If I am asked where is the place on the earth that one can come across many miracles, I would name Armenia. Involuntarily you are suprised in such a small place on the earth it is possible to meet such monuments and such people, who can be the ornaments and pride of the whole world - Rockwell Kent
This week, University of Victoria students voted overwhelmingly — 77 percent in favour — to urge their university to divest from fossil fuels. Organizers says it may be the largest margin of victory for a divest campaign of any Canadian campus.
Why did the students vote for the climate change action?
"To pressure companies to move to shift to renewable energy" wrote one student.
"Because bankrolling the tar sands is a terrible idea" wrote another.
Have a peek at more of their photographed reasons below.
EPA Chief can't answer basic question on climate and global weather patterns
EPA Chief Gina McCarthy got thoroughly embarrassed by Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions as she appeared before the budget committee asking for a budget increase 3 times greater than the rate of inflation. McCarthy’s reasoning (and the Obama administration’s in general) for such a dramatic increase in funding at the EPA is that spending more taxpayer dollars is necessary for fighting climate change. Because McCarthy is on the front lines of the left’s climate alarmism, Senator Sessions took the opportunity to ask McCarthy some basic questions about climate and weather patterns.
here’s the video:
"Let me ask you this," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., inquired of McCarthy. "There was an article from Mr. (Bjorn) Lomborg … from the Copenhagen Institute. He says, along with Dr. (Roger) Pielke from Colorado, that we’ve had fewer droughts in recent years. Do you dispute that?"
The seemingly clueless McCarthy pathetically responded that she didn’t “know in what context he’s making statements like that.” Context? Truth has its own context, and the inconvenient truth that McCarthy wasn’t aware of, or didn’t want to face, is that Pielke and Lomborg are right. Pielke, a professor at the University of Colorado, told the Senate environment and public works subcommittee in July 2013 that droughts have “for the most part become shorter, less frequent and cover a smaller portion of the U.S. over the last century.” Globally, he said, “there has been little change in drought over the last 60 years.”
Sessions also asked McCarthy if we’ve had more or fewer hurricanes in the last decade. It was another question she said she couldn’t answer because “it’s a very complicated issue.” Well, no, not unless basic math is a complicated issue. Sessions noted that we have in fact gone nearly a decade without a Category 3 storm or higher making landfall in the U.S. The last hurricane to hit America as a Category 3 or higher was Wilma, which struck Florida on Oct. 24, 2005. Superstorm Sandy had wind speeds barely reaching Category 1 status when it slammed into New Jersey in 2012 and wreaked havoc.
"Would you acknowledge that over the last 18 years, that the increase in temperatures has been very little, matter of fact 90% below most of the environmental models that showed how fast temperature would increase?" McCarthy replied that she didn’t know “what the models actually are predicting that you are referring to.”
Sessions called her ignorance and inability to outline the danger we supposedly face from climate change, as well as her failure to justify the EPA’s funding request, a “stunning development.” So do we. Sessions inquired of the global temperatures that have virtually flatlined for two decades:
Notice that McCarthy’s initial answers were, “Oh yes, more droughts, greater intensity…more hurricanes, greater intensity.” But when confronted with hard data from the very sources she uses to justify her alarmism, she retreated to, “Well, I don’t know the context.” It’s not just that she couldn’t answer; she gave the wrong answer first.
Sessions was correct to highlight the long pattern of abuse by the EPA and tie those abuses to the EPA’s budget. Increasing their budget would only give the EPA a greater ability to abuse Americans.
Last fall, much of the world was riveted by the image of 30,000-plus Pacific walruses hauled out on the Arctic coast
near the Alaskan village of Point Lay. Such scenes have become
increasingly familiar as climate conditions shift and the walruses, one
of the world’s largest pinnipeds, find that the summer sea ice on which
they depend is disappearing. It’s a shift with potentially dire
consequences, especially for young walruses.
With the loss of summer sea ice, walruses that would normally rest on
floating patches of ice in small groups are hauling out on land in large
congregations. When these large groups are startled, they rush back
into the water in what is called a stampede. In the process, small young
walruses can be crushed…
If you live in the Great Lakes region of the United States, you are undoubtedly familiar with the products of lake effect snow (LES). Very simply, LES storms are localized precipitation events that occur as a result of cold air passing over relatively warm waters. However, that explanation does not do justice to the fascinating intricacies that lead to these weather events.
Large bodies of water such as the Great Lakes take longer to warm up than the air (due to waters higher specific heat). As a result, the temperature of the lakes are still warm during fall and some of winter. When cold air moves down from Canada, the warmth of the lakes heats up the bottom layers of the cold air mass, evaporating moisture from the lake into the air. The warm air below begins to rise (since it is less dense), begins to cool, and condenses the evaporated moisture, forming clouds. These clouds cause severe localized snow storms (and sometimes thunder and lightning as well) often exceeding 5 inches (12.7 cm) per hour. The storm bands typically range from 1-25 miles (1.6-40.2 km) wide, appearing as a thin strip on a radar map.
While those who live in LES regions have to adapt to a severe routine weather event, those who don’t can appreciate the power of Earth’s climate under unique geographic circumstances.
A new study, compiled by scientists from the space agency, Cornell University and Columbia University, predicts an 80% chance that the Great Plains and the American Southwest will endure a major weather
shift beginning in 2050.
“The cost of living is going up and the chance of living is going down. “ –Flip Wilson
A new publication issued by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in the journal “Nature” has reported that the chances of keeping temperatures below a 2 degree rise is now largely in the hands of policy makers.
The challenge of a changing climate can now only be fought with the backing of political agenda – and as most people will agree, this seems bleak.
Of all the uncertainties with regard the effects of climate change, including geophysical and social uncertainties; political uncertainty ranked as the number 1 factor in determining the fate of our species and our planet.
… lives among boulder fields above the treeline in the
mountains of western North America. They create dens in crevices or
nooks among the rocks, sometimes digging to expand the space as
necessary. They don’t hibernate for the winter, but food can be
difficult to find in the often deep snow found at high altitudes.
ensure they get enough to eat they spend much of the summer “haying”
- collecting grasses and other meadow vegetation and caching it in
their den. They may make up to 13 haying trips per hour when busy with
Pikas are sensitive to higher temperatures and don’t do very well at
lower elevations as a result - they don’t occur as far down the
mountain in the southern part of their range than they do in the north.
Adults will die in just six hours at 78°F (25.5°C) if they can’t find
Recent studies have shown declines in populations of
American Pika; while there are multiple causes, the primary one is
climate change - the animals’ available range is shrinking as they
retreat up the mountainsides to stay in areas with acceptable
temperatures. photo by Daniele Colombo on Flickr
“Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry.”
In late February, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) made the amazingly unconvincing argument that the science behind climate change was the product of a hoax
because it was “unseasonably cold” outside. To illustrate his point,
Inhofe tossed a snowball right onto the Senate floor. Inhofe has no clue how science actually works.