Climate Change

[ralis]

Dr. McPherson goes right to the heart of the matter regarding mass extinction of humans as well as life itself. He addresses well the act of denial!

 

 

[joeblast]

15 hours ago, ralis said:

Dr. McPherson goes right to the heart of the matter regarding mass extinction of humans as well as life itself. He addresses well the act of denial!

 

Yeah, nobody except the indoctrinated is going to sit there for 40 minutes watching the good docta talk about how earth is already terminally dead and only the neocons are going to survive the nuclear holocaust in their underground bunkers   I think someone's been adding lithium to his water and they might have stopped

[voidisyinyang]

On 7/4/2019 at 7:12 AM, joeblast said:

 

its only a matter of time before co2 catstrophe conjectureism is laughed out of even academia, drew.  t

 

 

Quote

In the wake of partial melting of the large ice sheets, the Earth climate would shift to polarized conditions including reduced polar ice sheets and tropical to super-tropical regions such as existed in the Miocene (5.3 – 23 million years ago) (Figure 5).

https://www.globalresearch.ca/beyond-climate-tipping-points-greenhouse-gas-levels-exceed-stability-limit-greenland-antarctic-ice-sheets/5681653

Dr Andrew Glikson, Earth and Paleo-climate science, Australia National University (ANU) School of Anthropology and Archaeology, ANU Planetary Science Institute, ANU Climate Change Institute, Honorary Associate Professor, Geothermal Energy Centre of Excellence, University of Queensland. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

 

Quote

The total of CO₂, methane (CH₄) and Nitric oxide (N₂O), expressed as CO₂-equivalents, has reached at least 563 ppm (Table 1) (depending on the greenhouse forcing value of methane), the highest concentration since 34 – 23 million years ago, when atmospheric CO₂ ranged between 300-530 ppm.

Quote

 

The term “climate change“ is thus no longer appropriate, since what is happening in the atmosphere-ocean system, accelerating over the last 70 years or so, is an abrupt calamity on a geological dimension threatening nature and civilization. Ignoring what the science says, the powers-that-be are presiding over the sixth mass extinction of species, including humanity.  

As conveyed by leading scientists “Climate change is now reaching the end-game, where very soon humanity must choose between taking unprecedented action or accepting that it has been left too late and bear the consequences” (Prof. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber)…

 

interview with Dr. Andrew Glikson

Edited July 6, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[joeblast]

lol so now they've taken to adding the ppms together to get bigger numbers?  haha - it still doesnt get 'em away from the fundamental assumptions built into the co2 conjecture, nice try though

[voidisyinyang]

5 hours ago, joeblast said:

lol so now they've taken to adding the ppms together to get bigger numbers?  haha - it still doesnt get 'em away from the fundamental assumptions built into the co2 conjecture, nice try though

yeah it's quantum mechanics:

Quote

New calculations of the radiative forcing (RF) are presented for the three main well‐mixed greenhouse gases, methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide. Methane's RF is particularly impacted because of the inclusion of the shortwave forcing; the 1750–2011 RF is about 25% higher (increasing from 0.48 W m⁻² to 0.61 W m⁻²) compared to the value in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2013 assessment; the 100 year global warming potential is 14% higher than the IPCC value. We present new simplified expressions to calculate RF. Unlike previous expressions used by IPCC, the new ones include the overlap between CO₂ and N₂O; for N₂O forcing, the CO₂ overlap can be as important as the CH₄ overlap.

So it's verified in lab science but also with satellites.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930

Quote

The major result is that radiative forcing due to methane is around 20‐25% higher than that found using the previous simpler methods. The main reason for this is the inclusion of the absorption of solar radiation by methane, a mechanism that had not been included in earlier calculations. We examine the mechanisms by which this solar absorption causes this radiative forcing.T

 

Very Strong Atmospheric Methane Growth in the 4 Years 2014–2017: Implications for the Paris Agreement

E. G. Nisbet

M. R. Manning

E. J. Dlugokencky

R. E. Fisher

D. Lowry

S. E. Michel

C. Lund Myhre

S. M. Platt

G. Allen

P. Bousquet

R. Brownlow

M. Cain

J. L. France

… See all authors

First published: 05 February 2019

https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GB006009

 

Edited July 6, 2019 by voidisyinyang

[Dynasty]

On 7/5/2019 at 5:16 AM, joeblast said:

Yeah, nobody except the indoctrinated is going to sit there for 40 minutes watching the good docta talk about how earth is already terminally dead

 

They're like a doomsday cult. 

 

I don't get it. I can look out my window and the grass is green, birds are chirping, squirrels playing, the sky is clear, alls well for the most part. But according to the enviro-doomsday-cult the skies are covered in dark clouds of smoke and acid rain is falling everywhere.  

[ralis]

36 minutes ago, Dynasty said:

 

They're like a doomsday cult. 

 

I don't get it. I can look out my window and the grass is green, birds are chirping, squirrels playing, the sky is clear, alls well for the most part. But according to the enviro-doomsday-cult the skies are covered in dark clouds of smoke and acid rain is falling everywhere.  

 

You are confusing local weather with climate in that climate being the complex dynamic of the biosphere. In other words, local weather conditions do not equate with the overall conditions in the planetary biosphere. Earth’s biosphere is a system and to proceed from the incorrect conclusion such that you have stated is an error in critical thinking and the scientific method. 

 

Old Student posted a very well thought out explanation earlier in this thread. I suggest reading before jumping to conclusions. 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-50th-Anniversary-ebook/dp/B007USH7J2/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Thomas+Kuhn&qid=1562465398&s=books&sr=1-2

 

https://www.amazon.com/Nonlinear-Dynamics-Chaos-Applications-Nonlinearity-ebook/dp/B07BMB5P15/ref=sr_1_4?crid=PW2JE69PZO96&keywords=steven+strogatz&qid=1562465451&s=books&sprefix=Steven+stroga%2Cstripbooks%2C188&sr=1-4

 

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, Dynasty said:

 

They're like a doomsday cult. 

 

I don't get it. I can look out my window and the grass is green, birds are chirping, squirrels playing, the sky is clear, alls well for the most part. But according to the enviro-doomsday-cult the skies are covered in dark clouds of smoke and acid rain is falling everywhere.  

They don't want you being all reasonable , coming to your own conclusions and rejecting the BS narrative that the sky is falling down. 

You are correct, things are Ok.

Yes there is incremental change over time, as there always has been. 

 

Ice cores indicate roundabout the birth of the country, we had some extra cold winter's...., 

the settlement of Greenland was during a warm period....

there have been plagues and earthquakes ....

And one thing has always been constant, things vary back and forth.

 

The idea of the narrative is to destroy the United States out of envy, greed ,and resentment.

 

AOC wants to get rid of cars and planes, DeBlasio wants to get rid of hotdogs and skyscrapers, and the climate nuts want you to hate yourself as much as they do.

 

Do you think AOC rode a horse down to the border? Do you think DeBlasio only eats food he grew organically on a farm, perhaps you might think Sanders and Gore actually are poor beggars, and that Pelosi lives in an unwalled off tent.

Maybe they all spin their own cloth. 

😉. 

Ummm no,

Of course not! Who has the least inkling that they live like they preach for everybody else. 

 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Stosh

[Dynasty]

21 minutes ago, Stosh said:

The idea of the narrative is to destroy the United States out of envy, greed ,and resentment.

 

It's that parasite from the 1950s the marxists introduced into the US to destroy us from within.  They've been pretty successful. 

 

And now that enough people have caught on, they want to shut down free speech by equating free speech with Nazism. 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Dynasty

[ralis]

18 minutes ago, Dynasty said:

 

It's that parasite from the 1950s the marxists introduced into the US to destroy us from within.  They've been pretty successful. 

 

And now that enough people have caught on, they want to shut down free speech by equating free speech with Nazism. 

 

All you and Stosh offer is derision based on fear mongering emotional arguments as opposed to contributing substantive arguments. Such is the definition of trolling. 

[Dynasty]

Fear mongering? 

 

Thats exactly what what agw is! 

[ralis]

1 minute ago, Dynasty said:

Fear mongering? 

 

Thats exactly what what agw is! 

 

Why not post your analysis of AGW? Or, will you continue trolling?

[Dynasty]

Where has the sea or ocean levels risen?

 

According to Al Gore, inventor of the internet and climate scammer, NYC was supposed to be underwater a few years ago.

 

Were the climate models really that wrong, or could it be the whole thing is a giant scam to create an afraid compliant population?

 

 

[ralis]

11 minutes ago, Dynasty said:

Where has the sea or ocean levels risen?

 

According to Al Gore, inventor of the internet and climate scammer, NYC was supposed to be underwater a few years ago.

 

Were the climate models really that wrong, or could it be the whole thing is a giant scam to create an afraid compliant population?

 

 

 

That is not an analysis. Ocean levels are rising which is well documented. Sea levels are rising asymmetrically. E.g. Miami Fla. 

 

I have no problem with free speech, but several of us have degrees in scientific fields and will express factual research which is defined as free speech. 

Edited July 7, 2019 by ralis

[Stosh]

7 hours ago, ralis said:

 

All you and Stosh offer is derision based on fear mongering emotional arguments as opposed to contributing substantive arguments. Such is the definition of trolling. 

Oh no Sir, there is no fear mongering on this side.. although that is a good idea.,, but,, How can we scare people about things really being Ok?

Y'all seem to ignore any facts presented, so it is useless to dredge up new ones.  You just do not attend to the facts at hand.

Back when I was a kid, we were told by the same folks, to worry about the oncoming ice age. Then they switched to global warming, and recently ,the boogyman has become 'climate change'.

That means the predictions Were wrong, or they Are wrong ,so your side's credibility is bunk.

 

Your side will Pooh Pooh the simplest of facts and March ahead anyway because you need something contrarian to stand for.

We want you to come back to the fold. 

[joeblast]

14 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

yeah it's quantum mechanics

no, its "we couldnt come close to proving our point, now we need to get more creative in how we present things to try and show you that co2 AGW is indeed unpossible to be falsified"

 

now please, tell us again about how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes

Edited July 7, 2019 by joeblast

[Dynasty]

I did some research on Miami. 

 

Built on a mangrove swamp that was 6" under water.  The city is sinking. 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Dynasty

[ralis]

7 minutes ago, Dynasty said:

I did some research on Miami. 

 

Built on a mangrove swamp that was 6" under water.  The city is sinking. 

 

Link?

[joeblast]

9 hours ago, ralis said:

 

That is not an analysis. Ocean levels are rising which is well documented. Sea levels are rising asymmetrically. E.g. Miami Fla. 

 

I have no problem with free speech, but several of us have degrees in scientific fields and will express factual research which is defined as free speech. 

If the sea levels were rising asymmetrically, then that is more an indication that the land itself is changing height as opposed to the seas.

 

Which did actually happen when the great year's winter was over and the glaciers in the north melted, the land rose there and sank elsewhere.  Randall Carlson has some good presentations on evidence for this in northern Canada.

 

I mean really, follow first principles and if that asymmetrical rise is happening, where must it come from? 

 

Of course then again, asking for first principles to be followed when the context touches the climate...we always wind up finding ourselves arguing with those who are damned sure tertiary order effects can swamp out a first order process, so we just start ass backwards right from the getgo.

[ralis]

1 hour ago, joeblast said:

If the sea levels were rising asymmetrically, then that is more an indication that the land itself is changing height as opposed to the seas.

 

Which did actually happen when the great year's winter was over and the glaciers in the north melted, the land rose there and sank elsewhere.  Randall Carlson has some good presentations on evidence for this in northern Canada.

 

I mean really, follow first principles and if that asymmetrical rise is happening, where must it come from? 

 

Of course then again, asking for first principles to be followed when the context touches the climate...we always wind up finding ourselves arguing with those who are damned sure tertiary order effects can swamp out a first order process, so we just start ass backwards right from the getgo.

 

If I remember correctly you were a freshman college dropout? If not, detail your curriculum vitae? My reason for asking is that you insert terms that are generally used in scientific writing.

 

Randall Carlson is supposed to be taken seriously?

 

Ocean levels are not symmetrical in that water pressure varies thus causing varied sea levels.

[joeblast]

Just now, ralis said:

Ocean levels are not symmetrical in that water pressure varies thus causing varied sea levels.

LMAO - that's sophomore, mf'er, I had a son to support and having back surgery during my second semester wound up preventing me from being able to stay in electrical engineering (being out for a month D'd a prereq) and I took a path that would give more immediate benefits and put food on the table.  life choices, we all have to make 'em.  but regardless, its quite like you to shy away from all the holes that get pointed out in things you write, and when you write something nonsensical and get called out for it, you take offense at that, too.  it would seem that the only places you dont get offended are places where there is perfect homogeneity of thought and conduct - a perfect product of bankster prescription for controlled, compliant citizenry that will believe anything that the cognoscenti cast from above.  me, I consistently change the ways things are done with tasks I am given because I think freely and outside of the box where necessary, and almost always discover new and better ways to do things.

 

 

you expect to be taken remotely seriously, when anything that disagrees with your programming is automatically not taken seriously, much less even examined or given much more than a neuron's firing to raise the hand towards things that disagree with banksterprogramming.  double funnies, because you dont even recognize that your programming is bankster and robber baron funded and crafted.

 

do you really expect me to take you seriously when you jump away from substantive things every single time?  puh-leeze....I give you opportunities here and there to act like a human being and not like a progressive drone but you fail the joeblast turing test every time.

[ralis]

9 minutes ago, joeblast said:

LMAO - that's sophomore, mf'er, I had a son to support and having back surgery during my second semester wound up preventing me from being able to stay in electrical engineering (being out for a month D'd a prereq) and I took a path that would give more immediate benefits and put food on the table.  life choices, we all have to make 'em.  but regardless, its quite like you to shy away from all the holes that get pointed out in things you write, and when you write something nonsensical and get called out for it, you take offense at that, too.  it would seem that the only places you dont get offended are places where there is perfect homogeneity of thought and conduct - a perfect product of bankster prescription for controlled, compliant citizenry that will believe anything that the cognoscenti cast from above.  me, I consistently change the ways things are done with tasks I am given because I think freely and outside of the box where necessary, and almost always discover new and better ways to do things.

 

 

you expect to be taken remotely seriously, when anything that disagrees with your programming is automatically not taken seriously, much less even examined or given much more than a neuron's firing to raise the hand towards things that disagree with banksterprogramming.  double funnies, because you dont even recognize that your programming is bankster and robber baron funded and crafted.

 

do you really expect me to take you seriously when you jump away from substantive things every single time?  puh-leeze....I give you opportunities here and there to act like a human being and not like a progressive drone but you fail the joeblast turing test every time.

 

I spent five years in the military (1970-1975) and when I was honorably discharged went to The Ohio State University for seven years and graduated in 1983. I also had a child to support from my previous marriage and worked on the side to pay my way through school.

 

I was discharged with a disability which has no known cure that still haunts me to this very day! Please spare me the indignation! 

[joeblast]

lol please spare me the straw men and myriad other assorted fallacies, this aint a dick measuring contest here...you're just trying to get away from substantive things where you only have hot air, indoctrinated groupthink, and statistical bastardizations to back up the unfalsifiable conjecture known as co2 catastrophe ism

 

it makes me feel better that I drove a v8 engine to buy this huge porterhouse steak cooked just barely bleeding rare medium rare, and the cow farted mightily its whole lifetime to produce this delicious steak for me

[Lost in Translation]

And now for something completely different...

 

Quote

GORE’S 'GLOBAL WARMING MENTOR,' IN HIS OWN WORDS

JANUARY 1, 2000

By S. Fred Singer

 

If Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius is the grandfather of greenhouse warming (ca. 1897), then oceanographer Roger Revelle is certainly its father.

If Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius is the grandfather of greenhouse warming (ca. 1897), then oceanographer Roger Revelle is certainly its father.

 

Revelle, who died in 1991, started the remarkable series of measurements of atmospheric CO2 during the Intergovernmental Geophysical Year in 1957. As a visiting professor at Harvard University, he taught a freshman course attended by then-student Al Gore. In his frightening best-seller, Earth in the Balance, Gore claims Revelle as his mentor.

 

If you know the book, you may be interested in what mentor/scientist Revelle said about global warming. It will make you less frightened.

OMNI interview

 

In March 1984--15 years ago, mind you--Omni magazine published an extensive interview with Revelle.

 

Omni: A problem that has occupied your attention for many years is the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which could cause the Earth's climate to become warmer. Is this actually happening?

 

Revelle: I estimate that the total increase [in CO2] over the past hundred years has been about 21 percent. But whether the increase will lead to a significant rise in global temperature, we can't absolutely say.

 

Omni: [If it happens], what will the warming of the Earth mean to us?

 

Revelle: There may be lots of effects. Increased CO2 in the air acts like a fertilizer for plants. . . . you get more plant growth. Increasing CO2 levels also affect water transpiration, causing plants to close their pores and sweat less. That means plants will be able to grow in drier climates.

 

Omni: Does the increase in CO2 have anything to do with people saying the weather is getting worse?

 

Revelle: People are always saying the weather's getting worse. Actually, the CO2 increase is predicted to temper weather extremes.

Revelle’s letters

 

In a July 18, 1988, letter to then-Senator Tim Wirth, Revelle cautions that "we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer. It is not yet obvious that this summer's hot weather and drought are the result of a global climatic change or simply an example of the uncertainties of climate variability. My own feeling is that we had better wait another ten years before making confident predictions."

 

Revelle had made an even stronger statement just a few days earlier, in a July 14, 1988 letter to Congressman Jim Bates: "Most scientists familiar with the subject are not yet willing to bet that the climate this year is the result of 'greenhouse warming.' As you very well know, climate is highly variable from year to year, and the causes of these variations are not at all well understood. My own personal belief is that we should wait another ten or twenty years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways."

Revelle’s writings

In the premiere issue of Cosmos, in 1991, Revelle and coauthors S.F. Singer and C. Starr contributed a brief essay, “What to do about greenhouse warming: Look before you leap.” The three write: “Drastic, precipitous and, especially, unilateral steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective.”

 

They continue, “Stringent controls enacted now would be economically devastating, particularly for developing countries for whom reduced energy consumption would mean slower rates of economic growth without being able to delay greatly the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Yale economist William Nordhaus, one of the few who have been trying to deal quantitatively with the economics of the greenhouse effect, has pointed out that ‘. . . those who argue for strong measures to slow greenhouse warming have reached their conclusion without any discernible analysis of the costs and benefits.’”

 

Revelle and his colleagues conclude, “It would be prudent to complete the ongoing and recently expanded research so that we will know what we are doing before we act. ‘Look before you leap’ may still be good advice.”

 

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/gores-global-warming-mentor-in-his-own-words

 

Granted, this article is old, but it is still incredibly important. Revelle, credited by Al Gore as his mentor and inspiration to become a climate change activist, has himself stated that the issue is too complex to know for certain how, and to what extent, human actions are contributing to global warming, but he cautions that unilateral actions taken by wealthy countries would not only do nothing to ease climate change globally, they would only succeed in bankrupting the western world. And to implement policies globally would be catastrophic to developing countries that depend upon cheap and proven sources of energy to build their economies.

 

It seems to me we are far better served by using our minds and economies learning how to adapt to climate change than in trying to control it.

[ralis]

14 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

And now for something completely different...

 

 

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/gores-global-warming-mentor-in-his-own-words

 

Granted, this article is old, but it is still incredibly important. Revelle, credited by Al Gore as his mentor and inspiration to become a climate change activist, has himself stated that the issue is too complex to know for certain how, and to what extent, human actions are contributing to global warming, but he cautions that unilateral actions taken by wealthy countries would not only do nothing to ease climate change globally, they would only succeed in bankrupting the western world. And to implement policies globally would be catastrophic to developing countries that depend upon cheap and proven sources of energy to build their economies.

 

It seems to me we are far better served by using our minds and economies learning how to adapt to climate change than in trying to control it.

 

Fred Singer is supported by fossil fuel lobbyists with a clear bias.