Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[Bill Seal]

"scientific reality"

With tobacco, the changes in the lungs were easily documented.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by SailOar

New York City Could See Thousands of Heat Deaths by 2080 | Scientific American

Reminds me of the Famous Paul Urlick Population Bomb Myth...

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Talking about unique set of skills. How about thinking uniquely once again about energy creation. (for the scientists, energy transformation ).

Here is a new, old wild suggestion. Nuclear power. Safer, in fact very very safe mini reactors to generate our energy needs.
Might want to ask the Japanese bout that one.

Some yell. What about the yellowcake. You know the waste remains radioactively toxic for thousands of years. Solution from thinking uniquely. ......

Shoot the yellowcake into the sun. Yes. Use a massive thermonuclear reactor in our solar system to eradicate the waste from nuclear power. Of course 20 years ago this would have been thought totally uneconomic given the cost of rocket launches. Fast forward to today, we have seen a massive decrease in rocket launches and we can confidently say that sending a rocket upwards will see even greater decreases in the immediate to near term.
Sure!...What could possibly go wrong?

I'm begining to think that the waste could be put into impact resistant and radiation capturing large containers that are launched from a cargo space rocket. Each special container could have its own mini jet that is used to propel it towards the sun. When it hits the sun it will be destroyed along with its toxic content.
Yup...When confused about reality...think big!

A whole new industry for space vehicles that of itself could spur even greater space developments. All while dramaticaly impacting carbon fuel consumption.
Oh waiter...I'll have what she's having.

Good grief!

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

If we all work together

I thought this was going to be more BP propaganda.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Federal Lab Closed After 'Disturbing' Data Manipulation | The Daily Caller

Opps....more MMGWC Data fakery....

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

And you thought MMGWC wasn't political?

Dem Platform Calls For Prosecuting Global Warming Skeptics | The Daily Caller

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The Daily Caller. Riiight.

I guess we should be grateful you don't read National Enquirer, else MMGW would be caused by aliens. (waitaminute... maybe the 'A' in AGW doesn't stand for 'Anthropogenic' )

Rich...you might want to include this read also. Right up your alley.
Weekly World News | The World's Only Reliable News

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bill Seal

"scientific reality"

With tobacco, the changes in the lungs were easily documented.

...yet the tobacco industry successfully disputed and denied the link between tobacco use and cancer for over 50 years.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

...yet the tobacco industry successfully disputed and denied the link between tobacco use and cancer for over 50 years.

And Fred Singer has been active in both tobacco and climate science denial. The Heartland Institute gas played a central role in both denial campaigns.

[SailOar]

Republican Voters Are Evenly Split on Climate Change | Fortune

Most voters, including about half of Republicans, believe the climate is changing and the federal government should step in to cut greenhouse gases, according to new polling commissioned by a group of right-leaning energy-focused organizations.[...]

According to the poll conducted by Just Win Strategies and TargetPoint Consulting, 68 percent of all respondents said they want federal government action “to reduce emissions of gases like carbon dioxide that cause global climate change.”

Among Republicans, 48 percent supported that statement, and 46 percent opposed it. The percentage of Republicans who want government action on climate change is much lower than the vast majority of Democrats (86 percent) and about two-thirds of independents (67 percent) who feel similarly.[...]

The biggest hurdle for these advocates is that energy is far from a top issue for voters. Only 12 percent of respondents said they were more concerned about “protecting the environment and climate change” than any other issue. That came after “national security and terrorism” (31 percent), “jobs and the economy” (28 percent) and “federal spending and the national debt” (14 percent).[...]

The Just Win/TargetPoint poll found that despite many Republican officials’ reluctance to directly address climate change, GOP voters don’t uniformly deny that the Earth’s temperature is increasing. Republicans were split evenly at 45 percent when asked, “Is there evidence that the average temperature on the Earth has been getting warmer?” Overall, 70 percent said “yes,” including 89 percent of Democrats and 72 percent of independents.

A slight majority of Republicans (53 percent) in the Just Win/TargetPoint poll went further, saying they believe they will feel the effects of climate change in their lifetime or already are. Overall, 72 percent of respondents agreed with that statement, including 90 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of independents. Only 40 percent of Republicans said they didn’t expect to experience the effects of climate change in their lives.[...]

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

New York City Could See Thousands of Heat Deaths by 2080 | Scientific American

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Reminds me of the Famous Paul Urlick Population Bomb Myth...

If one reads that article keeping in mind the differential in heat deaths, disturbed fetus's, heart attacks and goodness knows just about everything else mentioned in that piece and applies it to past and current conditions between the spread of tropic and polar regions, one would conclude that even a 6 year old would recognise it as total BS.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Reminds me of the Famous Paul Urlick Population Bomb Myth...

We always hear about the "more heat deaths", but never about the "less cold deaths".

Which of these is the biggest killer?

[The Garbone]

As an aside to the never ending indoctrination, Back in the early 90s my Graduating class pooled our money and purchased a few acres of land in the Amazon to protect the rain forest. I need to find out were that is located and go harvest myself some rare tropical wood to use as trim on our boat.....

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

If one reads that article keeping in mind the differential in heat deaths, disturbed fetus's, heart attacks and goodness knows just about everything else mentioned in that piece and applies it to past and current conditions between the spread of tropic and polar regions, one would conclude that even a 6 year old would recognise it as total BS.

What's the worse case temp increase projected to be in 2080? Wasn't it supposed to be no more than 2 degs. by the end of the century??

Originally Posted by StuM

We always hear about the "more heat deaths", but never about the "less cold deaths".

Which of these is the biggest killer?

"Less cold deaths" don't count. That's just weather-related, not climate.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Republican Voters Are Evenly Split on Climate Change | Fortune

"GOP voters don’t uniformly deny that the Earth’s temperature is increasing."

Really? I thought they all thought alike.

"Republicans were split evenly at 45 percent when asked, 'Is there evidence that the average temperature on the Earth has been getting warmer?'”

Hopefully they also asked how much of the warming was attributable to MMGW.

Gotta love how people put stock in polling of non-scientists on science issues.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

And Fred Singer has been active in both tobacco and climate science denial.

Who? And why is this relevant? We seem to be missing a punch line again.

The Heartland Institute gas played a central role in both denial campaigns.

And that's where any similarities ended.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

What's the worse case temp increase projected to be in 2080? Wasn't it supposed to be no more than 2 degs. by the end of the century??

Why do you have problems finding this information? Inability or ignorance?

And now for the weather. The 2020s are looking warm and dry, with occasional heavy winter showers. The 2050s should be sunny and warm, with scattered deaths due to heatwaves across London and the south-east. And looking ahead to the 2080s, temperatures could reach 41C, so be sure to pack the suncream for your picnic. And watch out for those great white sharks!

Scientists today issued the most detailed assessment yet of how global warming will unfold across Britain. In a range of possible scenarios published by the government, the experts painted a picture of a very different UK, with soaring summertime temperatures and dwindling rainfall.

Announcing the results, Hilary Benn, environment secretary, said global warming will affect "every aspect of our daily lives". The scientists say summer rainfall in south-east England could decrease by a fifth by the 2050s. Average mean temperatures are likely to rise by more than 2C across the UK by 2040s. If carbon emissions continue to rise, there is a 10% chance that temperatures in the southeast could rise by 8C or more by the 2080s.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...-change-report

The New York City Panel on Climate Change has released its latest report, and it's just the kind of reading to warm those frigid winter bones. By the 2080s there could be an 8.8-degree rise in temperature as well as six heat waves a year, sweltering conditions that scientists say will "increase the number of heat-related deaths that occur in Manhattan."

Compare those predictions to what's already occurred and it's easy to be worried. Mean temperatures in New York rose 3.4 degrees from 1900 to 2013, a slug's crawl compared to the rate of fossil-fueled scorching predicted for the rest of the century. There were an annual average of two heat waves in the 1980s; dealing with half-a-dozen every year sounds like hell.

New York in 2080: 9 Degrees Warmer, 39 Inches of Sea Level Rise - CityLab

Summers in Winnipeg in 2080 will be as hot and dry as they are today in the Texas Panhandle if worldwide greenhouse-gas emissions continue unabated, according to the first detailed climate-change projections conducted for the Canadian Prairies.

If atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide continue to rise at the current rate, Winnipeg in 2080 would experience daily highs of 30 C or more about 46 times a year, up from an average of 11 over the past three decades, University of Winnipeg climate scientists project.

Under this unfavourable scenario, the city would experience nighttime lows below -30 C only once a year, down from an average of eight annually over the past three decades. And the frost-free period in the Red River Valley would increase to 160 days a year from the current 128, which would be a boon for agriculture if it wasn't for the prospect of less summer rain conspiring with higher temperatures to render existing crops unviable.

"We're heading toward a future that we're not ready for, socially, environmentally and economically. This is not hyperbole," said Ian Mauro, an associate professor of geography and filmmaker at the University of Winnipeg and a co-director of the Prairie Climate Centre, also based in the Manitoba capital. "Our kids' future is not only going to be radically different, but it will be a challenging future. This will be a very difficult place to live, in that kind of heat."

In 2080, Winnipeg summers could be as hot as the Texas desert: projections - Winnipeg Free Press