Breaking: NASA ranks 2017 as the second-warmest year, after 2016

[xband]

^ this

It's not about saying the planet, its about controlling mankind

If globalists cared about the planet they would be punishing China for shitting all over the environment. Instead they are rewarded with manufacturing plants and trade deals that benefit the Chinese and rewards them for using slaves and dumping on the environment.

Even without El Niño.
There are several defense mechanisms conservatives may use in order to control the anger resulting from this news.
1) Rate the thread "funny"
2) Say that it's really cold in a region of a country, rather than in Earth as a whole.
3) Benghazi!

2017 Was One of the Hottest Years on Record. And That Was Without El Niño.

Let's see, what does the satellite data show? Hmmmm . . . . . . not su much . . . .

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2017_v6.jpg

Now why do you suppose that you used a graph a year old? Could it be that you did not want anyone to notice that we are now in a La Nina, yet the temps are still up in very high territory. And most of the world is warmer right now than it has been in the period of measurement.

Ah that’s cute Old Cucks, so the new year shows a tiny increase in temp. Still nothing compared to what it has been in the distant past.

uuth
Yes, you are correct. The geological record has a time about 250 million years ago when cold and heat killed 95% of all species then existing.

The Permo-Triassic (P-T) Extinction

Yup, and guess what? The earth still thrived after that.

All you got is fear mongering.

Give me the opportunity to debate Al Gore and his Inconvenient Truth.

 

[bripat9643]

Another person who doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather.

When it's warmer that usual, that's climate.
When it's colder than usual, that's weather.

Quick, give government $2 trillion to waste on windmills.

As you damned well know, it is not the government that will spend trillions of dollars on windmills and solar. It is the utility companies, with or without subsidies. Because both wind and solar generate electricity cheaper than any fossil fuel. Combined with grid scale storage, renewables are the future, no matter how much that distresses you.

As you damned well know, it is not the government that will spend trillions of dollars on windmills and solar.

No more "green energy" subsidies?

It is the utility companies, with or without subsidies.

How much are they spending because solar and wind is groovy? How much because of mandates?

Because both wind and solar generate electricity cheaper than any fossil fuel.

Baloney.

https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine...nergy-costs-wind-energy-costs-LCOE-Lazard.png

And wind and solar continue to come down in price, even as fossil fuels and nuclear continue to go up in price.

Yeah, phony numbers for equipment that only produces 30% of the time is very convincing.
Where do they add in the cost for idling a natgas plant nearby for when the wind slows or when clouds cover the sun?

Are you just being stupid, or are purposely lying? That chart is the cost per MW/Hr produced, not nameplate potential. And as the gridscale storage, whether by batteries or other means, comes online, the renewables will even be cheaper. One of the primary costs today of renewables is that they often overproduce, so they are idled, and the potential electricity they could have produced at that time is wasted. With storage, that energy could be used when they are not producing enough. The solar system with Tesla battery backup on Maui is presently doing just that.

The biggest cost is the fact that they produce zero power at night or when the wind isn't blowing.

 

[bripat9643]

(CNN)2017 was once again one of the hottest years on record, ranked as the second-warmest by NASA and third-warmest by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The findings "continue the planet's long-term warming trend," according to NASA. A trend that is driven predominately by human activity through carbon dioxide emissions.
Temperature records for the planet, monitored independently by both agencies, go back to 1880. The announcement came at a joint press conference on Thursday in Washington.


The hottest year on record remains 2016, while 2015 ranks second according to NOAA and third by NASA, which means the top three years have been the most recent three.

Though 2017 was slightly cooler on average compared to 2016. the trend towards a warmer planet has never been clearer.
The six hottest years have all occurred since 2010 and 17 of the 18 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001.

2017 one of the hottest years on record - CNN

For all you lying dingleberry denialists, having 17 of the 18 hottest years on record in the last 18 years is hardly a 'Pause' LOL

That's another way of saying that temperatures have been flat since 1998.

 

[bripat9643]

You don't send the world into a depression either over unknown science .

^ this

It's not about saying the planet, its about controlling mankind

If globalists cared about the planet they would be punishing China for shitting all over the environment. Instead they are rewarded with manufacturing plants and trade deals that benefit the Chinese and rewards them for using slaves and dumping on the environment.

Even without El Niño.
There are several defense mechanisms conservatives may use in order to control the anger resulting from this news.
1) Rate the thread "funny"
2) Say that it's really cold in a region of a country, rather than in Earth as a whole.
3) Benghazi!

2017 Was One of the Hottest Years on Record. And That Was Without El Niño.

Let's see, what does the satellite data show? Hmmmm . . . . . . not su much . . . .

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2017_v6.jpg

Now why do you suppose that you used a graph a year old? Could it be that you did not want anyone to notice that we are now in a La Nina, yet the temps are still up in very high territory. And most of the world is warmer right now than it has been in the period of measurement.

Ah that’s cute Old Cucks, so the new year shows a tiny increase in temp. Still nothing compared to what it has been in the distant past.

Yes, you are correct. The geological record has a time about 250 million years ago when cold and heat killed 95% of all species then existing.

The Permo-Triassic (P-T) Extinction

Massive volcanic eruptions that blotted out the sun caused that extinction, moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Another person who doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather.

When it's warmer that usual, that's climate.
When it's colder than usual, that's weather.

Quick, give government $2 trillion to waste on windmills.

As you damned well know, it is not the government that will spend trillions of dollars on windmills and solar. It is the utility companies, with or without subsidies. Because both wind and solar generate electricity cheaper than any fossil fuel. Combined with grid scale storage, renewables are the future, no matter how much that distresses you.

As you damned well know, it is not the government that will spend trillions of dollars on windmills and solar.

No more "green energy" subsidies?

It is the utility companies, with or without subsidies.

How much are they spending because solar and wind is groovy? How much because of mandates?

Because both wind and solar generate electricity cheaper than any fossil fuel.

Baloney.

https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine...nergy-costs-wind-energy-costs-LCOE-Lazard.png

And wind and solar continue to come down in price, even as fossil fuels and nuclear continue to go up in price.

Yeah, phony numbers for equipment that only produces 30% of the time is very convincing.
Where do they add in the cost for idling a natgas plant nearby for when the wind slows or when clouds cover the sun?

Are you just being stupid, or are purposely lying? That chart is the cost per MW/Hr produced, not nameplate potential. And as the gridscale storage, whether by batteries or other means, comes online, the renewables will even be cheaper. One of the primary costs today of renewables is that they often overproduce, so they are idled, and the potential electricity they could have produced at that time is wasted. With storage, that energy could be used when they are not producing enough. The solar system with Tesla battery backup on Maui is presently doing just that.

That chart is the cost per MW/Hr produced, not nameplate potential.

Baloney.

What is the nameplate potential for Ivanpah? What is the actual output?

 

[Ted Frazier]

(CNN)2017 was once again one of the hottest years on record, ranked as the second-warmest by NASA and third-warmest by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The findings "continue the planet's long-term warming trend," according to NASA. A trend that is driven predominately by human activity through carbon dioxide emissions.
Temperature records for the planet, monitored independently by both agencies, go back to 1880. The announcement came at a joint press conference on Thursday in Washington.


The hottest year on record remains 2016, while 2015 ranks second according to NOAA and third by NASA, which means the top three years have been the most recent three.

Though 2017 was slightly cooler on average compared to 2016. the trend towards a warmer planet has never been clearer.
The six hottest years have all occurred since 2010 and 17 of the 18 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001.

2017 one of the hottest years on record - CNN

For all you lying dingleberry denialists, having 17 of the 18 hottest years on record in the last 18 years is hardly a 'Pause' LOL

That's another way of saying that temperatures have been flat since 1998.

Debunked:

 

[CrusaderFrank]

(CNN)2017 was once again one of the hottest years on record, ranked as the second-warmest by NASA and third-warmest by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The findings "continue the planet's long-term warming trend," according to NASA. A trend that is driven predominately by human activity through carbon dioxide emissions.
Temperature records for the planet, monitored independently by both agencies, go back to 1880. The announcement came at a joint press conference on Thursday in Washington.


The hottest year on record remains 2016, while 2015 ranks second according to NOAA and third by NASA, which means the top three years have been the most recent three.

Though 2017 was slightly cooler on average compared to 2016. the trend towards a warmer planet has never been clearer.
The six hottest years have all occurred since 2010 and 17 of the 18 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001.

2017 one of the hottest years on record - CNN

For all you lying dingleberry denialists, having 17 of the 18 hottest years on record in the last 18 years is hardly a 'Pause' LOL

That's another way of saying that temperatures have been flat since 1998.

Well, after you add in the "excess heat" trapped -- like rat! - in the ocean

 

[bripat9643]

(CNN)2017 was once again one of the hottest years on record, ranked as the second-warmest by NASA and third-warmest by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The findings "continue the planet's long-term warming trend," according to NASA. A trend that is driven predominately by human activity through carbon dioxide emissions.
Temperature records for the planet, monitored independently by both agencies, go back to 1880. The announcement came at a joint press conference on Thursday in Washington.


The hottest year on record remains 2016, while 2015 ranks second according to NOAA and third by NASA, which means the top three years have been the most recent three.

Though 2017 was slightly cooler on average compared to 2016. the trend towards a warmer planet has never been clearer.
The six hottest years have all occurred since 2010 and 17 of the 18 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001.

2017 one of the hottest years on record - CNN

For all you lying dingleberry denialists, having 17 of the 18 hottest years on record in the last 18 years is hardly a 'Pause' LOL

That's another way of saying that temperatures have been flat since 1998.

Debunked:

That's based on "homogenized" data - fake data, in other words. Satellite data shows that temperatures have been flat since 1998.

 

[dudmuck]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

97%?

DERP!

 

[dudmuck]

97%?

DERP!

oh yea 97 percent.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

97%?

DERP!

oh yea 97 percent.

75/77, very impressive!

DERP!

 

[bripat9643]

Global warming has nothing to do with clean air and clean water, dumbass. CO2 isn't pollution.

 

[dudmuck]

Global warming has nothing to do with clean air and clean water, dumbass. CO2 isn't pollution.

Thats right, carbon dioxide is non toxic.
But burning fossil fuels generates more than just CO2.
Hardly any carbon dioxide is generated without generating a bunch of other pollutants along with it.

 

[Desperado]

NASA should get back into the Manned Space Program.
The are after all "The National Aeronautics and Space Administration"
and not the fucking climate bureau. American Astronauts are hitching rides with the Russians to get to theSpace Station and NASA is playing weatherman.

 

[anotherlife]

Global warming has nothing to do with clean air and clean water, dumbass. CO2 isn't pollution.

Thats right, carbon dioxide is non toxic.
But burning fossil fuels generates more than just CO2.
Hardly any carbon dioxide is generated without generating a bunch of other pollutants along with it.

Carbon dioxide IS toxic. As a war gas, it causes awful skin burns and boiled. It turns water red too. Frequently observed at volcanic lakes. Kills animals and plants that are not tall.

 

[Old Rocks]

As you damned well know, it is not the government that will spend trillions of dollars on windmills and solar. It is the utility companies, with or without subsidies. Because both wind and solar generate electricity cheaper than any fossil fuel. Combined with grid scale storage, renewables are the future, no matter how much that distresses you.

As you damned well know, it is not the government that will spend trillions of dollars on windmills and solar.

No more "green energy" subsidies?

It is the utility companies, with or without subsidies.

How much are they spending because solar and wind is groovy? How much because of mandates?

Because both wind and solar generate electricity cheaper than any fossil fuel.

Baloney.

https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine...nergy-costs-wind-energy-costs-LCOE-Lazard.png

And wind and solar continue to come down in price, even as fossil fuels and nuclear continue to go up in price.

Yeah, phony numbers for equipment that only produces 30% of the time is very convincing.
Where do they add in the cost for idling a natgas plant nearby for when the wind slows or when clouds cover the sun?

Are you just being stupid, or are purposely lying? That chart is the cost per MW/Hr produced, not nameplate potential. And as the gridscale storage, whether by batteries or other means, comes online, the renewables will even be cheaper. One of the primary costs today of renewables is that they often overproduce, so they are idled, and the potential electricity they could have produced at that time is wasted. With storage, that energy could be used when they are not producing enough. The solar system with Tesla battery backup on Maui is presently doing just that.

That chart is the cost per MW/Hr produced, not nameplate potential.

Baloney.

What is the nameplate potential for Ivanpah? What is the actual output?

Now Pattycake, are you too unable to read a simple chart? Seems to be a problem with you 'Conservatives'. Note that the cost of Solar Thermal is between $119 and $182 dollars. Not even in the competition. In the meantime, Gas, combined cycle, is the only generation presently competitive with PV solar and wind. And both PV solar and wind are coming down in price.

 

[bripat9643]

As you damned well know, it is not the government that will spend trillions of dollars on windmills and solar.

No more "green energy" subsidies?

It is the utility companies, with or without subsidies.

How much are they spending because solar and wind is groovy? How much because of mandates?

Because both wind and solar generate electricity cheaper than any fossil fuel.

Baloney.

https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine...nergy-costs-wind-energy-costs-LCOE-Lazard.png

And wind and solar continue to come down in price, even as fossil fuels and nuclear continue to go up in price.

Yeah, phony numbers for equipment that only produces 30% of the time is very convincing.
Where do they add in the cost for idling a natgas plant nearby for when the wind slows or when clouds cover the sun?

Are you just being stupid, or are purposely lying? That chart is the cost per MW/Hr produced, not nameplate potential. And as the gridscale storage, whether by batteries or other means, comes online, the renewables will even be cheaper. One of the primary costs today of renewables is that they often overproduce, so they are idled, and the potential electricity they could have produced at that time is wasted. With storage, that energy could be used when they are not producing enough. The solar system with Tesla battery backup on Maui is presently doing just that.

That chart is the cost per MW/Hr produced, not nameplate potential.

Baloney.

What is the nameplate potential for Ivanpah? What is the actual output?

Now Pattycake, are you too unable to read a simple chart? Seems to be a problem with you 'Conservatives'. Note that the cost of Solar Thermal is between $119 and $182 dollars. Not even in the competition. In the meantime, Gas, combined cycle, is the only generation presently competitive with PV solar and wind. And both PV solar and wind are coming down in price.

You're responding to Toddsterpatriot, not me.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't except a chart published on a site called "Cleantech" as credible.

 

[bripat9643]

Global warming has nothing to do with clean air and clean water, dumbass. CO2 isn't pollution.

Thats right, carbon dioxide is non toxic.
But burning fossil fuels generates more than just CO2.
Hardly any carbon dioxide is generated without generating a bunch of other pollutants along with it.

Carbon dioxide IS toxic. As a war gas, it causes awful skin burns and boiled. It turns water red too. Frequently observed at volcanic lakes. Kills animals and plants that are not tall.

Carbon Dioxide has never been used as a "war gas," numbskull. It also doesn't turn water red. Is soda water red? Soda is water and favoring with CO2 dissovled in the water.

 

[bripat9643]

Global warming has nothing to do with clean air and clean water, dumbass. CO2 isn't pollution.

Thats right, carbon dioxide is non toxic.
But burning fossil fuels generates more than just CO2.
Hardly any carbon dioxide is generated without generating a bunch of other pollutants along with it.

Scrubbers clean almost all of those pollutants from the effluent in the case of coal plants. Natural gas plants produce virtually nothing other CO2 and water.