See other National News Articles
Title: Skiing While the Earth Burns
Source:
The New American
URL Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index ... 0-skiing-while-the-earth-burns
Published: Oct 10, 2009
Author: Joe Wolverton, II
Post Date: 2009-10-10 16:32:34 by farmfriend
Ping List: *Agriculture-Environment* Subscribe to *Agriculture-Environment*
Keywords: None
Views: 789
Comments: 155
Written by Joe Wolverton, II In a sure sign that the Earth is, as predicted, warming to the point of human extinction, snowfall in the West has come sooner and heavier than in recorded history. Many school districts have already been forced to close by unseasonable accumulations of snow. "We got dumped on last night, you can see that by looking around here. We weren't quite ready for it. It did cause us some issues in the school district," said Lonnie Barber, the superintendent of schools for Blaine County Idaho. Idaho isn't alone in its reluctance to march into a fiery, iceless demise; in Colorado as well, the snow is falling fast and piling up quickly, to the delight of a state dependent for much of its income on the ski tourism trade. The ski resort at Loveland, Colorado, has opened already, the earliest start to a season in 40 years. It will be joined Friday by the resort at Arapahoe Basin. It seems the owners of ski resorts failed to recognize the climatological chaos that is causing the melting of snow and ice that is in turn setting off an avalanche of impending worldwide doom. Some people will do anything for a buck. Vegas. Sin City. You would expect them to join the party and they have. You've heard the slogan: "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas." Well, according to the local Fox News affiliate in Las Vegas, what's happening is snow and what's staying is hundreds of skiers getting a welcome early start on the season. The Las Vegas Ski and Snowboard Resort is open for business earlier than ever before and business is booming. Says the resort's Base Operations Manager Craig Baldwin, “There are many skiers and snowboarders who love to jib on our freestyle terrain features, and we expect many families to take advantage of this great opportunity to learn the sport and have fun so early in the season."Again, open rebellion against the stark realities of the inconvenient truth of global warming. Must we brook such insolence and brazen defiance of those Chicken Littles who are doing their best to warn us all of the toasty fate waiting for us just around the corner. While we wait for the alarming rise in global temperatures to melt the ice caps and swell the levels of the oceans, we might as well head out West and ski.
Skiing While the Earth Burns
Wednesday, 07 October 2009 19:29
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 145.
#8. To: farmfriend (#0)
Global Warming phenomena does not mean that everywhere is about HELL FIRE&DAMNATION. That is just too amusing to consider. GW phenomena modifies local weather patterns in different ways based upon geography and so forth. I am afraid your article reinforces the idea that GW is a fact.
Sometimes global warming means global cooling and sometimes it means global warming? Is that it? So long as the myth is believed? Whatever works?
GW phenomena is all about the average Earth air temperature rising. And that rate is escalating pretty damned fast. It is rising faster than any time since life as we know it has existed.
That's prolly just your hormones, bucky. There's pills for that.
Really? What kind of pills are going to save me from CO2?
Are you just Googleing to impress me? C'mon wudidiz, you can find some authoritative research from a well known publication can't you?
OOPPSS! From NASA!
Looking at the graph it would certainly appear as though there's been a drastic temperature change in the last 100 years. However, it's only up less than 1 degree. IF (the) data is correct.
Do you know what effect that has on local weather? How about the Arctic and Antartica? Do you understand these two large ice systems are breaking up? That same erosion is based on ice melting; that is a clear indicator that the temperatures are increasing.
LOL sorry the facts don't support that one.
So, Anarctica and the Arctic are increasing ice mass correct?
Antarctica for many years and the arctic over the last few years rapidly replacing the ice lost to wind according to NASA. Part of that ice loss was also due to faulty equipment giving open water readings where ice actually existed. You have to stop paying attention to the propaganda and start watching the real science.
You subscribe to "this" or "that" idea yet you didn't answer my question directly. Are these massive areas losing or gaining ice?
Gaining.
Can you find a reputable scientific link showing that the ice masses have been gaining over the past century or fifty years or even the last decade? And if you can, will you share it with me?
Daily Antarctic Sea Ice Area Anomaly
if your motive doesnt exist, then you have no reason to commit the crime... too bad that, even without global warming, peak oil is motive enough, isnt it?
Peak oil? LOL.
the PNAC project, kicked off by 9/11, is a joint israeli/israeli american project to gain (a) high ground ---aka the palestinian land in the west bank--- for israel, and (b) control of oil for the israelis and israeli americans bent on benevolent global hegemony through control of energy. apparently the zionists see that control of energy consumption is very likely impossible, so global warming is inevitable, which makes sea level rise inevitable, which threatens israelis, 70% of whom live on land that will be flooded if the ice melts... so they're going for the high ground, just in case the oil acquisition project fails. in the meantime, many of the supposed zionists, who are, in reality, only using israel and the holocaust for protective coloration, are looters, pure and simple, and have no illusions about retiring to israel once they've stacked up a few billion bucks'- worth of loot. nope... they're going for enough cash to buy refuge someplace civilized once the shit hits the fan... which rules out israel.
Your basic assumptions are way off.
How? Just his brief rant about Israel? He is coming back around, now. I think he understands a thread's focus.
His assumptions that AGW is real, unavoidable and that "big oil" is opposed to it.
Why do you think flickervertigo has made assumptions? Can you counter his arguments, at all?
Yes I can, I've done it many time, but I'm not going to. What would be the point? I have too much to do today and can't waist my time on someone who is that far behind in the argument.
you cant dispute the fact that co2 and methane are greenhouse gases. you cant dispute the fact that co2 levels are rising, and have risen by 100 ppm since we've been burning fossil fuels. you cant dispute the fact that polar ice and glaciers are melting. you cant dispute the fact that weather patterns are being disrupted. you cant dispute the fact that the people with the most motive to deny global warming are the world's prime deniers of global warming. you cant dispute the fact that israel must acquire high ground to escape sea level rise before its american protector expires from oil shortages. you cant dispute the fact that PNAC said it needed a new pearl harbor to kick start the land and oil acquisition project.
LOL ok I'll take your items one at a time but I'm not in the mood to debate you at all. Why would I want to? That would be 100 ppmv. Correlation is not causation. Whether the increase is due to the use of fossil fuels is a point of contention. For instance, ocean outgassing is the prime source of CO2. Solar cycles 22 and 23 were the most active cycles in the last 1000 years. This in conjunction with a warming phase of the PDO and ENSO was likely the cause of the observed atmospheric warming. Assuming there has been warming and even that is in dispute, but I won't go into that. The discussion about rising CO2 levels always seems to include the assumption that current levels or lower are normal and prime levels. This is untrue. Currently levels, even after the small increase, are at historic lows for the planet. Well yeah I can dispute that as well. Glaciers have been in retreat since the end of the little ice age. The extreme arctic melt that happened in '07 was caused by wind not warming. The ice is recovering. There was also some faulty equipment that gave open water readings where there was actually ice. Both Greenland ice and Antarctic ice are getting thicker. The only warming that was seen in Antarctica was on the western peninsula and this was probably due to the warming oceans around it. The glacier that recently shattered in that area sits in a horseshoe shaped bay. It can't calve the way glaciers do. The build up of pressure behind it caused it to shatter like glass relieving the pressure. No warming needed. Are they? What exactly is "normal" weather? You predispose a stability that has never existed. I dispute your assumption as to who "those people" are. Besides, no one "denies" global warming, only the extent, the cause and the duration. With solar cycle 24 falling below even the Dalton minimum levels and both the PDO and ENSO now in cooling phases it is unlikely that oceans will see an extreme rise.
maybe there's something working here that no one understands yet. that's possible. but until there's some evidence of cooling that cant be explained, we have to go with the physical processes that are understood, and one of those processes is the role of greenhouses gases in atmospheres. co2 is a greenhouse gas, the concentration has increased from 280 ppm to over 380 ppm... and so we have to assume that co2 is causing some of the observed warming. otherwise, we have to assume that a law of physics has been repealed. that's just how it is. as far as the thickness of ice in greenland and anarctica, it's a fact that warmer air can hold more moisture, which would lead to more snowfall as the warmer air masses cool over the ice fields. and that, too, is just how it is...
But that is exactly the problem. Those proposing the AGW hypothesis have not taken into account the CO2 physics that were well known since the late 1800s. They threw them out without showing them to be wrong. That is not science. Then it should have been really thick during the medieval warm period but it wasn't. There is a reason the Vikings named it Greenland. You've bought into the propaganda without really understanding what is going on behind the scenes. You seem to know enough to recognize the conspiracy but have no clue how AGW and the green movement in general play their part. Global Warming: How It All Began And here is a quote from a friend of mine that explains it very well: The key to cracking the Constitutional system was international law, a loophole in Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution, governing the adoption of treaties and the scope of their powers (IMO the rat Patrick Henry and others smelled only too clearly; if you want a good chuckle read Hamilton's defense of the manner of treaty ratification in Federalist #75). To implement the plan European investors needed a foothold in the US before they could get into the market. Until the Civil War, corporations were haltered in the US because they were not allowed to own land and were not protected under the Constitution in a manner co-equal to citizens. After the Civil War the US was deeply in debt to that very European investor class. The 14th Amendment changed that balance of power between the individual and corporate. Once the appropriate Supreme Court cases were in place interpreting persons "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as including corporate persons, corporations then derived equal protection under the laws and could own property, the investment floodgates opened, and that not only created an American industrial colossus, it produced an American investor class owning enormously influential private tax-exempt foundations. So it isn't exactly by coincidence that it is those same colossal foundations that are making all those "charitable" donations to those icky Greens. The Environmental Grantmakers Association? That's Rockefeller. The Pew Charitable Trusts? That's Sunoco. W. Alton Jones? That's Citgo. The World Wildlife Fund? BP and Shell. You do see a pattern, don't you? These are more than investors in energy, their assets include timber, mining, banking, food production… They aren't fools. They use the same simple and ancient recipe as did their European forbears by which to manufacture a predictable return: Kill the competition with regulations, create a shortage, and cash in. It's become so common there is even an excellent book out on the topic that I suggest you read, . It's a simple process that has accelerated over the last five decades. It's a vertically integrated racketeering system that extends over the entire planet. American investors in multinational operations are perfectly happy taking a hit on US operations destroying domestic production because their investments abroad get the business. They either convert domestic resource land to real estate or mothball it under tax exempt conservancies, Federal monuments, and such. It's been done in industry after industry: timber, energy, mining, beef, fish, agriculture, real estate development, soon water… ALL taking advantage of economies of scale in environmental compliance and sometimes selective enforcement. Tax-exempt foundations buy the research "data" they need, fund a few ideological groups trained by the same professorate that lives off their grant money, and not a word need be breathed to the companies in which they are invested. Their pet executives wail about the regulations and scream how stupid and counterproductive they are, just like you do. It makes great theater. There is virtually no way of getting caught. I recommend reading the whole thing.
seems to me that we're headed for another 4 degrees C increase in temps once we deposit the rest of the co2 that's locked up in the remaining fossil fuels, and the air clears once we quit burning the stuff.
Physics isn't driven by "seems to me." But perhaps you can give us the run down on the science behind that. (Without googling an article, of course.)
the physics will be driven by the fact that we've got enough fossil fuel left to deposit another 100 ppm of co2 into the atmosphere, at which time we will run out of the stuff, the air will clear, and the full effect of the co2 will become apparent. if the methane gets loose in the resultant warming... then what? . well, that's pretty easy to figure out: the world will warm up enough that the oceans will become stagnant algae stews, which will then be shoved underground by tectonics, then, after a few billion years, we will have a fresh supply of oil. good deal.
Sigh. 100 ppmv. Don't forget the V. it is important! There is a big difference between 100 parts per million and 100 parts per million by volume.
Results 1 - 10 of about 8,800 for "global dimming" israel.
You google, I talk to PhDs. Hmmm.
#146. To: farmfriend (#145)
Results 1 - 10 of about 101,000 for "global dimming" OR "atmospheric brown clouds"
OK, I am back, exactly what did I miss?
i'll run through this one more time... co2 is a greenhouse gas. burning fossil fuels deposits co2 in the atmosphere: for instance, burning one gallon of gas produces about 19 pounds of co2. we deposit something like 30 gigatons of co2 into the atmosphere every year. okay, that's the warming side. . then we have the smog ---aka "atmospheric brown clouds" that shade the planet and produce global dimming that may cause 2 degrees C of cooling... and despite that shade, we're still warming up. once we run out of fossil fuels ---and we have enough fuel left to produce at least another 100 ppm of co2--- the particulates that shade the planet will settle out, leaving us at the mercy of the full effect of the co2, and the co2 will persist in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. so we're cruising along now in a cross-controlled environment, but once we run out of gas, the co2 will assert itself.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#10. To: buckeroo (#8)
GW phenomena modifies local weather patterns in different ways based upon geography and so forth.
#12. To: wudidiz (#10)
#14. To: buckeroo (#12)
It is rising faster than any time since life as we know it has existed.
#16. To: randge (#14)
There's pills for that.
#18. To: buckeroo (#16)
Duh Deux...
#19. To: wudidiz (#18)
#23. To: buckeroo (#19)
#25. To: wudidiz (#23)
I could probably cut and paste a dozen credible links refuting that.
#27. To: buckeroo (#25)
(Edited)
#30. To: wudidiz (#27)
However, it's only up less than 1 degree.
#40. To: buckeroo (#30)
How about the Arctic and Antartica? Do you understand these two large ice systems are breaking up?
#41. To: farmfriend (#40)
#42. To: buckeroo (#41)
#43. To: farmfriend (#42)
#44. To: buckeroo (#43)
Are these massive areas losing or gaining ice?
#45. To: farmfriend (#44)
#48. To: buckeroo (#45)
#50. To: farmfriend (#48)
(Edited)
#52. To: flickervertigo (#50)
too bad, even without global warming, peak oil is motive enough, isnt it?
#54. To: farmfriend (#52)
#76. To: flickervertigo (#54)
apparently the zionists see that control of energy consumption is very likely impossible, so global warming is inevitable,
#82. To: farmfriend (#76)
Your [flickervertigo] basic assumptions are way off.
#97. To: buckeroo (#82)
How?
#104. To: farmfriend (#97)
His assumptions that AGW is real, unavoidable
#106. To: buckeroo (#104)
Can you counter his arguments, at all?
#109. To: farmfriend (#106)
(Edited)
#116. To: flickervertigo (#109)
you cant dispute the fact that co2 and methane are greenhouse gases.
you cant dispute the fact that co2 levels are rising, and have risen by 100 ppm since we've been burning fossil fuels.
you cant dispute the fact that polar ice and glaciers are melting.
you cant dispute the fact that weather patterns are being disrupted.
you cant dispute the fact that the people with the most motive to deny global warming are the world's prime deniers of global warming.
you cant dispute the fact that israel must acquire high ground to escape sea level rise before its american protector expires from oil shortages.
#121. To: farmfriend (#116)
#125. To: flickervertigo (#121)
otherwise, we have to assume that a law of physics has been repealed.
as far as the thickness of ice in greenland and anarctica, it's a fact that warmer air can hold more moisture, which would lead to more snowfall as the warmer air masses cool over the ice fields.
The supply regulation game is at least as old as the Dutch East India Company's manipulation of coffee prices by controlling access to the plants. Understanding that sorry history of economic tyranny by European corporate royalty, the founders of this nation tried to design a limited government, one that didn't have the power to control private property or have control of resources. Control of access to resources is too much temptation for the wealthy to purchase corrupt influence that depresses everybody else. They Founders failed.
1. Foist the necessary treaty law via (primarily American) NGOs at UN environmental agencies (largely funded by the US government).>br> 2. Get the implementing legislation through Congress.
3. Use lawsuits by those same NGOs in federal courts to alter the meaning of the law.
4. Overwhelm the agencies with graduates brainwashed by professors who subsist of government and foundation grants.
5. Establish the regulatory power on the local level to control the decision-making with the cheapest politicians money can buy.
#128. To: farmfriend (#125)
#134. To: flickervertigo (#128)
that we're headed for another 4 degrees C increase in temps once we deposit the rest of the co2 that's locked up in the remaining fossil fuels, and the air clears once we quit burning the stuff.
#135. To: randge (#134)
#138. To: flickervertigo (#135)
100 ppm of co2
#140. To: farmfriend (#138)
#145. To: flickervertigo (#140)
Results 1 - 10 of about 8,800 for "global dimming" israel.
Replies to Comment # 145.
#147. To: farmfriend (#145)
I talk to PhDs.
#148. To: farmfriend (#145)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 145.