Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming a Hoax?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    Not even wrong...
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Jan 18;102(3):690-4. Epub 2005 Jan 10.
    Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California.
    Ward JK1, Harris JM, Cerling TE, Wiedenhoeft A, Lott MJ, Dearing MD, Coltrain JB, Ehleringer JR.
    Author information
    Abstract
    The Rancho La Brea tar pit fossil collection includes Juniperus (C3) wood specimens that 14C date between 7.7 and 55 thousand years (kyr) B.P., providing a constrained record of plant response for southern California during the last glacial period. Atmospheric CO2 concentration ([CO2]) ranged between 180 and 220 ppm during glacial periods, rose to approximately 280 ppm before the industrial period, and is currently approaching 380 ppm in the modern atmosphere. Here we report on delta13C of Juniperus wood cellulose, and show that glacial and modern trees were operating at similar leaf-intercellular [CO2](ci)/atmospheric [CO2](ca) values. As a result, glacial trees were operating at ci values much closer to the CO2-compensation point for C3 photosynthesis than modern trees, indicating that glacial trees were undergoing carbon starvation. In addition, we modeled relative humidity by using delta18O of cellulose from the same Juniperus specimens and found that glacial humidity was approximately 10% higher than that in modern times, indicating that differences in vapor-pressure deficits did not impose additional constrictions on ci/ca in the past. By scaling ancient ci values to plant growth by using modern relationships, we found evidence that C3 primary productivity was greatly diminished in southern California during the last glacial period.
    The argument originally posted (that current CO2 levels are just above the minimum threshold for life) is demonstrably false: by no means would curbing greenhouse emissions threaten the ecological balance, which is already being usurped by current trends!

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...955138/?no-ist
    Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
      https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html



      The rate of warming then was comparatively slow relative to today:

      [IM..Fraudulent Hockey Stick Spaghetti Graph..MG]
      Wrong.

      Results indicate that late 20th century warming has not been unique within the context of the past 750 years.


      There is nothing anomalous about the rate of warming over the past 10, 50, 100, 150 or 500 years...






      Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian
      It's not just CO2, there are several other substances including Methane and N2O, not to mention water:

      [IMG...]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png[/IMG]
      The contribution of CH4 to the greenhouse effect is minuscule and humans aren't a significant source of atmospheric water vapor... Nor has atmospheric water vapor been increasing.







      Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian
      NASA directly states that Venus' runaway greenhouse effect is what makes it hotter than Mercury:

      http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...01/ast20feb_1/
      NASA says a lot of things that are false, misleading, wrong and/or unverifiable.

      There is no analogy between Venus and Earth as it pertains to the greenhouse effect.




      Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian
      "Distribution of the world's resources" is about mitigating the effects of greenhouse emissions through the limitation of fossil fuel consumption and development of alternative energy sources, not communism.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_F...essment_Report
      This is actually written in English...
      The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

      That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

      That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

      Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

      De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

      First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/1...alth%E2%80%9D/
      Last edited by The Doctor; 12 Oct 15, 11:50.
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • Regarding Venus, a couple of other considerations;

        QUOTE:
        " Above the dense CO2 layer are thick clouds consisting mainly of sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid droplets.[62][63] These clouds reflect and scatter about 90% of the sunlight that falls on them back into space ...
        .... "

        The sulfur compounds greatly reduce the relative amount of solar energy absorbed by the Venus atmosphere, making another area of non-comparable to Earth.

        "Scrubber~scrubbing" technologies remove sulfur dioxide from burned "fossil"/hydro-carbon fuels preventing it forming sulfuric acid (acid rain) in the atmosphere, but produce CO2 and H2O, both "greenhouse gases" in the process.

        Given the choice would you rather have SO2 or a mix of CO2 and H2O?

        As also mentioned previously, mass/density on the scale of 92-93 times that of Earth's atmosphere also makes this a case of comparing prunes to boulders.

        Then there is this;
        QUOTE:
        " All the planets of the Solar System orbit the Sun in an anti-clockwise direction as viewed from above Earth's north pole. Most planets also rotate on their axes in an anti-clockwise direction, but Venus rotates clockwise (called "retrograde" rotation) once every 243 Earth days—the slowest rotation of any planet. Because its rotation is so slow, it is highly spherical.[88] A Venusian sidereal day thus lasts longer than a Venusian year (243 versus 224.7 Earth days). ... "
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

        This would strongly suggest that Venus experienced a physical pole shift while retaining it's rotational energy, hence the spin "backwards", but obviously slowed, likely a result of the huge amount of energy used to flip the planet about 180 degrees. Would seem the real reason for atmospheric changes and extreme heat is the after-effects of the pole flipping event.

        Mars likewise has an atmosphere that is nearly 96% CO2, but at a mass/density about 1/100th of Earth's which is rather thin for the greenhouse effect to show much result to that cold planet;
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars

        Getting back to Earth, current CO2 ratio to everything else in the atmosphere is about 1 to 2500. Note that even including methane and NO2 we still have this ratio of "greenhouse gases" to everything else. What has not been proven, or replicated in laboratory, is how the "heat" retained by the one part causes an equal increase in the 2499 other parts (or any significant and measurable increase for that matter).

        Nor is there a convincing case made that climate warming is worse than climate cooling. Many gorebots seem to think that climate temperature is like a thermostat that can be set and will remain stable at that setting.
        Last edited by G David Bock; 12 Oct 15, 16:50. Reason: quote marks on quotes
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
        “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
        Present Current Events are the Future's History

        Comment


        • Similar to a post in another thread, however viewing the video clip (just short of 10 minutes length) is worth seeing a liar in action. In this case the prez of the Sierra Club being questioned by Senator Cruz, and we see political dogma confronted by scientific data and as could be expected, "politics" tries to ham-fist it's way over science;
          http://patriotvideos.net/watch-ted-c...-with-science/
          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
          “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
          Present Current Events are the Future's History

          Comment


          • Deja vous all over again...

            They're baaccckkkk! The warnings of rising seas drowning millions are back from the apocalypse!

            http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/top...zB&ocid=SMSDHP

            TORONTO, Oct 12 - Millions of people in the United States could be forced to abandon their homes if planet-warming emissions continue unabated through 2100, pushing global sea levels up by more than 14 feet (4.2 meters), researchers said.

            In the United States, between 20 and 31 million people are living on land that would be submerged by rising oceans without aggressive cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, according to a study published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
            I guess they face the same fate millions of "climate refugees" faced by 2010 by the same idiot dire predictions from the IPCC about rising seas.

            If any message needs "hammer(ing) home" it's that these "scientists" are morons. They keep making these dire predictions and calling for carbon reductions and then their predications are as accurate as those of the late Jeane Dixon, psychic extraordinaire who couldn't even manage a 50-50 success rate.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              They're baaccckkkk! The warnings of rising seas drowning millions are back from the apocalypse!

              http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/top...zB&ocid=SMSDHP



              I guess they face the same fate millions of "climate refugees" faced by 2010 by the same idiot dire predictions from the IPCC about rising seas.

              If any message needs "hammer(ing) home" it's that these "scientists" are morons. They keep making these dire predictions and calling for carbon reductions and then their predications are as accurate as those of the late Jeane Dixon, psychic extraordinaire who couldn't even manage a 50-50 success rate.
              Don't be so harsh they just need validation in their lives.
              We hunt the hunters

              Comment


              • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                Don't be so harsh they just need validation in their lives.
                That validation shouldn't include Trillion$$$ in GDP and GDW (Gross Domestic Wealth) LOST via unrealistic industrial reductions combined with reduced mechanization and other 21st tech of food production deactivations to reduce an as yet to be proven "lethal" excess of CO2.

                Reality and Real World Viability Conditions factored in, Earth is far from a critical load of CO2 ~ rather we have a critical load of academic hubris faux science in political agenda drapery crying, "the sky is falling", etc ...
                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                Present Current Events are the Future's History

                Comment


                • Boron isotope proxy are now confirming the AGW hypothesis. Here are two relevant papers.


                  A critical evaluation of the boron isotope-pH proxy

                  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...16703704006088

                  Comment on “A critical evaluation of the boron isotope-pH proxy

                  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...16703707000294

                  I have a copy of the first paper if you can't find it anywhere else pm me and I can send it to you.

                  Here is the news story behind the "debate"

                  Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report

                  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1008152242.htm
                  We hunt the hunters

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                    Boron isotope proxy are now confirming the AGW hypothesis. Here are two relevant papers.


                    A critical evaluation of the boron isotope-pH proxy

                    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...16703704006088

                    Comment on “A critical evaluation of the boron isotope-pH proxy

                    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...16703707000294

                    I have a copy of the first paper if you can't find it anywhere else pm me and I can send it to you.

                    Here is the news story behind the "debate"

                    Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report

                    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1008152242.htm
                    Neither of these papers confirm anything about AGW.

                    The first is from 2005 and discusses the problematic nature of estimating past oceanic pH levels. Estimations of oceanic pH levels, both past and present, are always problematic because pH is not a conservative quantity (it is heavily influenced by pressure, temperature, salinity and a wide range of factors unrelated to acidity).

                    The latter is from 2009, provably wrong and wouldn't confirm the AGW hypotheses even if it was right.

                    It is possible, but unlikely, that the current CO2 concentration is higher than any time in the past 800,000 years. However, there is no evidence that the current level is the highest in the last 5 million years, much less 15 million.

                    Last edited by The Doctor; 18 Oct 15, 07:09.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      It is possible, but unlikely, that the current CO2 concentration is higher than any time in the past 800,000 years. However, there is no evidence that the current level is the highest in the last 5 million years, much less 15 million.
                      If that is true how do they get away with making the claims they do and not be challenged?
                      We hunt the hunters

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                        If that is true how do they get away with making the claims they do and not be challenged?
                        They are frequently challenged, however...

                        Firstly, the CO2 claim was from a press release... not a peer-reviewed paper. Press releases and subsequent articles are not peer-reviewed.

                        Secondly, "peer-reviewed" does not mean that the paper is correct, accurate or good science. It just means it merited publication.

                        Thirdly, the only way to issue a peer-reviewed direct challenge to an idiotic peer-reviewed paper is to get the approval of the idiotic peers who approved the idiotic peer-reviewed paper to be published.
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                          They are frequently challenged, however...

                          Firstly, the CO2 claim was from a press release... not a peer-reviewed paper. Press releases and subsequent articles are not peer-reviewed.

                          Secondly, "peer-reviewed" does not mean that the paper is correct, accurate or good science. It just means it merited publication.

                          Thirdly, the only way to issue a peer-reviewed direct challenge to an idiotic peer-reviewed paper is to get the approval of the idiotic peers who approved the idiotic peer-reviewed paper to be published.
                          Have to spread more rep about, but this should be a "sticky" (which it likely won't) so please archive and reuse often. Too many have an image of "peer review" which doesn't match reality.
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                          “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                          Present Current Events are the Future's History

                          Comment


                          • Yawn!

                            ordinary people simply beleive that which they are told.

                            I beleive the doctor, simply because he's the most intelligent of us all. Others are in the same boat, but not based on intelligence. They beleive people that present the shiniest argument that dovetails with their own innate assertions. People that believe Al Gore are also the ones most likely to have voted for him, because of the image he presents.

                            There is so much conflicting in the way of viewpoints, and in my view, so much research thats already reached a conclusion before they begin to disect whatever evidence they put forward.

                            Can we have a truly neutral view, in my lifetime please? The Doc seems to come closer to this than anyone, not having any predisposed agenda from what I can see.

                            But i am willing to be swayed either way. and it's climate change Know Nothings like me that the intellectuals have to convince, because thats where all the votes are, and therefore, all the research dollars.

                            I also like the posts of Bob, David Bock and others.

                            Thats the trouble. EVERYONE, in their own right, makes a convincing argument. But not everyone can be spot on.

                            I'm going for the Doc based on reputation, and a lack of agenda. People vote the same way. They don't know anything worth a damn about the issues, and don't have a clue about the real personalities of the candidates. They just vote for the one that seems to have the best manner and bearing. Why was Kennedy elected over nixon? Because he came across better in public...(and a bit of vote buying by old Joe for the vital california primary)

                            The winner of the climate change debate will be suitably shiny as well. Its become POLITICS rather than pure science, which is why the Doctor gets the nod. He's impartial.
                            My Articles, ALMOST LIVE, exclusive to The Armchair!

                            Soviet Submarines in WW2....The Mythology of Shiloh....(Edited) Both Sides of the Warsaw Ghetto
                            GULAG Glossary....Who Really Killed The Red Baron?....Pearl Harbor At 75
                            Lincoln-Douglas Debates

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                              Have to spread more rep about, but this should be a "sticky" (which it likely won't) so please archive and reuse often. Too many have an image of "peer review" which doesn't match reality.
                              We really aren't talking about the peer review system anymore but what would have to amount to a conspiracy.
                              We hunt the hunters

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Drusus Nero View Post
                                Yawn!

                                ordinary people simply beleive that which they are told.

                                I beleive the doctor, simply because he's the most intelligent of us all.
                                .
                                .
                                <snip>
                                .
                                .
                                He's impartial.

                                +1 for making my morning.

                                How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                                Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X