patrick.net

#fuckingmorons

Hemingway's story has been re-named "The SJW Global Warming Truth of Kilimanjaro".

What percent remains now from what it was 100 yrs back?

Heraclitusstudent says

What percent remains now from what it was 100 yrs back?

I dunno - two years ago they had record snowfall.
https://glacierhub.org/2018/04/04/greatest-snowfall-on-kilimanjaro-glaciers-in-years/

It looks to be about the same level of snow and ice when I climbed it 20 years ago.

The snow on Kilimanjaro is a relatively new phenomenon and only formed there about 11,000 years ago during the last ice age. About the same time Chicago was under a mile of ice.

Heraclitusstudent says

What percent remains now from what it was 100 yrs back?

Not known.

Lack of long-term data concerning the thickness of the glaciers is what undermined their forecast, Hardy said. “Before 2000, we had no reference for how to treat the thinning other than by looking at historical photographs.”

https://www.masslive.com/news/2011/03/snows_of_kilimanjaro_defy_global_warming_predictions.html

We need a song for this topic, here's Toto's 'Africa'

www.youtube.com/embed/FTQbiNvZqaY

Kilimanjaro gets honorable mention here.

Isn’t it on the equator?
Seems like that would make a difference.

The Northern Ice Field and Eastern Ice Fields were connected to the Southern Ice Field and formed part of a continuous body of glacial ice atop Mount Kilimanjaro when first scientifically examined in 1912.

In 1912, the glaciated areas atop Mount Kilimanjaro covered 11.40 square kilometres (4.40 sq mi); by 2011 this had been reduced to 1.76 square kilometres (0.68 sq mi), an 85 percent loss.

The current state of retreat of the glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro has been attributed to both warmer and drier conditions than were present during the Little Ice Age. Tropical glaciers tend to be more greatly impacted by moisture than those found in the mid-latitudes or polar zones and drier conditions can lead to higher percentages of glacial loss due to the higher amount of radiational heating in tropical zones, though most of the tropical glacial loss is still primarily attributed to a warming climate.[5]

This pattern of retreat is not anticipated to change and most if not all the ice on top of Mount Kilimanjaro may be gone by 2040.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ice_Field_(Mount_Kilimanjaro)

Heraclitusstudent says

Mount Kilimanjaro may be gone by 2040.

Maybe. When do you think Florida and Manhattan are going under?

most if not all the ice on top of Mount Kilimanjaro may be gone by 2040

Yes, and the predictions 20 years ago was that it would be gone by 2020. Did not happen, so let's make another 20 year prediction that has the ice gone. You see, the technique is to make the prediction far enough into the future that all the checks will be cashed by the time the prediction shows to be wrong.

HeadSet says

Yes, and the predictions 20 years ago was that it would be gone by 2020. Did not happen, so let's make another 20 year prediction that has the ice gone. You see, the technique is to make the prediction far enough into the future that all the checks will be cashed by the time the prediction shows to be wrong.

If nothing else, it tells us we have time to adjust and adapt.

I can get behind alot of the Climate Change recommendations, but the climate extremists paint the most hyperbolic picture possible saying we have to be totally carbon free in 10 short years or it will be too late. Essentially making the cure worse than the disease as they seem totally oblivious of the pain and disruption their policies would cause to humanity.

Onvacation says

When do you think Florida and Manhattan are going under?

As our press and some "scientists" have been telling us, in 2015.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2019/06/15/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june

On June 12, 2008, correspondent Bob Woodruff revealed that the program "puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015."

One expert warned that in 2015 the sea level will rise quickly and a visual showed New York City being engulfed by water. The video montage included another unidentified person predicting that "flames cover hundreds of miles."

Al Gore will take a few vodka farts and burps on Kili, and the glaciers will melt on schedule.

socal2 says

I can get behind alot of the Climate Change recommendations, but the climate extremists paint the most hyperbolic picture possible saying we have to be totally carbon free in 10 short years or it will be too late. Essentially making the cure worse than the disease as they seem totally oblivious of the pain and disruption their policies would cause to humanity.

While I applaud people for not wanting to pollute or emit less, I can't really get behind it. Put this way... let's say you have 10 people putting 10 drops of water into a bucket daily. Let's call the bucket overflowing catastrophic global warming. End of species. So through tech we reduce the per person drops to 5 into the bucket daily. But, we unfortunately now have 30 people putting 5 drops into the bucket. In ten years it will be 3 drops by 60 people. On and on and on.

The problem is staring us in the face. And I don't worry about running out of food or water. But you can't argue climate change being real and not face the actual reality of the situation. We have a quantity problem, not a quality problem of being more efficient. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/

We've basically tripled the world population since the 1950's. Half the current population of just the US was the world population 2,020 years ago. You 100% cannot cry about climate change and not 100% be for population control. It's the ONLY solution if the 98% consensus of scientist is true. I never see this come up (most the time) so I can't take any climate change topic seriously. Our gross pollution of ANYTHING increase daily regardless of getting more efficient.

Yes but many on the right say population control is just being anti-human.

HeadSet says

Yes, and the predictions 20 years ago was that it would be gone by 2020.

Noooo..... 1 prediction by 1 scientist was cherry picked by journalists eager to dramatize, and then cherry picked by right-wing propagandists over eager to throw the kitchen sink at scientists.
Yet the gist is absolutely correct: The snow/ice top is disappearing fast due to global warming.

The "OMG LOOK they were wrong" we see on this thread makes no sense.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yes but many on the right say population control is just being anti-human.

these arent the people who believe in CC.

Heraclitusstudent says

throw the kitchen sink at scientists.
Yet the gist is absolutely correct: The snow/ice top is disappearing fast due to global warming.

Willing to name one of these climate scientists?

Heraclitusstudent says

Yes but many on the right say population control is just being anti-human.

It is anti-human. IF you believe in climate change, it's literally the only solution. Population control. The right is anti abortion. It's one area where I lean left in all honesty but not for reasons most would think.

There are segments of our society (call me racists, I know it's coming) that should literally abort every pregnancy. There aren't enough people willing to adopt and this segment can't take care of the kids in the first place. So we end up with inner city shit holes that should have never existed. The 5 kids to get more welfare because you're too lazy to work.

Shit, welfare reform in the US would do more for global emission reduction than windmills and electric cars.

Shit, welfare reform in the US would do more for global emission reduction than windmills and electric cars.

Perhaps so, but even with the welfare breeders of the West, US and Euro populations were starting to stabilize. Then the PTB thought they needed to open the floodgates of illegal immigration to keep the population growing. Insane.