emarine

Now ya got my attention... green Boobs... I love green Boobs...

Morgan

Open people eyes??? That's hard to do coming from a blind person. G****L W*****G and NOT c*****e c****e which has been proven, from recordings not only in temperatures in air, water, ice and earth but also in plant, insect and animal wildlife, all prove the same outcome.

Why so many gifted scientists? Are you just simply editing information now? How many scientists? It appears to me you really don't have a grasp of research, with its findings and how conclusions and estimations are arrived to. For example, it is easy to scientifically say the Glaciers are shrinking as fact, it is much more difficult to predict the future rate of speed especially when considering the everchanging weather conditions and the reasons for them, maybe you should lighten up on the judgments that they are intentionally giving us misinformation, that doesn't come from the scientific community but rather they oil and industrial community who only think of their current bottom line, and nothing for you, me, anyone else or the environment.

Oh wait... was that an incorrect statement? Here is the article, and there were my questions and here is the post, but it had nothing to do with that other thread you d**gged it over to.

It's now 8 years later, wonder what it is now?

The North Patagonian Icefield experienced rapid recession over the time period, with fastest rates of recession from 2001 to 2011.

Morgan

Somehow this doesn't surprise me...LOL

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

I like us better when we can share a funny~~

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Opps, got to say I made a mistake here, gosh dangit to hell!!!

Thought I was replying to you Morgan, not e, but its good for all of us..

:

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

cli·mate change
noun
a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of f****l f**ls.

We’re at a historic moment with the UNFCCC COP 21, United Nations Framework Convention on C*****e C****e, 21st Conference of the Parties, in Paris set to begin next month. With world leaders from 195 countries negotiating to reach a global agreement to reduce carbon emissions, expansive news and media coverage is guaranteed. What’s also guaranteed in this coverage is a host of scientific jargon and acronyms that can be overwhelming to follow, let alone understand...

G****L W*****G VS C*****E C****E
Many people use these two terms interchangeably, but we think it’s important to acknowledge their differences. G****l w*****g is an increase in the Earth’s average surface temperature from human-made greenhouse gas emissions.

On the other hand, c*****e c****e refers to the long-term changes in the Earth’s climate, or a region on Earth, and includes more than just the average surface temperature. For example, variations in the amount of snow, sea levels, and sea ice can all be consequences of c*****e c****es..

G****l w*****g comes from what??? Just the release of gas?? Atmospheric changes, sun, planets, volcanos, natural CO2 emmissions ??

Put any name your comfortable with it boils down to the simplicity of c*****e c****e...

You obviously did not read the articles I offerred or you would know I eas teferring to those addressed in them..

We are going to have to agree just to disagree.. Alot better that way and besides enjoying a smile is so much nicer..

Morgan

I wish we could agree to put our endeavors to make, not only the world as good as when we found it, but even better. This isn't just about exhausted carbon gases WE produce, but what we also produce in the water and on the earth. Yes, it is a big task but with coming together we can do it, and our reward would be monumental, not only to ourselves but more importantly to all the future generations, and simply a great way to lead by example.

I don't care if people don't agree and chose to not get involved, but to work against us trying to make these improvements is very detrimental. Not saying you are.

And yes, a smile is much nicer as is working together versus apart. We could really use a good cause to reunite us... besides a war.

emarine

seems we all have our issues

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

I agree with every word said here~~

Morgan

Yep, you got the look

redpill Loc: Oregon - not PDX

Your deflection is typical for the alarmists. The topic is not cigarette companies and their practices. The topic is whether there is man-made-global-warming and if so, what to do about it. Your claim that those who do not believe that the premise is true are all influenced by the oil industries is prima facia false. The oil industries most assuredly have an economic bias to keep the status quo. However, the wind and solar industries have exactly the same economic bias. And as has been shown, the scientists that support the MMGW h**x willing do so to ensure that their cash flow continues coming in.

My understanding is that IPCC's plan is to divert trillions to Africa to aid them in becoming more developed. I disagree with doing so. I do not see how doing so would in any fashion reduce the dreaded CO2 levels. Of course, I have not read the entire IPCC report, so do not know the nuances of their "plan".

If there were global CO2 emission caps, then the African nations would be stopped from exploiting their own oil, at least 105 million barrels discovered to date. If they were to harvest that oil, they could enrich their lives toward western standards.

But I wander.

Seriously, what should we do to avert the g****l w*****g trend?

I gave suggestions on what humans could do to make the earth more livable now but those ideas seem to be of little use to the alarmist community. Until there are viable ideas put forth that combat the "threat" imposed by higher CO2 levels, then there is nothing to discuss. Of course, I do not believe there is a threat.

redpill Loc: Oregon - not PDX

Ice motion of the Patagonian Icefields of South America: 1984–2014
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014GL062661

Interesting scientific report on the NPI and the SPI (Northern and Southern Patagonia Icefields). I was impressed that the researchers stuck to the science of the rapid decreases and increases of these icefields. No where did they attribute these changes to any man-made causes. Only one reference to c*****e c****e but from an acknowledgment that c*****e c****e would affect the actions of the glaciers. Because these glaciers are some of the fasting moving glaciers on the planet, they may be the source of some of the alarming recessions shown "proving" g****l w*****g.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

When you consider Ddeveloped nations typically have high carbon dioxide emissions per capita, while some developing countries lead in the growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions too. ..

How much has really gone to Africa or any of the third world countries or any others for that fact?? Been collecting funding via the UN for how long now and yet no changes to these countries??? Why??

You know who has reduced emmissions?? Why its the US~~The reduction in the US of nearly 800 million tons of CO2 emissions since 2007 is almost five times greater than the second ranked country (UK) is just slightly less than the reductions of the next ten countries combined (UK, Italy, Ukraine, Spain, Japan, Russian Federation, France, Germany, Canada, and Greece) and where is china???
Do WE really need to be in Paris climate Accord???

Market forces, including the low price of renewables and natural gas, as well as a growing appetite for renewable energy fueled the decrease in U.S. emissions.

China one of the largest has has had slight reduction but not nearv enough when they are working towards a number onevin Solar panels producers?

Overall, Asia's growing economies contributed about two-thirds of the global increase in carbon emissions, the IEA found. India's emissions grew, the IEA said, but at half the rate seen in the past decade.

I read your suggesting to helping, all good, dismissed because your analogy doesn’t jive with the propaganda
put out..

Pollution is something we can work to reduce. The rest CO2 eyc is going to do what it does..

An informative article along with the sites referenced..

http://www.aei.org/publication/what-nation-on-earth-has-reduced-its-carbon-emissions-more-than-any-other-part-ii/

Morgan

I am for basic math, 1+1=2, use of f****l f**ls equals an extreme increase rise in C02 and g****l w*****g, which comes from output= waste. Have f****l f**l waste be contained-filtered, yes it is part of the cost to be considered. Now is the perfect time, considering we are the largest producer and selling fuel at almost record lows. Maybe we can make diamonds out of collected carbon?

Morgan

The report on glaciers is showing the collateral damage caused by g****l w*****g, it is admitted in the science community that it is caused by the input of man-made f****l f**l output. In reality, c*****e c****e is not the issue, g****l w*****g is, lets not continue on that disingenuous diversion of the t***h.