979 and 2021, sea ice,decade relative to the 1981–2010 average.&text=Between 1979 and 2021,,to the 1981–2010 average.&text=and 2021, sea ice,decade relative to the
That said it has gone down an average of 13% a decade before that.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-summer-minimum#:~:text=Between 1979 and 2021, sea ice,decade relative to the 1981–2010 average.&text=Between 1979 and 2021,,to the 1981–2010 average.&text=and 2021, sea ice,decade relative to the
That said it has gone down an average of 13% a decade before that.
Where did I say I was encouraged. I am neither encouraged nor discouraged. It is simply what it is, and I can do nothing about it. They said save the world go to squiggly lights over Edison lights, we did that, and then they said trade in squiggly lights for Leds we in most part have done that. Then they said make more efficient cars, we have done that. I am all for using less fuel and making less pollution I kind of like fresh air. I don't even argue global warming, I do argue that scientist have at best minimal knowledge of what will happen long term, and whether it is a good or bad thing. It is going to be bad for some places/people and good for others. I just wish it would keep snow birds north and quit moving down here.
What I do believe is Man will and can do only so much, Humans live in different situations around the world. We can do things as an already developed nation that those who are far less developed can. India, China, Indonesia will continue to pump out more CO2 not less. Neither you or I can change that fact. So we sure as hell better be preparing to deal with the warming that is going to happen.
Last edited:
So shrugging and doing nothing is the answer. It seems to me that our most developed nations need to set an example that other nations will eventually follow.
It's already happening. These record-setting heat waves down your way and in Arizona are telling us something.
Yeah, like weather happens. I have seen no record setting heat waves here. We rarely even set record highs. We rarely break the 100 degree mark, and yet we have done it in the past. The worse year for Orlando was 1921 when there was 7 days over 100. We have not hit 100 one time this year. year Orlando had most over 90 degree days was 1919 with 152, and the most days over 80 degrees 1922 with 301. Quit making nonsense up that isn't true to make your point. Research and read a little for a change.
last year 1 day over 100, 2016 thru 2022 had 0 days over 100 2015 had 1 day, 1999 thru 2014 had 0 days over 100.
1998 had 5, 86 to 94 had 0. then its 1 or 0 all the way back to 1945 when there were 3.
your so full of your BS your eyes are turning brown.
Last edited:
I sure hope that no one tells Shookster that Pope Francis is an outspoken proponent of climate change mitigation policies. He may have to suspend his incoherent crying about Catholics for a day or two.
I admire Pope Francis, particularly his stance on climate change.
You know damn well what my beef is about. I respect the rights of Catholics and Southern Baptists to believe what they want to believe without the Government stepping in. But what I don't like is when judges try to push their beliefs over the Constitution they've sworn to uphold. We don't need churches overstepping their boundaries any more than when the government does it. This week the Southern Baptists voted on a resolution at their national convention opposing IVF. Yes, believe it or not, our "Right to Life" crowd is against it. (link below)
I've always thought it was bizarre that our "Freedom FROM Goverment" crowd rails against the government 'stepping in' when it comes to guns or -- heaven forbid -- pandemic safety controls. But when it comes to women's reproduction rights and prenatal health care, it's full-steam ahead and GOVERNMENT-THE-HELL-OUT-OF-THEM!!!! I'd love someone here to give me any kind of logical explanation for that dichotomy.
Link:
Southern Baptists formally oppose in vitro fertilization
At its annual meeting, the nation's largest Protestant denomination also urged members “to advocate for the government to restrain actions inconsistent with the dignity and value of every human being.”
www.nbcnews.com
I admire Pope Francis, particularly his stance on climate change.
You know damn well what my beef is about. I respect the rights of Catholics and Southern Baptists to believe what they want to believe without the Government stepping in. But what I don't like is when judges try to push their beliefs over the Constitution they've sworn to uphold. We don't need churches overstepping their boundaries any more than when the government does it. This week the Southern Baptists voted on a resolution at their national convention opposing IVF. Yes, believe it or not, our "Right to Life" crowd is against it. (link below)
I've always thought it was bizarre that our "Freedom FROM Goverment" crowd rails against the government 'stepping in' when it comes to guns or -- heaven forbid -- pandemic safety controls. But when it comes to women's reproduction rights and prenatal health care, it's full-steam ahead and GOVERNMENT-THE-HELL-OUT-OF-THEM!!!! I'd love someone here to give me any kind of logical explanation for that dichotomy.
Link:
Southern Baptists formally oppose in vitro fertilization
At its annual meeting, the nation's largest Protestant denomination also urged members “to advocate for the government to restrain actions inconsistent with the dignity and value of every human being.”
Neat. Well, Rick Scott is against this.
Senator Rick Scott Announces Second Ad in His 7-Figure Statewide Ad Buy on Commitment to Protect IVF - rickscott.com
TAMPA, Fla – Today, Senator Rick Scott announced a second ad that will run as part of a seven-figure statewide ad buy that begins today in Florida. In the ad, “Grandpa,” Senator Scott tells Floridians why protecting access to IVF is so important to him...
rickscott.com
“Millions of babies have come into this world through IVF, in vitro fertilization. In fact, our youngest daughter is receiving IVF treatments right now hoping to expand her family.
“She and I both agree IVF must be protected for our family, for every family. I’m Rick Scott, the grandpa who approves this message.”
Shookster pivots from one manufactured outrage to another. He spends his entire time crying like a lunatic about Catholics and then throws out “Look at what the Baptists are doing!” as if Catholics give a shit what they’re doing.
Whatever it takes to sustain his perpetual crying.
Whatever it takes to sustain his perpetual crying.
It's actually quite entertaining. For the better part of the last month, thall and I have been beating his brains in. He goes off on something--we point out his bullshit with shit he has previously said or link it to something like I just did.
And then he comes back and cries that we are trolling him and screeches intellectual superiority. It's literally one of the funniest things I've ever encountered in my entire life.
Why do you type like an imbecile?I admire Pope Francis, particularly his stance on climate change.
You know damn well what my beef is about. I respect the rights of Catholics and Southern Baptists to believe what they want to believe without the Government stepping in. But what I don't like is when judges try to push their beliefs over the Constitution they've sworn to uphold. We don't need churches overstepping their boundaries any more than when the government does it. This week the Southern Baptists voted on a resolution at their national convention opposing IVF. Yes, believe it or not, our "Right to Life" crowd is against it. (link below)
I've always thought it was bizarre that our "Freedom FROM Goverment" crowd rails against the government 'stepping in' when it comes to guns or -- heaven forbid -- pandemic safety controls. But when it comes to women's reproduction rights and prenatal health care, it's full-steam ahead and GOVERNMENT-THE-HELL-OUT-OF-THEM!!!! I'd love someone here to give me any kind of logical explanation for that dichotomy.
Link:
Southern Baptists formally oppose in vitro fertilization
At its annual meeting, the nation's largest Protestant denomination also urged members “to advocate for the government to restrain actions inconsistent with the dignity and value of every human being.”
Nobody is even reading your tiresome crap anymore. Maybe you need a hobby other than this colossal waste of time
Shook admiring a socialist. Big surprise there.I admire Pope Francis, particularly his stance on climate change.
You know damn well what my beef is about. I respect the rights of Catholics and Southern Baptists to believe what they want to believe without the Government stepping in. But what I don't like is when judges try to push their beliefs over the Constitution they've sworn to uphold. We don't need churches overstepping their boundaries any more than when the government does it. This week the Southern Baptists voted on a resolution at their national convention opposing IVF. Yes, believe it or not, our "Right to Life" crowd is against it. (link below)
I've always thought it was bizarre that our "Freedom FROM Goverment" crowd rails against the government 'stepping in' when it comes to guns or -- heaven forbid -- pandemic safety controls. But when it comes to women's reproduction rights and prenatal health care, it's full-steam ahead and GOVERNMENT-THE-HELL-OUT-OF-THEM!!!! I'd love someone here to give me any kind of logical explanation for that dichotomy.
Link:
Southern Baptists formally oppose in vitro fertilization
At its annual meeting, the nation's largest Protestant denomination also urged members “to advocate for the government to restrain actions inconsistent with the dignity and value of every human being.”
A socialist? If you're going to bash me for admiring him, at least get it right. He's a monarch.
We’re supposed to believe you that there’s 'nothing to see here?'
Butterfly? YIKES! Did you really just zing Pope Francis??!
Is nothing sacred in the Water Cooler anymore???
As a fresh convert to climate change, I am switching all of my Guitars to electric.
Hurricane Beryl is the earliest category 5 hurricane on record 🤷♂️
Maybe it’s just a cycle as the Earth is billions of years old, but it’s not an encouraging sign.
Maybe it’s just a cycle as the Earth is billions of years old, but it’s not an encouraging sign.
