This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Remember Fukushima: Presenting The Radioactive Seawater Impact Map
A few days after the one year anniversary of the Fukushima disaster, nobody talks about it anymore. After all it's "fixed", and if it isn't, the Fed will fix it. Remember in the New Normal nothing bad is allowed the happen. So for those who have forgotten, here is a reminder.
From ASR, a global coastal and marine consulting firm, The Radioactive Seawater Impact Map
We use a Lagrangian particles dispersal method to track where free floating material (fish larvae, algae, phytoplankton, zooplankton...) present in the sea water near the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station plant could have gone since the earthquake on March 11th. THIS IS NOT A REPRESENTATION OF THE RADIOACTIVE PLUME CONCENTRATION. Since we do not know exactly how much contaminated water and at what concentration was released into the ocean, it is impossible to estimate the extent and dilution of the plume. However, field monitoring by TEPCO showed concentration of radioactive Iodine and Cesium higher than the legal limit during the next two months following the event (with a peak at more than 100 Bq/cm3 early April 2011 for I-131 as shown by the following picture).
Assuming that a part of the passive biomass could have been contaminated in the area, we are trying to track where the radionuclides are spreading as it will eventually climb up the food chain. The computer simulation presented here is obtained by continuously releasing particles at the site during the 2 months folllowing the earthquake and then by tracing the path of these particles. The dispersal model is ASR's Pol3DD. The model is forced by hydrodynamic data from the HYCOM/NCODA system which provides on a weekly basis, daily oceanic current in the world ocean. The resolution in this part of the Pacific Ocean is around 8km x 8km cells. We are treating only the sea surface currents. The dispersal model keeps a trace of their visits in the model cells. The results here are expressed in number of visit per surface area of material which has been in contact at least once with the highly concentrated radioactive water.
h/t Nolsgrad
»
- 57177 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
It's hard to know what to believe when IPCC scientists openly advocate lying about the data:
"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology, IPCC Author
More obfuscation....care to provide the full context for the above quote?
Do you make the bet?
C'mon, if you are so sure of yourself...
No need to become apoplectic simply because I don't conform to your model.
And here is author of the quote commenting on it:
http://www.americanphysicalsociety.com/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf
Page 5....Pay attention to where Discover omitted his solution to the double ethical bind....
But you have stopped discussing the science and are now into semantics....
there's uh... lot of scientists in a lot of fileds out there saying a lot of things. This is new territory...but the fundamental concept, that mankind can fundamentally and detrimentally alter his environment is well, not a stretch.
Because, of course, the entire energy, ecnomic and political power systems are utterly dependent on this "scientific conclusion," it should be no surprise that there is insane politics. But there is plenty of bullshit from the other side of the issue:
'900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm' announces the headline on the Global Warming Policy Foundation's website.
The article references a blog linking to more than 900 papers which, according to the GWPF, refute "concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic."
However, a preliminary data analysis by the Carbon Brief has revealed that nine of the ten most prolific authors cited have links to organisations funded by ExxonMobil, and the tenth has co-authored several papers with Exxon-linked contributors.
The top ten contributors are alone responsible for 186 of the papers cited by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The data also shows that there are many other familiar climate sceptic names among the major contributors to the list.
Dr Sherwood B Idso is the most cited academic on the list, having authored or co-authored 67 of the 938 papers we analysed, which is seven percent of the total.
Idso is president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a thinktank which has been funded by ExxonMobil. Idso has also been linked to Information Council on the Environment ( ICE ), an energy industry PR campaign accused of "astroturfing".
The second most cited is Dr Patrick J Michaels - with 28 papers to his name. Michaels is a well known climate sceptic who has revealed that he receives around 40% of his funding from the oil industry.
Third most cited is Agricultural scientist Dr Bruce Kimball - the list shows that all of his cited papers were co-authored with Dr Sherwood B Idso.
Why is this important, and what does it indicate?
The "900+ papers" list is supposed to be proof that a large number of different scientists reject the scientific consensus on climate change. Climate sceptics do like big numbers: ' More than 500 scientists dispute global warming' was the story a few years ago. In December it was ' more Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims'.
Once you crunch the numbers, however, you find a good proportion of this new list is made up of a small network of individuals who co-author papers and share funding ties to the oil industry. There are numerous other names on the list with links to oil-industry funded climate sceptic think-tanks, including more from the International Policy Network (IPN) and the Marshall Institute.
Compiling these lists is dramatically different to the process of producing IPCC reports, which reference thousands of scientific papers. The reports are thoroughly reviewed to make sure that the scientific work included is relevant and diverse.
Sceptic organisations have been successful in dumping large lists into the public domain to suggest that there is significant scientific divergence from the consensus. This is partly due to the fact it is time consuming analysing such lists.
Luckily, there are now free tools online which help you interrogate this kind of data. The screen-scraping website NeedleBase can turn the long list of papers into a single database, while the free data-processing tool Google Refine allows for a rapid analysis.
This is the process used here. Because the screen-scraping process is a little rough around the edges the citation numbers may vary slightly. But they give a clear picture of the structure of the list, which in this instance has been very revealing. Should you wish to examine it, you can download the raw data here.
Using this method we could quickly see the ten most referenced authors. We found that nine of the ten have direct links to ExxonMobil. Eight are affiliated to Exxon-funded organisations, while every paper written by Dr Bruce Kimball was co-authored with Sherwood Idso.
The top ten include Willie Soon, a senior scientist at the Exxon funded George C Marshall institute, and John R Christy, also a Marshall Institute expert.
Ross McKitrick is a senior fellow at the Exxon funded Fraser institute and on the academic advisory board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation - funders unknown.
Dr Indur M Goklany is affiliated with the Exxon Funded thinktank the International Policy Network (US). Sallie L Baliunas is listed by the Union of Concerned Scientists as being affiliated with nine different organisations who have all received funding from ExxonMobil, including the George C Marshall Institute.
Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist and prominent sceptic who notably has a degree of credibility in the scientific community, is a member of the 'Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy', which has also received Exxon funding.
The final name in the top 10 contributors - David H Douglass - has written several papers with Singer, Christie and Michaels - six of the fifteen papers he authored on the list were written with Michaels, Singer or Christie.
Nevertheless, these authors do not make up the whole list. There are plenty of other papers on the list which were not written by this small group.
"The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." -- Daniel Botkin, Ph.D.
You are weaseling out on the science side, is this all you can come up with?
Are you reduced to trying to frighten little children?
It's your friends in the AGW community who advocate frightening children. That's just another inconvenient truth with which you will have to deal.
Strawmen and far as the eyes can see...
Now why don't you run along and scare some people with the word "socialist"....
you know I agree with that but we're talking oil here. And yes, fear has been a big part of the political game of carbon acquisition.
But are they objective and even handed in their fear marketing? Or does it depend on their agenda?
Have they openly embraced and broadcasted peak oil? Why not? That one's pretty scary?
No that might interfere with the other fears they're trying to sell - terrorism etc. How about economic fear mongering? Are they even handed? On one day (in 2008), they say sign this 3 page document and give us all you r money or the world will collapse BUT on another day they tell us all is well, leave that gold alone.
SO it depends doesn't it? History shows us that, over and over and over.
They sell both FEAR AND Lollipops as it suits them. Are you telling us that big oil would like to promote global warming? Would like us to quickly abandon their "power" base? Have lost their influence?
One would think that peak oil would cancel out AGW.
They will affect each other, logically BUT the effect of what we've already burned (along with thawing methane) will continue to have effects for decades - and these effects are accelerating
Therein lies the rub. If the effects are accelerating why has there been no warming in over a decade?
Also, why should we be concerned when today's Earth is cooler than it has been in the past? Greenland was green in the warm period following the Dark Ages. This was a period of increased food production and population growth throughout Europe.
Also note that CO2 is a less powerful greenhouse gas than the overall make up of Earth's atmosphere. Saying that CO2 will increase warming is like saying that adding a drop of beer to a vat of whiskey would make it substantially more potent.
"CO2 is a less powerfull greenhouse gas than the overall make up of Earth's atmosphere"
it's dismissive statements like that that undermine any scientific logic. How again is this unprecendented fossil fuel burning and deforestation similar to a drop of beer? As others have pointed out, it is the very process itself and the speed of the transition that is unprecendented. The fact that the earth goes through normal cycles means little to this unique data
also, the "no warming" data argument is strange at the very least
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/temp-analysis-2009.html
Yes, one might think that... but instead of "thinking that", experts have actually established that coal is the real problem.... oil, much less so....
By the way, only a scientific naif could come up with such a simplistic (and wrong) way of phrasing things...
You do much better when scaring Tea Partiers with the S-word...
Coal won't last very long especially if we run out of oil. Think a bit before you speak, Mr. Scientist.
Strawman... no one is saying that we run out of oil...
@ DaveyJones
I hate to break it to you, but big resource companies employ a lot of Geologists, especially sedimentologists with lots of palaeontological knowledge (therefore a very detailed professional interest and knowledge-base regarding life on earth over the past 1 billion years or so), and lots of palaeo-environment an palaeo-climate experts, i.e. geological history generalists and specialists.
These people, like all REAL scientists, use observation, empiricism and peer-review, and combine this in detailed 4-d mapping systems in order to track and understand what Earth has actually been doing through time, and in astonishing and mind-numbing detail.
These are the people who actually know what is 'normal', and know in fantastic detail that continuous oscillating climate change is the very essence of the global normal, and of sedimentary and biological processes.
So when a bunch of self-appointed global experts sans geological knowledge, but instead are relying on GIGO (garbage-in equals garbage-out) climate models, to assert all sorts of fantastic stuff will occur, which the geologists with said knowledge believe to be completely wrong or seriously misguided, based on physical evidence to hand, and said GIGO 'experts' are unapprised of the known physical facts, then naturally geologists (no, not 'deniers' you fucking arseholes) are going to write papers regarding this, and go on lectures of university departments, to show them the contrary evidence, and to dispel some of the rank stupidity and agenda-driven mis-information trolling, on campuses, and in the MSM and politics.
And not surprisingly, the big resources companies, which the geologists work for, and whom they have been providing valuable research and profitable professional guidance, for many decades, may also be more than happy to provide them the financial means to facilitate this contribution to an actual scientific debate, to help ensure grand mistakes are not foisted on humanity by a bunch of ignorant and deluded liars and propagandists.
To keep it real.
How very surprising!
IMO, Davey historically appears to be the constant remora to Flakmeister's shark...too weird...
I'm sure there's a statistical measure to establish such probabilty...perhaps it's just my crazy speculation as to why this appears to be so?
Curious. Another -1 within 5 minutes.
Davey is much more sophisticated though, I can respect the guy has a view. I emphatically disagree with his view, but he seems to say what he thinks is correct, based on his own take at least.
Notwithstanding the content (which can be occasionally seductive as when the truth appears...) look for the pattern of appearance and the effect of multiple (consistently occurant) voices.
Sophisticated spaces like ZH sometimes require sophisticated skeptical filters...whether I am correct or not I believe it is a proper and reasonable exercise (worthy of simultaneous consideration and dismissal....) to look at all possibilities.
What's that [variation on an] old saying?
Good prop...Bad prop?
Maybe you two could get a room somewhere....
Let me see, is this the same Element that argued that Strontium isotope ratios from 360 million years ago implied everything was ok? He forgets to mention that the sun was also signicantly cooler then (those pesky isotope ratios again) so that higher C02 actaully kept the earth from freezing...
Sounds like you rely on a lot of models as well and put a lot of faith in very difficult measurements (with fairly large inherent errors)....
I personally like drawing my conclusions from much broader set of data.....Big picture kind of thing....
dup
we can all pad our thoughts with chosen facts....here's an oldie but a goodie.....you may actually be Al Gore, but I may have mistook the treebark for a beard..........
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
enjoy....here's an excerpt
PS - make sure to read the "Discussion" section and the "Conclusion" section.
To what extent, then, has humankind warmed the world, and how much warmer will the world become if the current rate of increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions continues? Estimating “climate sensitivity” – the magnitude of the change in TS after doubling CO2 concentration from the pre-industrial 278 parts per million to ~550 ppm – is the central question in the scientific debate about the climate. The official answer is given in IPCC (2007):
“It is very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases caused most of the observed increase in [TS] since the mid-20th century. … The equilibrium global average warming expected if carbon dioxide concentrations were to be sustained at 550 ppm is likely to be in the range 2-4.5 °C above pre-industrial values, with a best estimate of about 3 °C.”
Here as elsewhere the IPCC assigns a 90% confidence interval to “very likely”, rather than the customary 95% (two standard deviations). There is no good statistical basis for any such quantification, for the object to which it is applied is, in the formal sense, chaotic. The climate is “a complex, non-linear, chaotic object” that defies long-run prediction of its future states (IPCC, 2001), unless the initial state of its millions of variables is known to a precision that is in practice unattainable, as Lorenz (1963; and see Giorgi, 2005) concluded in the celebrated paper that founded chaos theory –
“Prediction of the sufficiently distant future is impossible by any method, unless the present conditions are known exactly. In view of the inevitable inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise, very-long-range weather forecasting would seem to be non-existent.”.
The last paragraph is the correct conclusion but not because of the stated 'Chaos' theory. Not even close.
Lets look at what Monckton said closely
Here is the disclaimer at the top of your link
So, we can agree that what you posted is an opinion piece....
Now in reponse to your boldfaced stuff, in short it is the claim is that if weather is chaotic, then surely the climate must also be chaotic. This is a more sophisticated form of equating weather and climate....For example a change in temperature of 7º Celsius from one day to the next is barely worth noting when you are discussing weather. Seven degrees, however, make a dramatic difference when talking about climate. When the Earth's AVERAGE temperature was 7ºC cooler than the present, ice sheets a mile thick were on top of Manhattan.
Nice try....
I hope you're not trying to apply your PhD to the stock market or the environment although it would certainly explain your angry disposition. All I'm saying is you cannot explain such situations by trying to wittle it down to such amateurish linear explanations like the effing butterfly effect. Leave that to Cramer and CNBS.
Your prose belies a sophistication that your avatar would otherwise suggest...
Unless of course, the avatar represents a besotted inbred member of the House of Lords, then its bang-on....
Global warming is a fuking scam.
And you are a fool....
Why don't you believe the science?
Hilarious... I have a Ph.D. in physics and understand the science...
You rely on The Daily Mail for your insight, (a Murdoch paper, if I am not mistaken...)
So you're saying that when Richard Muller and Judith Curry speak that Rupert Murdoch's voice comes out of their mouths?
If you have a problem with the BEST data then take it up with Berkley. Neither I nor Rupert Murdoch have anything to do with the data which they publish or the words they speak.
No, what I am saying is that the BEST data, like all the temperature records, has year to year variations in it that make seeing a statistically significant 10 year trend difficult...
That is what Muller is saying for the past 10 years, based on a statistical basis....
This is how Curry sees the BEST temp. record...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
All equivocation aside, do you agree that the data shows that there has been no warming in over a decade -- yes or no?
Do we first control for known variations in the temperature record? i.e. volcanoes (aerosols), the ENSO and the Sun?
“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
Context???
Lost the stomach to debate the science?
Take the bet, I dare you...
You don't because for all your posturing, you know that you are in full denial mode and are worried...
Geez man, calm the fuck down. Always pushing someone to 'take the bet', 'I dare you' or 'make my day'.
Do yourself a favor and go get laid.
Oh wait..........you're a P.h. D.............scientist............never mind.
Nice ad homs there.....the sign of a loser...
Given that you know fuckall about climate science, why don't you keep you opinion to your self when the topic comes up? It would save everybody a lot of greif...
Now would you care to dispute the FR2011 paper I linked?
All I see from you is "attack, attack, attack" and not a proper debate, quite the demonstration of proper model behaviour from an academic (you best be trollin' lest you upset your peers in the devaluation of education department issued wallpaper).
I offered up 2 very recent papers for discussion... He skirted the issue...
Yeah, I'm sweating bullets. Work that into your climate change model.
Yea, he dared you Crockett.........from his Junior College Laboratory.
Make his day and sign up for one of his classes......I bet he'd lie it.
Are the co-eds hot or will I have to wait for them to be globally warmed?
Tweedle-dee and Tweedledummer...
Can you guys bring anything of substance to the table???
Watch out for the double-dare, or the, "come on, let's see what you've got fella" ... scary stuff!
He either has no idea what a petty cockhead he is, or he does and revels in it--I strongly suspect it's the latter.
And when you dismiss his childish pretensions and total failure to actually cope with or acknowledge contrary evidence or possibilities or interpretations, it's all nah-nah-naaaah time as be verbally prances about pretending he's seen-off a menacing T-Rex or something.
I bet he's not even employed for real, probably living off some Govt grant or a Govt Dept, paid for by the taxes of hardworking bus drivers, miners and construction workers. He's just an agenda-driven blinkered poser, continually sprouting a pet paper, and pretending that it resolves something.
Unfortunately our Science Departments are more and more spitting out these inadequate maladjusted petty little weaners, who seem to have dashed their toes on their personal stack of Richard Dawkins hardbacks, and who probably practice in the mirror to try and imitate him ... and rather sadly I might add.
Nailed it.
It would be more credible if you had a degree in geology, which makes the case that these cycles happen all the time.
You are aware that such a thing as geophysics does exist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophysics
Safely under the category of Earth science, which, is still more or less a branch of physics if I'm not mistaken.
it's the rate of the cycles AND other phenomenon. The fact that the earth has cycles is nowhere near the end of the analysis
Ok Flak, what does your PHD in physics have to say about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvvcH3UOwmQ
And while you're mulling the idea that solar activity and cosmic rays determine climate changes (in conjunction with the pole shift link above), then consider moving on to how the idea of man-made cimate change could be used to further the globalist agenda. The whole sordid little scam is in a Club of Rome paper.
And while you're at it, look at what's going on behind the curtain while we argue about farts making it 80 degrees in March:
http://ppjg.me/2012/03/14/agenda-21-on-steroids/
Also, this is so serious that they're gonna have to go ahead and control our access to water as well:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/us-water-study-idUKBRE82A0EU201...
It's all a show man.
I really don't give a fuck about ideologies...
In fact when anyone brings up ideology in an argument about AGW being wrong, it is an automatic tell about what the basis of their position is...
I read papers and articles for my information, I dont get my "facts" and "analysis" from YouTube...
Real scientists and experts do not use Youtube, in case you did not know....
Haha. Didn't junk you because I got a laugh out of that last line....ORLY?
You could have at least clicked on the link and read the description if you ivory tower types have too much peer-reviewed propaganda to ingest, leaving no time for youtube videos. Anywho, you would have seen that it is a documentary about the theories of real-life scientists and physicists, complete with facts and everything!!
Henrik Svensmark (physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen)
Paal Brekke (Solar physisist at the SOHO Satellite Project)
Eugene Parker (Solar astrophysicist at the university of Chicago)
Eigil Friss Christensen (Director of the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen)
Nir Shaviv (astro physicist at the Hebrew university of Jerusalem)
Jan Veizer (Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa)
So have at Flak, check out their papers and get back to me buddy.
Also, AGW is a entirely different issue than habitat destruction. There is no question that fascism has turned our earth into a wasteland. Blowing up the Appalachian mountains, toxic chemicals as far as the eye can see, oil spills, multiple mile-wide floating plastic dumpsters in the ocean, fracking the earth on known fault lines, the list of the recklessness and stupidity knows no bounds (to say nothing of all the chemicals and poisons that are intentionally put into our food and water supplies and not just a byproduct of myopic materialism, consumption and globalization).
And like Davey said below the EPA has no interest in preventing any of this because they are owned by the companies doing the destruction, but they have plenty of interest in promoting AGW as a part of the larger UN Agenda 21 to destroy national sovereignty. Ascribe to man-made global warming at your own son or daughter's peril.
Of course thats assuming your son or daughter doesn't live in Japan or on the West Coast.....shame on me for letting you be a distraction to the topic at hand, the ongoing nuclear holocaust of the citizens of Japan. Our day of reckoning will follow soon behind theirs.
http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/special/rense_Collins_031212.mp3
psst ... whatever you do ... don't tell him puritanical rationalism is actually a hardcore ideology ... he'd probably go into a spasms and explode if he realised that ... ahh fuckit.
Flak, you appeal to following a rationalist ideal, it's an idealism that you follow, you are most assuredly and clearly a fanatical ideologue, you continually pedal that ideology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=mxD-5z_xHBU
Who do you think you're kidding with this 'objective rationaist' schtick? It's a doctorate of philosophy of science, first pal.
Come back when you've finally grown into your prissy little degree dexter.
Since you just joined us, would you like to share something of substance?
Lets discuss the papers I linked?
You do know what multiple linear regression is? Do you?
Good laugh crow. Getting kicks on makin' 'em squirm in prior post. The EPA is a propaganda machine. Just let me continue to drive my V8 that gets 12 mpg. I like the torque. And don't look at me with cross eyes when I'm smoking on the sidewalk in Manhattan, Bloomberg..........you pretentious 4 foot jew!
I thought you were asleep....
Sounds like you have an issue with the EPA...take it up with them....
I am not defending the EPA or interested in hearing about your anti-semitism....
Calm down Flak, I mean Flake. I wasn't speaking to you. Go to one of your P.h D friends and score some Xanax.
You might want to load up on the No-Doze and re-enroll in some night classes....
The EPA, along with every other regulatory agency, is indeed a propaganda machine...for big industry - Monsanto, Oil, Pharma, etc etc. Have the agencies (along with their corporate masters) shown a bias for or against: a healthy food system? healthy medical system? healthy economy?...Healthy environment?
Why don't you believe the science?
___________________________________________________
Because of US citizenism.
Self indiction is a big thing in US citizenism.
Lets recap:
climate change can have two factors: natural causes and cultural causes (human behaviour)
In case of cultural causes, all human beings are not equal and US citizens will weigh a lot in the doing.
Who can believe one second US citizens are going to stand up and admit that climate change is influenced by them?
Like expecting Bernanke to admit he has his hands into the inflation process. Bernanke is a US citizen, he will try to avoid self indiction at all costs. He will weasel his way out.
Reading a few comments here, one can already notice that US citizens are weaseling their way out.
By implying that since climate can have natural causes, it is better to forget about cultural causes.
US citizen old megalomaniac dream of overcoming the environment.
The slope taken by US citizens is going to be fruitful.
Death can have natural causes or cultural causes.
So it is better to forget about murder, as anyone is mortal, death would have happened anyway.
Kind of stuff that US citizens shall provide in the future.
Just what this conversation needed -- descent into a whole 'nuther level of stupidity.
Well at least Trav will not be joining in today.
He didn't have the sushi, did he?
Maybe. http://www.zerohedge.com/users/trav7777
Wow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE&ob=av3e
Really?
How is it stupid? Save through US citizen authority?
It is never stupid to assess whether a conclusion can be accepted or not.
The conclusion that climate change has cultural causes can not be accepted by US citizens.
Useless to spend time trying to push forward valid conclusions when they can not be received.
Mr. Simon said it better than I:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfv3kBzJZgU
It is a demonstrated fact that ALL climate change is caused by the fluctuating but always-high levels of chinese citizenism public nose-picking, farting, sidewalk spitting and roadside shitting.
Such is the eternal nature of chinese citizenism-induced climate change.
I think you meant, "such is the eternar nature of chinese citizenism-induced crimate change."
I believe that that is in fact a direct quote from the Great Stoolman Mousy Tongue's Diminutive Scarlet Diatribe.
Roadside shitting Chinese citizenism. Can't get that line out of my head. It's been weeks now.
He who fucks nuns / will later join the church.
spoken like a true globalist shill
Are you an intentional troll on this forum? Every post of yours is dumber than the previous, and that is a major accomplishment.
MillionDollarBonus_
Since current climate scenarios show the temps have gone down over the past 10yrs, they are now considering we are entering a new Ice Age...........
Gobal Warming is a hoax, and a way to make new laws,regs, and tax us further.
Gobal Warming is a hoax, and a way to make new laws,regs, and tax us further.
____________________________________________
Just like peak oil was or is a hoax.
Just like the backfring of the consumption of the future on the ground of infinite growth was or is a hoax.
Bear with it, US citizenism does not offer the contextual framework to deal with predictable issues that mature in the future.
US citizenism is all about immediate time. There is not tomorrow in US citizenism.
Too bad we will apparently never be blessed here at ZeroHedge with Peak Chinese Citizenism Trolling.
Rise of 4-8 metres in a few decades (or faster): TRUE
http://www.climate.org/topics/sea-level/#sealevelrise
Nuclear CO2 neutral: FALSE
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/15345
Nuclear financially beneficial and cheap: FALSE
http://nuclearbanks.org/#/home
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
Renewable Energy sources cheaper: TRUE
http://domesticfuel.com/2011/07/05/renewable-energy-production-surpasses... (note: even without counting the subsedies it's done)
http://nukeproffesional.blogspot.com/p/renewable-and-energy-efficiency.html
Renewable Energy sources viable alternative: TRUE
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-29/utilities-giving-away-power-as-...
I think you're done MDB B')
They said the same thing 40 years ago and nothing happened. I say prove it.
Oh I forgot, it was global cooling back then.
They said the same thing 40 years ago and nothing happened. I say prove it.
_________________________________________
Because of US citizenism.
US citizenism is all about kicking the can. US citizenism gives very little grip on the future. It is all about immediate time.
In the context provided by US citizenism, expectation of tackling an issue like climate change ends with delusional bitterness.
Mind you, when the decision was made to give such a domination to oil, voices were heard to warn about the dangers of coupling economic growth to finite fossil energy like oil.
US citizens entered the age of oil knowing that oil was finite and the dangers of it.
100 hundred years ago, admittedly, US citizens had somehow a clearer thought process than today US citizens who deny that oil is finite.
In the past, US citizens sold the idea that a new energy transition would happen, providing better benefits than oil.
Right now, well, it does not look that way so US citizens weasel their way out through fantasy.
A repeat: apparently, US citizens, when they have to face an issue to mature in the future, for some, try to create a feeling of emergency. Depletion was to happen tomorrow. You will find easily tons of articles predicting end of oil in the 1920s, 1930s etc...
The incapability of US citizens to tackle predictable issues that are to mature in the future does not mean the issues do not exist.
The best days of oil extraction more and more belong to the past.
The debt issue, could find easily US citizens demanding proofs of the danger of consuming the future on the basis of eternal growth...
Etc
Can kicking. Another US citizen special talent.
Quite delusional to expect US citizens to be able to tackle predictable issues that will mature in the future.
http://trololololololololololo.com/
MillionDollarBonus, can you prove that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming does exist without quoting third party sources?
Can you tell me in your own words why AGW is wrong?
The BEST data from Berkley which was assembled by Climate Change advocates shows no warming in over a decade.
Well, if it shows no warming for a decade as you claim, it must show no warming for 15 years then?
Once again, here is the data
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
So for what period of time are you comfortable with claiming no warming??
C'mon make the bet, I would not mind another 25 silver leafs....
Or if you prefer, an American Half Eagle...
Your choice....
Mining, refining and transporting all that silver just adds to your carbon footprint, you hypocrite. And you say I'm worried while you openly court what you likely believe to be THE END OF ALL LIFE AS WE KNOW IT!
Get a grip.
So you are unwilling to put your money where your mouth is...
My grip is very firm.... yours perhaps, not so...
Here's the BEST data again
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
Why not just link to the actual data instead of the agenda filter? http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis/
Fair enough.... the link I provided is limited to the past 30 years, the above one clearly shows warming over a longer time period but is difficult to see the past 10 years...
Exact same data though...
You spent this entire thread berating people who can not "argue the data". Yet you pimped that skepticalscience link 8 times and not once to the original data.
Same data... but shown starting from 1980... instead of ~200 years ago... Given that we are arguing about recent changes, my link is appropriate...
That BEST data from ~1800 does look hockey stickish, doesn't it...
I think the spike from 1815-1827 is sharper. http://i39.tinypic.com/25tg9l1.png
Well, yes, no shit....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
the BEST data?
How about NASA? I know they're l33t wannabe n00bs getting hacked & losing space-station security codes but...
http://theintelhub.com/2012/01/20/nasa-2011-was-ninth-warmest-year-in-hi...
2009: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=42392
2011 : http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=76975
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism...
Yep... lets take a look at what Spencer did...
He and Braswell submitted a simplistic model in a non-climate science journal that among other deficiencies, does not include error analyses and the like...
I can cut and past too...
Just like ben bernanke, flakmiester.
We dont believe you or your bullshit. Fuck off and find some other patsy to indoctorate.
Wont work here boyo.
Sorry... but science is supposed to be reproducible and the Spencer Braswelll result falls into the category of irreproducible results...
Now run along and go play over in the Yahoo! boards...
Almost forgot this nugget about that Spencer paper:
Ooops....
MDBogus
The BEST data is legit, it was partially funded by the Heartland Inst. and the deniers (WUWT et al) were counting on the Berkeley group to give the answer they wanted... Problem is the results blew away the UIH argument forever and strongly supports GW.... The deniers were howling like they had been double crossed...
The Berkeley group has one nay-sayer, Judith Curry....
Crockett.
Agree mate, global warming is complete bullshit. You only need to look out the door every day to see the weather. Its the same now as when I was a kid. Global warming is bollocks made for fucking dickheads.
Wow, what a killing rebuttal....LMAO
Lack of observational results that match what the theory says?
You may have heard of something like this. It's called The Scientific Method.
So what does the theory say?
So, if say, the theory predicts 0.15 degrees over the past 10 years and the natural variation is 0.1 degrees, how significant would the signal be??
Can you even compute the C.L.s???
I can use my observational skills to determine that when dozens of scientists and politicans say that they are lying about global warming in order to implement social change that they are lying about global warming in order to implement social change.
"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome,
"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame,
Oxford University
"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."
- Al Gore
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
yes, and the other interests, big oil & big everything, can't compete with "the environmentalists" influence. You keep trying to disprove the science by pointing out a known scinetific fact, that politicians try to make money and influence out of any issue. This proves very little.
Go easy on him... quotes are all he has...
The one scientific paper he provided as a counter argument resulted in the editor of the journal resigning in disgrace... It was clear that the editor failed in his job, which is to maintain high standards for his journal...
Instead of being angry at me, shouldn't you be angry with the global warming proponents who time and again say that they are lying about global warming? Aren't they the ones who are making it difficult for you to convince anyone that the sky is falling?
Could it be that they are not lieing....
In any event you are in no position to debate the veracity of their work...any one who relies on Fox News, The Daily Mail, Forbes and similar sources has demonstrated that they have no ability to discern fact from fiction...
In fact there was a paper written about the deniers here at the Hedge:
Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United Stateshttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801100104X
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
If you really believe this nonsense, why don't you do something really constructive like convince the people that are living in the low lying areas to move to higher ground instead of trying to convince us that we should be investing in Goldman's carbon credits or some such? They still have time to do that.
Or is your Million Dollar Bonus predicated on something else?
That you Al ?
Sure. We'll just set up the reactor right behind your house. Deal with it!
The Macadamia Nut Crusted Halibut w/ brown butter, lemon-chive rice pilaf tasted even better to me last night for some reason. My wife had the Roasted Atlantic Lobster Tail
which was equally delicious.
Buy a Coke.
Hug a polar bear.
And stop worrying.
Bernanke is single-handedly giving you exactly what you want. He will continue printing until the cost of all energy is beyond the reach of all but the very few "rich", and those that have stacked!
Better pray Obama gets reelected, to fill your tank with very expensive, non petrodollar gasoline.
You are not going to see any rise in sea level. You and your children are going to be f'n gone. The NWO is going to see to that. This fukushima thing is how Rotheschild's, Rockefeller's, Bush's and so on treat the planet and they personally do not want you here - f'ker.
Here you go, Million Dollar Retard...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fCCVU4y7oE
Please provide the displacement calcs for this assertion. This planet has quite a large surface area with no ice.
Water expands when it freezes, so the oceans will drop when the ice melts. More beaches for everyone! But tell the italian cruise ship captains to look at their radar more often whilst banging chicks on duty.
your sarcasim always cracks me up.
arrgh
no
NO
This is nothing compared to the impact of fossil fuels on the environment. Scientists predict that due to global warming we could see a sea level rise of 4 - 8 metres over the next few decades.
I'm sorry to break it to conspiracy theorists, but nuclear is one of the options we simply have to pursue.
upvoted again :(
http://thoriumenergyalliance.com/index.html
http://youtu.be/FuAOcL4d04A
http://www.newstime.co.za/column/ChrisGilmour/Thorium_%E2%80%93_The_New_...
http://youtu.be/AHs2Ugxo7-8
http://www.youtube.com/user/ThoriumAlliance
You forgot to blame the libertarians...
global warming ?
... my arse.... further more....
FUK YOU and your "do it for the children" bullshit
milliondollarloser are you mentally insane? Juding by your BIZARRE posts and the negatives you incur, you are either a gov't shill or just..mental.
Even the most brazen politically influenced and purchased scientists are not predicting that much sea level rise for centuries. Where are you getting your info?
The article is a bunch of BS. It is based on a computer model, not actual samples. A rather poor model at that. An accurate model would show the effects of the great currents that run clockwise around the edges of each ocean in the Northern hemisphere (counter-clockwise in the Southern hemisphere). If there was any significant radioactive polution of the Pacific Ocean (unlikely given the volume of water involved and the presence of existing background radiation everywhere), then it would have reached San Francisco many months ago.
This computer model might even be worse than those predicting global warming (in spite of the fall in temperatures since 1998).
SilverTree: Why can't I see your avatar?
no worries - Obama was just on ESPN picking b-ball teams while the world is unraveling at the seams... I feel all warm and happy - maybe that's the effect of that giant yellow monster taking over the ocean.
Is there a connection between that giant yellow tumor and the summer weather we've been experiencing all winter??!!!
I don't know but my urine has been glowing in the dark. Maybe it has to do with all the shellfish I eat.
This should help mitigate AGW. Maybe you can turn off your night light and just use a trail of urine to find the toilet and the way back to bed in the middle of the night.
Or maybe the lady friend you have been visiting.
I'm neither confirming or denying anything. But it sure does burn.
You are what you eat. Stop being so shellfish.
Just think of the energy saved by not needing a night light!
Coulter: “Good For What Ails You”. :-/
My brother got a new lease Lexus. He choose a new color: radioactive white
No worries. The nuclear industry assures us that mankind is too puny to affect our natural global environment in any meaningful way. Besides, radiation is naturally occurring. It cannot be bad for us to add extra radiation to the environment, because radiation exists anyway. There is no quantity of radiation that mankind is capable of producing that could harm us. The earth is too big and the ecosystems too complex. The radioactive seawater measured here is likely the result of sunspots spewing extra radiation onto the planet.
It's organic radioactive seawater, so not only is it not bad for you, it is sold by the tubfull at whole foods as a health supplement
You want to see what a vast change in temperature, humidity and weather patterns is like? Go from the Mojave to Everglades, harsh but survivable especially when you have 10 years to adapt. Now go from any of those places to Chernobyl and in a pretty short time, your fucked, you'r kids are fucked,your pets plants and stuff are all fucked. Radiation keeps on killing, people can adapt to temperature changes. How the fuck do you think we survived the Ice Age. I agree chaos could follow, but guess what we got chaos all over the world right now anyways.
Man made Global Warming could be a myth, could also be true, but Carbon has got nothing on what Nucleaur and some of the nastier chemical wastes can do to humans. Right now Fossil is the lesser of two evils just as untaxed energy markets are the lesser of two evils when considering what Carbon Tax will do to the developing world.
I dont have faith that most of mankind will make it to see a warmer Earth. Between US and Russia they have enough VX gas to kill every human on earth, twice. And thats just 1 weapon.
Oh no! The arctic has a a tad less ice! Should for sure focus on that instead of the poisoned chemical laden ground water in your own city or god knows what being sprayed all over the food you're eating.
Governments have released far more radioactivity into the environment than the free market ever has.
Not that hard since the free market entity is a fantasical entity...
In an absolute sense, yes. But in a practical sense not so much. But what's really thrown me for a loop is the fact that your post doesn't mention US citizenism even once. That's a significant improvement and should be recognized and applauded by all concerned.
Fucking outRAGEOUS! These corporate ass-clowns are destroying the earth. Enjoy vacationing first in the beautiful Hawaiian azure radioactive waters, then all the world's oceanic ecosystems.
Genocidal fucking maniacs have briefly inherited the earth. Its going to get much worse for all who call this planet home, then redemption, healing and restoration will come. Jesus is returning soon.
You lost me a Jesus, whoever that is. What if this Jesus doesn't come? What impact would someone's arrival have? You are confusing.
"Jesus" is the only real obscenity ever bandied about on this site.
A glowing report!
my roomate's mom makes $83/hr on the computer. She has been fired from work for 9 months but last month her pay check was $18339 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this web site ..... http://bit.ly/FPPP3j
Take this garbage over to the yahoo boards.