Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

[trichrider]

yeah your 'kind' don't like the truth.
you're fake news.


is that some real clear science you just posted?

what a waste.

 

[kickarse]

Some ex NASA people don't agree with your climate religion
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/NASA-SCIENTISTS-DISPUTE-CLIMATE-CHANGE-2012-4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhW-B2udhQw

 

[trichrider]

From NASA:
Do scientists agree on climate change?
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWjSYAqzMj4
[youtubeif]iWjSYAqzMj4[/youtubeif]

...IPCC Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change next report (AR6, due 2022) − 784 authors, yes 784, but again NO geologists?!...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...-_784_authors_yes_784_but_again_NO_geologists

27 Simple Bullet Points Prove Global Warming by the Sun, not CO2: By a Geologist for a Change

Dr Roger Higgs, Geoclastica Ltd, Technical Note on ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332245803_27_bullet_points_prove_global_warming_by_the_sun_not_CO2_by_a_GEOLOGIST_for_a_change


1) The IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has no geologists among the 100s of authors of its last major report (2013-14) & at most 1 in the next (2022; see my Tech. Note 2019-10). Thus IPCC focuses on only the last 150 years (since thermometer records began, c. 1850), yet Earth is 30 million (sic) times older, 4.5 billion years! Geologists know Earth has always warmed and cooled. Climate change is perfectly normal.

2) The IPCC’s very existence relies on public belief in man-made or ‘anthropogenic’ global warming (AGW) by
CO2. IPCC authors, mostly government & university researchers, are biased by strong vested interests in AGW (publications; continuance of salaries; research grants). Similarly, universities have sacrificed their impartiality by hosting institutes mandated to confirm & act on AGW, e.g. Grantham Institute (Imperial College), Tyndall Centre.

3) The often-parroted ‘97% consensus among scientists that global warming is man’s fault’ (CO2 emissions) is untrue. It refers in fact to surveys of just a relatively small group of ‘climate scientists’ (a new type of generalist scientist, with strong incentives for bias; see Bullets 2 & 15), moreover only those who are ‘actively publishing’.

4) No educated person ‘denies’ modern global warming; it’s been measured (Bullet 11). ‘Global warming
deniers’ is a deceitful term for man-made global warming doubters & deniers (most of Earth’s real scientists?).

5) CO2 is a ‘greenhouse gas’. But as CO2 rises, its theoretical heat-trapping ability sharply declines, already 67% ‘used up’ at 100 parts per million (ppm) CO2, 84% at 300ppm (NB 275ppm when industrial CO2 output began; Bullet 8), 87% at 400ppm (today 415ppm, or 0.04%) and >99% at 1000ppm. Moreover, Climate Sensitivity (CS), the warming due to doubling CO2, is guesswork. IPCC ‘estimates’ CS from climate models (circular reasoning) as probably between 1.5 & 4.5 (300% contrast!), but models are defective (Bullet 6). In reality CS might be very near zero, perhaps explaining why up to 7,000ppm in Phanerozoic time (Bullet 7) did not cause ‘runaway’ warming.

6) IPCC climate models are so full of assumptions as to be useless or (worse) misleading, e.g. forecast 1995-2015 warming was 2-3 times too high! Bullet 19 gives another drastic failure. Even Wiki (2019) admits: “Each model simulation has a different guess at processes that scientist don't understand sufficiently well”. Models also dismiss the sun’s fluctuations & omit the multi-decade delay between these & the resulting warming or cooling. This time-lag is due to ocean thermal inertia (mixing-time), grossly underestimated by IPCC (Bullets 15, 21).

7) For ~75% of the last 550 million years, CO2 was 2 to 15 times higher than now. Evolution flourished, with CO2 enabling plant photosynthesis, the basis of all life. Extinction events due to overheating by CO2 are unknown.

8) Through the last 12,000 years (our current ‘Holocene’ interglacial epoch), CO2 was a mere 250 to 290 ppm, near plant-starvation level (about 150ppm), until about 1850 when industrial CO2 emissions began, making CO2 climb steeply. CO2 today is still only 415ppm, or 0.01%, i.e. less than half of one-tenth of 1% of our atmosphere.

9) Until man began adding CO2 about 1850, warming (determined from ‘proxies’ like tree rings) since the 1700AD Little Ice Age nadir was accompanied by slowly rising CO2 (measured in ice cores). A simple explanation is the well-known release of CO2 by warming ocean water (decreasing its CO2-holding capacity).

10) Other evidence, besides Bullet 9, that rising CO2 is a consequence, not cause, of global warming is Humlum’s demonstration that changes in CO2 growth rate lag behind changes in warming rate (by about 1 year); and also ...

11) Since the ~1850 start of man’s CO2 additions, thermometer-measured global warming (1.3 degrees C) was interrupted by frequent minor coolings of 1-3yrs (not all attributable to mega-volcano ‘winters’) & two substantial coolings (0.2 deg) of 30yrs (1878-1910, 1944-1976), plus the 1998-2013 ‘warming pause’ (Wiki). In contrast, CO2’s rise has accelerated, with only a brief pause (1887-97) & a mini-reversal (1940-45), both during the 30-yr coolings.

12) This unsteady ‘sawtooth’ Modern Warming resembles the sawtooth rise of the sun’s magnetic output from 1901 toward a rare solar ‘Grand Maximum’ (GM; peak 1991), unmatched since 300AD! See Bullet 21.

13) Warming reached a peak in Feb 2016. Since then, Earth has cooled >3 years. NB no mega-eruption since 1991.

14) The ‘Svensmark Theory’ says rising solar-magnetic output deflects cosmic rays, thus reducing cloudiness, allowing more of the sun’s warmth to heat the land and ocean instead of being reflected by clouds. In support, a NASA study of satellite data spanning 1979-2011 (‘Modern Warming’; Bullet 12) showed decreasing cloud cover.

15) Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research vocal climate scientist Dr Stefan Rahmstorf (Wiki) wrongly said in 2008: "there is no viable alternative ... [to CO2 as driver of 1940-2005 warming, as] ... different authors agree that solar activity did not significantly increase”. Yet in 1999, physicist Dr Michael Lockwood FRS (Wiki) wrote in prestigious Nature journal: "the total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4 since 1964” & 2.3 since 1901 !

16) Lockwood showed averaged solar magnetic flux increased 230% from 1901 to 1995, i.e. more than doubled ! The final peak value was 5 times the starting minimum value ! Bullets 17 & 18 likewise back Svensmark’s theory.

17) After the ~300AD solar GM (Bullet 12), in <100yrs Earth warmed to near or above today’s temperature. Then sawtooth cooling mimicked the sun’s 1,000yr sawtooth decline into the Little Ice Age (LIA).

18) From 8000 to 2000BC, Earth was sometimes warmer than now for centuries. Then unsteady cooling from 3000BC to the LIA paralleled unsteady solar decline after the ‘super-GM’ of ~3000BC.

19) This 4,500yr-long cooling mocks IPCC computer models that instead predict warming by the simultaneous (slow) rise in CO2. This is the ‘The Holocene Temperature Conundrum’ of Liu et al. (2014). See also Bullet 6.

20) Embarrassingly for IPCC, the 8000-2000BC warm interval (Bullet 18) was already called the ‘Holocene
Climatic Optimum’ before IPCC's 'CO2 = pollutant' fallacy induced today's AGW hysteria and pointless multi-
trillion-dollar global warming industry. The warmth may have benefitted human social development.

21) Since thermometer records began (1850), sawtooth global warming (Bullet 12) correlates very well with solar-magnetic flux by applying an 85yr lag, attributable to the ocean’s thermal inertia (vast volume, high heat capacity & slow mixing cause slow response to changes in solar-magnetic flux hence cloudiness), grossly underestimated by the IPCC (Bullet 22). Thus Modern Warming is driven ~100% sun, dwarfing any CO2 effect (Bullets 5, 6).

22) The IPCC assumes the time lag (Bullet 21) is much shorter (<1 year) and therefore it claims that ongoing
global warming despite solar weakening (since 1991; Bullet 12) must mean that the warming is driven by CO2 !

23) The last interglacial period, about 120,000 years ago, was warmer than our Holocene interglacial. Humans and polar bears survived ! CO2 was then about 275ppm, i.e. lower than now (Bullet 8), at a time of greater warmth.

24) The joint rise of temperature & CO2 is a ‘spurious correlation’, a fluke. So IPCC demonising CO2 as a
‘pollutant’ is a colossal blunder, costing trillions of dollars in needless & ineffectual efforts to reduce it. Instead governments must focus on the imminent metre-scale sun-driven sea level rise.

25) Although the sun is now declining since its 1991 magnetic peak, sawtooth warming will continue until c.2075 due to the 85yr lag (Bullet 21). Rising CO2 will continue raising food production. Cooling will begin c.2075 & last at least 28 years (i.e. post-1991 solar decline to date). Our benign ‘interglacial’ period is likely to end by 2500AD.

26) IPCC says sea level (SL) from 0 to 1800AD varied <25cm (& <1m since 4000BC) & never exceeded today’s, so the 30cm SL rise since 1800 (& the 1.5mm/yr average rate) is abnormal, blaming industrial CO2. But this claim ignores dozens of studies of geological & archaeological 3000BC-1000AD SL benchmarks globally, showing 3 or 4 rises (& falls) of 1-3m in <200yr each (i.e. >0.5cm/yr), all reaching higher than today, long before industrial CO2.

27) If we stop expanding fossil-fuel use, CO2 will soon stabilise at a new equilibrium (nearer optimum for plants).

any more ad hominen or straw man attacks you keep up your sleeves?
the dissonance is strong with this one. tomorrow eat your Wheaties.

 

[hard rain]

The above paper is on social site for scientists but the paper you posted has no references? It is not peer reviewed. WTF?
Citations (0), References (0)
This research doesn't cite any other publications.

Also the paper references Wiki throughout which you just had a go at me for doing. It doesn't even reference it at the end of the article.

It seems that the author is the owner of Geoclastica Ltd
Position
Owner. Consultant Petroleum Sedimentologist

which;
-assess economic viability of oil/gas fields & basins

You don't think there might be a conflict of interest there?
https://www.geoclastica.com/

The paper complains that "784 authors, yes 784, but again NO geologists?!..."
However the Geological Society of America says "Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s"

The Geological Society of America being among those that form the consensus for human involvement in the current warming.
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)9

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

[trichrider]

The Geological Society of America... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)9

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

total hogwash (in bold)!
human contributions are 1/10th of 1% of the CO2 (which is 0.04% of the atmosphere), and water vapor is 95% of GHGs.

even if CO2 does what 'they' (the IPCC) claim it is most certainly NOT the 'dominant cause' and they have not proven that it is.
the CMIP5 report includes water vapor with 'human caused' CO2 in the GHGs that they blame for warming.


the sun is the dominant cause of warming.

CO2 has been higher in concentration in the past, so has temperature, but not always in conjunction with each other, and also while mankind was absent.

also about the 97% consensus. it consists of less than 3000 contributors not all of whom were/are 'scientists' who were surveyed online regarding 2, yes two questions about climate, and everyone knows that science is not about 'consensus'.

the inability of the multitude of models to agree proves that there is NOT a consensus at all. most of them overestimate and overstate the impact of CO2 as the cause of warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaUmDZEAhbE

[youtubeif]KaUmDZEAhbE[/youtubeif]


Debunking the "Simple Physics" Slogan About Climate Change
19,797 views
•Apr 16, 2019
Dr. John Robson investigates this misused slogan and talks with physicist William van Wijngaarden about the complexity of the physics behind global warming models.


That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!


Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists, have signed a public petition announcing their... [+]

On June 19, apparently timed to warm up spirits at the Rio+20 meetings at the U.N. Conference on Sustainability that began the following day, Senator John Kerry gave a sizzling 55-minute indictment on the Senate floor of those who challenge global warming crisis claims. He referred to a “calculated campaign of disinformation”, which he said “…has steadily beaten back the consensus momentum [italics added] for action on climate change and replaced it with timidity proponents in the face of millions of dollars of phony, contrived ‘talking points’, illogical and wholly unscientific propositions, and a general scorn for the truth wrapped in false threats about job loss and tax increase.” In his speech, Kerry called for the public to be “pounding on the doors of Congress” to act, and cataloged global perils such as drought, floods, wildfires, threatened coastlines, disease risks and more, noting “the danger we face could not be more real.”
Consensus momentum regarding action on climate change? Phony, contrived talking points, unscientific propositions, and a scorn for truth wrapped in false threats? Yes, he’s entirely correct on both accounts… but in the exact opposite direction that he, supported by representations in the “mainstream media”, has indicated.

Last August, Washington Post op-ed writer Richard Cohen scorned then-presidential candidate Rick Perry for publicly stating that he stood with an increasing number of scientists who have challenged the existence of man-made global warming threats. According to Cohen, “There were some, of course, just as there are some scientists who are global warming skeptics, but these few- about 2% of climate researchers- could hold their annual meeting in a phone booth, if there are any left. (Perhaps 2% of scientists think they are).”


This would require a pretty big phone booth, and actually, there really are many of those “global warming skeptics” still remaining. In fact, that number (yes- scientists with solid credentials) has been rapidly multiplying, not diminishing.

As Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).” And yes, I truly do hold both Joe Bast and Heartland in high esteem.


Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.


So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.


Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.


That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)


The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims they can.As Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain what ‘consensus’ they are referring to. Is it a ‘consensus’ that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a ‘consensus’ that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.”


Senator Inhofe also points out, “While it may appear to the casual observer that scientists promoting climate fears are in the majority, the evidence continues to reveal that this is an illusion. Climate skeptics…receive much smaller shares of university research funds, foundation funds and government grants and they are not plugged into the well-heeled environmental special interest lobby.” Accordingly, those who do receive support typically get more time free of teaching responsibilities, providing more time available for publishing activities.


Consider the National Academy of Sciences for example. In 2007, Congress appropriated $5,856,000 for NAS to complete a climate change study. The organization subsequently sold its conclusions in three separate report sections at $44 per download. The first volume, upon which the other two sections were based titled Advancing the Science of Climate Change, presents a case that human activities are warming the planet, and that this “poses significant risks”. The second urges that a cap-and-trade taxing system be implemented to reduce so-called greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The third explores strategies for adapting to the “reality” of climate change, meaning purported “extreme weather events like heavy precipitation and heat waves.”


What scientific understanding breakthrough did that big taxpayer-financed budget buy? Namely that the Earth’s temperature has risen over the past 100 years, and that human activities have resulted in a steady atmospheric CO2 increase. This is hardly new information, and few scientists are likely to challenge either of these assertions, which essentially prove no link between the two observations. All professional scientists recognize that correlation does not establish causation.


The report then states: “Both the basic physics of the greenhouse effect and more detailed calculations dictate that increases in atmospheric GHGs [greenhouse gases] should lead to warming of Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere.” In other words, the theory of Mankind’s increased CO2 output is responsible for warming because the theory’s model calculations say so…models which have never demonstrated the capability to correctly predict anything. And, on that basis alone, generous taxpayers should pump ever more generosity into higher prices for gasoline, electricity, food, industrial products, and of course, more funding for NAS and their dole-sharing brethren.


The National Research Council (NRC), a branch of the NAS, produced a recent report titled America’s Climate Choices, claiming that humans are responsible for causing recent climate change, posing significant risk to human welfare and the environment. Of the 23 people who served on the panel that wrote it, only five have a Ph.D. in a field closely related to climate science, and another five are staffers of environmental activist organizations. It was chaired by a nuclear engineer with no formal climate science training, and the vice chairman served for years as a top staffer for the Environmental Defense Fund. Two other members are, or were, politicians, and one had been appointed by the Clinton-Gore administration as general counsel for EPA. Prior to publishing the report, 19 of the 23 had made public statements claiming that global warming is a human-induced problem and/or that action is required to reduce CO2 emissions.


As Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, observed, NAS President Ralph Cicerone is really saying that “…regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If government wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide.”


Some scientific society administrations are getting serious heat from their constituents for taking positions attributing climate change threats to human influences. In 2009, eighty prominent scientists, researchers and environmental business leaders, including many physicists, asked the century-old American Physical Society (APS), the nation’s leading physics organization, to change its policy statement which contains such language as “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate”, and “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.”


Instead, the group of scientists and academic leaders urged APS to revise its statement to read: “While substantial concern has been expressed that [greenhouse gas] emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th[and] 21st century changes are neither exceptional or persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both animals and plants.”


Then, in the aftermath of the ClimateGate e-mail scandal, 265 APS members circulated an open letter saying: “By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate which was and is an international science fraud, and the worst any of us have seen…We have asked APS management to put the 2007 statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.” Of the 265 letter signatories, many or most are fellows of major scientific societies, more than 20 are members of national academies, two are Nobel laureates, and a large number are authors of major scientific books and recipients of prizes and awards for scientific research.


A June 22, 2009 editorial published in the American Chemical Society journal, Chemical and Engineering News, stated that “deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change”. That article prompted dozens of letters from angry members who rebuked it as “disgusting”, a “disgrace”, “filled with misinformation”, and “unworthy of a scientific periodical”. Many called for the replacement of its Editor-in-Chief Rudy Baum, who admitted to being “startled” and “surprised” by the negative reaction. As Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut wrote: “Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul.”
While real polling of climate scientists and organization memberships is rare, there are a few examples. A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views. Responses to about half of those areas were skewed on the “skeptic” side, with no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convection, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years.


A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.
A more recent 2012 survey published by the AMS found that only one in four respondents agreed with UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming. And while 89% believe that global warming is occurring, only 30% said they were very worried.
A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”


A 2009 report issued by the Polish Academy of Sciences PAN Committee of Geological Sciences, a major scientific institution in the European Union, agrees that the purported climate consensus argument is becoming increasingly untenable. It says, in part, that: “Over the past 400 thousand years - even without human intervention - the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times. In total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, [and] therefore the changes mentioned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.”


The report concludes: “The PAN Committee of Geological Sciences believes it necessary to start an interdisciplinary research based on comprehensive monitoring and modeling of the impact of other factors - not just the level of CO2 - on the climate. Only this kind of approach will bring us closer to identifying the causes of climate change.”


Finally, although any 98% climate consensus is 100% baloney, this is something all reasonable scientists should really agree about.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...ic-global-warming-consensus-not/#41044a7e3bb3



you've swallowed the blue pill with your Wheaties...

 

[ESTERCHASER]

you should sell used cars!

 

[kickarse]

You DC believers would probably buy them

 

[trichrider]

you should sell used cars!

since the econazis want to ban fuel i can't imagine it would be an advantageous career move.

even E-vehicles take a huge footprint to build, maintain, and charge.

...but since Tesla has become the highest valued car manufacturer it appears the econazis can ignore that and stoke their moral superiority.

 

[St. Phatty]

since the econazis want to ban fuel i can't imagine it would be an advantageous career move.

even E-vehicles take a huge footprint to build, maintain, and charge.

...but since Tesla has become the highest valued car manufacturer it appears the econazis can ignore that and stoke their moral superiority.

Some political correctness must have gone into the Tesla stock price.

I am surprised by how much slack the media cuts Elon Musk & how much press they give him.

There was a car company named Zap that was profitable some years and made lots of utility pickups.

But they don't have a website that I can find.

 

[ESTERCHASER]

could elon be an alien?

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Isn't it supposed to be in the sixties in January in the Midwest??

Nothing to see here... earn along now.

 

[TychoMonolyth]

could elon be an alien?

My thoughts exactly. At the very least, he's seen the future.

Maybe he's Flint from Star Trek The Original Series “Requiem for Methuselah”?

 

[Zeez]

I thought they were going to roll out a stripper pole at the Model 3 launch.

 

[trichrider]

Isn't it supposed to be in the sixties in January in the Midwest??

Nothing to see here... earn along now.

not during winter....
The average temperature in the autumn in the Midwest is about 48.1°F. The average temperature in the winter in the Midwest is about 14.0°F. The Midwest has a very wide range of temperatures. The summers are pleasantly warm, and the winters can get down into the negatives.


Tesla and Musk are subsidized by you and i. he is part of the machine. apparently not Stanley Meyer, if you recall he was the inventor of a car that ran on water.

 

[igrowone]

and so my fellow climate nerds, it's time to close out the decade
this thread has survived against all odds
here's the nsidc summary in a nutshell

That’s a wrap: A look back at 2019 and the past decade January 7, 2020


The year 2019 saw an early melt onset and high sea surface temperatures during summer in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The September minimum extent ended up tied with 2007 and 2016 for second lowest in the satellite record. Autumn freeze up was slow. In December, the Chukchi Sea finally completely refroze, Hudson Bay iced over, and sea ice extended south into the Bering Sea. The year 2019 still ended up with low extent in the Bering Sea. Taking a longer view, the defining feature of the decade of the 2010s was consistently low Arctic sea ice extent compared to long-term averages.

 

[armedoldhippy]

Isn't it supposed to be in the sixties in January in the Midwest??

Nothing to see here... earn along now.

70s here yesterday, 60s today. no snow since November. guess i can sell my snowmobile now, huh...

 

[trichrider]

70s here yesterday, 60s today. no snow since November. guess i can sell my snowmobile now, huh...

it doesn't sound like you're in the midwest...Tennessee maybe?

 

[CosmicCharlie]

Tennessee is definitely the Mid-West

 

[hard rain]

since the econazis want to ban fuel i can't imagine it would be an advantageous career move.

even E-vehicles take a huge footprint to build, maintain, and charge.

...but since Tesla has become the highest valued car manufacturer it appears the econazis can ignore that and stoke their moral superiority.

A couple of points. Yes E cars create a huge footprint, but so do conventional cars. Charging needs to done from renewable power.

I looked at the cost of DIY conversion recently as I figured I could reduce the footprint by keeping my old vehicle going. The cost was a lot more prohibitive than I imagined, but I assume the price will come down as technology gets more popular and hopefully efficient.

 

[gladysvjubb]

It has been very warm in Alabama. I am running around in a T-shirt and it is close to 70 degrees in the middle of January. Not normal.