EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sun Sep 15, 2019 10:46 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1345 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 ... 90  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2016 10:36 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 806
And, the beat goes on.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2016/05/scie ... rowth.html

Quote:
Plant life across the world has improved and increased profoundly, everywhere, due to the higher levels of atmospheric CO2, in combination with the modest global warming since the Little Ice Age.

The most recent study confirming this benefit to the biosphere pinpoints exceptional growth and health for older forests in the Southern Hemisphere - specifically, the Cordilleras region of southern Chile.


Quote:
"Urrutia-Jalabert et al. performed a series of analyses on tree ring cores they obtained from long-lived Fitzroya cupressoides stands, which they say “may be the slowest-growing and longest-lived high biomass forest stands in the world.” ... the authors write “the sustained positive trend in tree growth is striking in this old stand, suggesting that the giant trees in this forest have been accumulating biomass at a faster rate since the beginning of the [20th] century.” And coupling that finding with the 32 percent increase in water use efficiency over the same time period, Urrutia-Jalabert et al. conclude the trees “are actually responding to environmental change.” ... the researchers state “we believe that this increasing growth trend…has likely been driven by some combination of CO2 and/or surface radiation increases,” adding that “pronounced changes in CO2 have occurred in parallel with changes in climate, making it difficult to distinguish between both effects.”"


So, yes fence sitters lets stop this benefit and wring every last CO2 molecule out of the system just because a bunch of leftist knuckldraggers insist on it. Make sense?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2016 10:39 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 806
And, while we're on the subject of trees.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2016/05/unim ... -past.html

Quote:
The vast majority of paleo-climate studies have been unequivocal - there are multiple past periods of warmer than current temperatures when low atmospheric CO2 levels existed. Empirical evidence, such as the Greenland ice cores, point to three specific Holocene periods of ancient historical warming: the Minoan, the Roman, and the Medieval eras.

A new research study focusing on the U.S. Western area provides unimpeachable scientific data confirming warmer the temperatures that the previous studies have found.


Quote:
"In a recent treeline study from central Colorado, Carrara and McGeehin (2015) employed a combination of 23 radiocarbon ages and annual ring counts from 18 Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine (Pinus aristata) remnants found above the local present-day limits of such trees near the Continental Divide in central Colorado, which work revealed that the majority of the tree remnants "were established above the present-day limit of bristlecone pine from prior to 2700 cal. years BP to no later than about 1200 cal. years BP." ... "...has also been found and described in a number of other studies cited by Carrara and McGeehin, namely, those of LaMarche and Mooney (1967), LaMarche and Mooney (1972), LaMarche (1973), Petersen and Mehringer (1976), Scuderi (1987), Carrara et al. (1992), Fall (1997), Lloyd and Graumlich (1997), Doerner (2007), Benedict et al. (2008), Carrara (2011), Madole (2012), Lee and Benedict (2012), Lee et al. (2014) and Morgan et al. (2014)." ..."Clearly, therefore, there exists a wealth of real-world data from the western United States that testifies of the fact that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about that region's current mean yearly maximum and minimum temperatures...".


Quote:
This should come as no surprise since both empirical and anecdotal evidence establish that natural climate change, with wide variation and extremes, has been a constant for humanity since the beginning.

Take home global warming (and cooling) message: the climate is not stable and never will be - natural climate change rules.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2016 10:43 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 806
I always knew this was the case.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2016/05/gree ... -king.html

Quote:
Can green entrepreneurs and corporations be successful without government handouts?

As this article discusses, Elon Musk is proving that having a 'green' business model is literally not sustainable without massive subsidies from the government.

"Tesla is a newfangled take on the welfare queen. Or more accurately, the EBT card – which is designed to look like a credit card. To have the appearance of a legitimate transaction … as opposed to a welfare payment...Underneath the glitz and showmanship, that’s what all of Musk’s “businesses” are about. They all depend entirely on government – that is, on taxpayer “help” – in order to survive...Without that “help,” none of Musk’s Tesla’s could survive."


Quote:
As Musk and his ilk continue to line their pockets with "green" from average taxpayers, it is important to remember that it is the Democrat and Republican establishment types who have encouraged and allowed this to happen.

And, also remember it's the the mainstream media and the climate alarmist science community that created these green-crony hucksters sucksters - they too should be held accountable for what has happened. Simply, it is their constant hype of catastrophic alarmism that elected officials were able to hide behind as billions of taxpayer dollars were being sucked into non-viable commercial solutions instead of the basic research that is needed to pursue superior green technologies.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2016 10:44 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21361
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
And, while we're on the subject of trees.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2016/05/unim ... -past.html

Quote:
The vast majority of paleo-climate studies have been unequivocal - there are multiple past periods of warmer than current temperatures when low atmospheric CO2 levels existed. Empirical evidence, such as the Greenland ice cores, point to three specific Holocene periods of ancient historical warming: the Minoan, the Roman, and the Medieval eras.

A new research study focusing on the U.S. Western area provides unimpeachable scientific data confirming warmer the temperatures that the previous studies have found.


Quote:
"In a recent treeline study from central Colorado, Carrara and McGeehin (2015) employed a combination of 23 radiocarbon ages and annual ring counts from 18 Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine (Pinus aristata) remnants found above the local present-day limits of such trees near the Continental Divide in central Colorado, which work revealed that the majority of the tree remnants "were established above the present-day limit of bristlecone pine from prior to 2700 cal. years BP to no later than about 1200 cal. years BP." ... "...has also been found and described in a number of other studies cited by Carrara and McGeehin, namely, those of LaMarche and Mooney (1967), LaMarche and Mooney (1972), LaMarche (1973), Petersen and Mehringer (1976), Scuderi (1987), Carrara et al. (1992), Fall (1997), Lloyd and Graumlich (1997), Doerner (2007), Benedict et al. (2008), Carrara (2011), Madole (2012), Lee and Benedict (2012), Lee et al. (2014) and Morgan et al. (2014)." ..."Clearly, therefore, there exists a wealth of real-world data from the western United States that testifies of the fact that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about that region's current mean yearly maximum and minimum temperatures...".


Quote:
This should come as no surprise since both empirical and anecdotal evidence establish that natural climate change, with wide variation and extremes, has been a constant for humanity since the beginning.

Take home global warming (and cooling) message: the climate is not stable and never will be - natural climate change rules.


Comparing a region to a global impact is less than dishonest. Let me compare Death Valley to old data from Barrows, Alaska to "prove" how much warmer it is and we would see the hypocrisy from this approach.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2016 10:45 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21361
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
I always knew this was the case.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2016/05/gree ... -king.html

Quote:
Can green entrepreneurs and corporations be successful without government handouts?

As this article discusses, Elon Musk is proving that having a 'green' business model is literally not sustainable without massive subsidies from the government.

"Tesla is a newfangled take on the welfare queen. Or more accurately, the EBT card – which is designed to look like a credit card. To have the appearance of a legitimate transaction … as opposed to a welfare payment...Underneath the glitz and showmanship, that’s what all of Musk’s “businesses” are about. They all depend entirely on government – that is, on taxpayer “help” – in order to survive...Without that “help,” none of Musk’s Tesla’s could survive."


Quote:
As Musk and his ilk continue to line their pockets with "green" from average taxpayers, it is important to remember that it is the Democrat and Republican establishment types who have encouraged and allowed this to happen.

And, also remember it's the the mainstream media and the climate alarmist science community that created these green-crony hucksters sucksters - they too should be held accountable for what has happened. Simply, it is their constant hype of catastrophic alarmism that elected officials were able to hide behind as billions of taxpayer dollars were being sucked into non-viable commercial solutions instead of the basic research that is needed to pursue superior green technologies.


A BLOG is the reference? REALLY!?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2016 10:46 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 806
150,000 HITS!!!!!!!!!
:lol: 8) :clap: :mrgreen: :lol: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :lolno: :lolno: :lolno: :lolno: :lolno: :lolno: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> :mrgreen: \:D/ =D> :lol: 8) :angel: :- :- :- :- :- :- \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> 8)
:lol: 8) :clap: :mrgreen: :lol: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :lolno: :lolno: :lolno: :lolno: :lolno: :lolno: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> :mrgreen: \:D/ =D> :lol: 8) :angel: :- :- :- :- :- :- \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> 8) :lol: 8) :clap: :mrgreen: :lol: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :lolno: :lolno: :lolno: :lolno: :lolno: :lolno: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> :mrgreen: \:D/ =D> :lol: 8) :angel: :- :- :- :- :- :- \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> 8) :lol: 8) :clap: :mrgreen: :lol: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :lolno: :lolno: :lolno: :lolno: :lolno: :lolno: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> :mrgreen: \:D/ =D> :lol: 8) :angel: :- :- :- :- :- :- \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ \:D/ =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> 8)

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 21, 2016 10:52 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 806
This is a new one. No one said the Cultists lack imagination.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2016/04/more ... money.html

Quote:
Climate change and global warming scientists seeking grants for continuing research use computer model simulations to fabricate justify why they need more budget monies from the government - it is a constant doomsday whining that inflicts (and impacts) the entire science community.

The latest simulated calamity that is being tossed around as a doomsday scenario has the oceans being depleted of oxygen because of CO2, thus making marine life impossible.

As with all computer climate simulations, this is junk science that policymakers and the public have no need for. It's a disaster-distraction used to pretend that "scientists", with just a little more money (but always turns out being a whole lot more), will be able to quantify doomsday from natural climate reality - not very likely.

“Since oxygen concentrations in the ocean naturally vary depending on variations in winds and temperature at the surface, it’s been challenging to attribute any deoxygenation to climate change."

Objectively, this certainly appears to be just another case of ever money-desperate climate science sucking the oxygen out of all other scientific endeavors.


Quote:
Because, if it ain't ocean acidification that will kill of marine life, then for sure it's gotta be the speculative oxygen starvation that does the job, donchaknow!

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 22, 2016 11:09 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2677
Location: Central Colorado
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmL4t8TclGU

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2016 10:18 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 806
Or there is this.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/27/ ... tmosphere/

Surprise finding: Arctic Ocean methane does not reach the atmosphere

Quote:
250 methane flares release the climate gas methane from the seabed and into the Arctic Ocean. During the summer months this leads to an increased methane concentration in the ocean. But surprisingly, very little of the climate gas rising up through the sea reaches the atmosphere.

“Our results are exciting and controversial”, says senior scientist Cathrine Lund Myhre from NILU – Norwegian Institute for Air Research, who is cooperating with CAGE through MOCA project.

The results were published in Geophysical Research Letters.

The scientist performed simultaneous measurements close to seabed, in the ocean and in the atmosphere during an extensive ship and air campaign offshore Svalbard Archipelago in summer 2014. As of today, three independent models employing the marine and atmospheric measurements show that the methane emissions from the sea bed in the area did not significantly affect the atmosphere.


Quote:
Sea ice, the obvious obstacle to such emissions, is not found here in the summer. So what is stopping the methane? Emissions from the sea bed are after all clearly visible both on the seabed and in the water column.

“We are talking about 250 active methane seeps found at relatively shallow depths: 90 to 150 meters” says oceanographer Benedicte Ferré from CAGE.

According to her, it is the sea itself that adds obstacles to methane emissions to the atmosphere in the summer. The weather is generally calm during summer, with little wind. This leads to stratification of the water column whereby layers of different density form, much like oil over water.

This means there is no or low exchange of water masses between the surface layer and the layers below. A natural barrier occurs, acting as a ceiling, preventing the methane from reaching the surface.But this condition does not last forever: wind blowing over the ocean can mix these layers, causing this natural barrier to disappear. Thus the methane may break the surface and enter the atmosphere.


And, there is this.

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/05/s ... r-century/

Quote:
Scientists Recycling The Identical Scam Century After Century


In 1934, scientists said the Arctic is melting and Manhattan is going to drown.


Fence sitters don't react to the fear mongering.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:03 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 806
This is so choice. :mrgreen:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/10/ ... te-change/

Quote:
From the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation:

Dear Attorneys General,

You’re not stupid. Stupid people don’t graduate from law school.

Neither are you generally ignorant. You know lots of law.
Statue of Leonardo da Vinci: Milan Image via Wikipedia
Statue of Leonardo da Vinci: Milan. Image via Wikipedia

So, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and members of Attorneys General United for Clean Power, take no offense when I tell you that your intent to investigate and potentially prosecute, civilly or criminally, corporations, think tanks, and individuals for fraud, under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) or otherwise, because they question the causes, magnitude, risks, and benefits of global warming, and best responses to it, is a dead giveaway that you’re ignorant about climate science and related climate and energy policy.But the day of the “Renaissance man,” vastly learned across all fields of knowledge, is long gone. All intelligent and learned people are ignorant about some things.

I’ve thought this ever since you first went public, but an email from Ed Maibach, Professor in the Department of Communications and Director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University (GMU), to Jagadish Shukla, Professor of Climate Dynamics and president of the Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies and the Institute of Global Environment and Society at GMU, dated July 22, 2015, ironically makes the point:


I had breakfast with David Michaels today. He is currently the Director of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (in the US Department of Labor), and a former environmental health colleague of mine at George Washington University. He is an expert in the case against the tobacco industry.

His [sic] feels the odds of the DOJ [Department of Justice] pursuing this case against [the fossil fuel] industry are slim to none, because there are no easily quantifiable [health care] costs that the government can seek reimbursement for.

That said, I have no objection to our sending a letter to the President, our Maryland Senators and members of Congress …, with a cc to Senator [Sheldon] Whitehouse [D-RI], asking them to support Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

That’s ironic because it comes from one of the 20 signers of Shukla’s infamous letter to AG Lynch and the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy urging a RICO investigation similar to that against tobacco companies in the 1990s.

The ironies of Maibach’s email are obvious enough. He cites an expert who thinks the odds of DOJ’s acting “are slim to none,” yet signs a letter asking DOJ to do it. He knows why the odds are slim: “because there are no easily quantifiable … costs that the government can seek reimbursement for.” Yet he signs a letter saying, “We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world.”

But the chief irony I have in mind is that you, attorneys general—none of whom, presumably, is an expert in climate science or ecological biology or the economics and engineering of energy or any of the many other fields relevant to the controversy—have launched precisely the action Maibach reported Michaels said DOJ wouldn’t launch for lack of easily quantifiable costs.

Now, why would Michaels have said there were no easily quantifiable costs?

Because, unlike in the case of tobacco’s health risks, there are innumerable and enormous holes in the case (not for human contribution to global warming but) for manmade global warming dangerous enough to justify spending trillions of dollars reinventing the world’s energy system to mitigate it, particularly when competing use of those trillions might bring far greater benefit.

And you, intelligent and learned all, are ignorant of those enormous holes.

It’s not entirely your fault. Journalists have been delinquent in reporting them. Climate alarmists have worked hard to deprive dissenters of research funds, jobs, and publication while hiding their own scientific misconduct. And it is ever so much easier to tell a scary story to motivate the public than to unpack the gory details with all their uncertainties.

So here are a few recommendations for you to remedy your ignorance:
1.Start by getting a grasp of the basic science of climate change by reading former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chairman Sir John Houghton’sGlobal Warming: The Complete Briefing.
2.Then, to learn some of the reasons for doubting Houghton’s somewhat alarmist views, read The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists, by equally well-qualified climate scientist Roy W. Spencer.
3.If you’re brave, get into the weeds of why the IPCC said in its Third Assessment Report, “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible” (emphasis added), by reading Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming, by applied mathematician Christopher Essex and environmental economist and statistician Ross McKitrick. You’ve probably never heard of the Navier-Stokes equation, but it is unsolved (and a million-dollar prize awaits anyone who solves it), yet accurate long-term prediction of climate requires its solution.
4.Go beyond journalists’ breathless reports based on the biased and unrepresentative Summary for Policymakers and actually read the (mostly very good) thousands of pages of the main texts of the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC (including Working Group 3, whose predictions indicate countries poorest today are better off under warmer than cooler scenarios because in their models economic growth fueled by fossil fuels drives the warming). In them you’ll discover far more uncertainty than the SPM reveals.
5.Read the thousands of pages of the competing reports from the Nongovernmental [hence less politicized] International Panel on Climate Change.
6.Get acquainted with the meaning of “climate sensitivity” and why estimates of it—and consequently of all effects of global warming driven by human emissions of CO2 and other deceptively named “greenhouse gases”—have been declining over the years.
7.Learn a little about “energy density” and “power density” and how they relate to questions about the engineering and costs of various energy sources from Robert Bryce’s Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Futureand then about the costs of replacing fossil fuels as the source of roughly 85% of all the world’s energy with wind, solar, and other “renewable” options.

If you do these things, I don’t guarantee you’ll become skeptical of dangerous manmade global warming, but I do expect you’ll understand—because you’re smart—that the issues are far more complex than you thought, and certainly far too complex to be adjudicated in a court of law that needs to find “easily quantifiable costs” to justify a ruling.

You’ll also learn that honest people intelligent as yourselves—and maybe better informed—can disagree about the causes, magnitude, risks, and benefits of global warming, and best responses to it, without being mafia bosses. You’ll discover that what motivates us is far more our concern not to trap billions of people in poverty by denying them access to the abundant, reliable, affordable energy indispensable to lifting and keeping any society out of poverty.

And then maybe, too—before Congress takes you to the woodshed—you’ll decide to back off your potentially felonious conspiracy to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person … in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same,” for which you could be fined or imprisoned up to ten years, or both (18 U.S.C. 241).

Signed (italics denotes climate scientists; boldface denotes legal experts):

Timothy Ball, Ph.D. (Historical Climatology), University of London, England

Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., Founder and National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation

Charles Clough, M.S. (Atmospheric Science), Founder and Retired Chief of the US Army Atmospheric Effects Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD

Colonel John A. Eidsmoe, JD, Senior Counsel, Foundation for Moral Law, Professor of Constitutional Law & Criminal Procedure, Oak Brook College of Law & Government Policy

Christopher Essex, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario

Neil L. Frank, Ph.D. (Meteorology), Director, National Hurricane Center (1974–1987), Chief Meteorologist of KHOU-TV, Houston (1987–2008)

Rev. Peter Jones, Ph.D, Director, truthXchange

Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D. (Meteorology), former research scientist, Environment Canada, Expert Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report, 2007

Jamieson C. Keister, Ph.D. (Physics), retired research chemist, 3M Company

Kevin Lewis, J.D., Associate Professor of Theology & Law, Biola University

Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D., Department Chair and Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri

Prof. Dr. Vishal Mangalwadi, LLD, Director, Centre For Human Resource Development, Sam Higginbottom Institute for Agriculture, Technology, and Sciences, Allahabad (UP), India

Tracy Miller, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics, Grove City College

Ben Phillips, Ph.D., Associate Dean, Harvard School of Theological Studies, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Shawn Ritenour, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, Grove City College

Chris Skates, B.S., Environmental Chemist

Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. (Meteorology), Principal Research Scientist in Climatology, University of Alabama; former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center; U.S. Science Team leader, Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite

Timothy Terrell, Ph.D. (Economics), Associate Professor of Economics, Wofford College

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:03 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 806
Gosh damn it those pesky facts again!!!!

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/th ... ports.html

Quote:
Scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and many universities are at a loss to explain recent conflicting temperature trends from Earth’s oceans and atmosphere. It can be boiled down to this: temperatures of the Earth’s three big fluid systems are each trending in different directions. The temperature of the Pacific Ocean is rising, the temperature of the atmosphere has remained constant, and the temperature of the Atlantic Ocean is cooling.


Quote:
As further supporting evidence they cite previous research publications which supposedly prove that ancient atmospheric warming also melted the Greenland Ice Cap and cooled the northern portion of the Atlantic Ocean.

There are many problems with this explanation as summarized below.
1.The atmosphere has not warmed in 18.7 years according to the most accurate data derived from satellites. Even utilizing NASA’s recently “adjusted” atmospheric temperature data, there has only been very minor and uniform increases in the temperature during the last 18.7 years. Neither of these trends properly explains / fits the recent cooling of the entire Atlantic Ocean.
2.Recent research from NASA’s Operation Ice Bridge clearly shows that Greenland's ice mass loss is only occurring in areas immediately adjacent to the ocean. This perimeter-based ice loss is greatest in areas where the ice cap overlays known deep geological fault zones that are emitting geothermal heat onto the base of the ice cap. The interior portions of the Greenland Ice Cap are in ice mass balance. NASA admits they are not completely sure why the Operation Ice Bridge results do not fit into a nice neat global warming theory context.
3.The extent of Arctic Ocean sea ice has increased the last three years, and not decreased as predicted.
4.The Antarctic Ice Cap extent has increased steadily for thirty five years, and not decreased as predicted.
5.The ancient melting of the Greenland Ice cap is most likely related to ancient volcanic eruptions (see previous CCD post) and associated local geothermal heat flow, not paleo-atmospheric warming.
6.The true nature of what drives ocean heating and cooling is not well understood. It is likely a mixture of many forces including: variations in deep ocean geological heat and fluid flow, long-term variations in astronomical phenomenon, and long-term variations in major deep ocean currents.
7.Lastly, and most telling, by carefully examining the shallow SST (sea surface temperature) anomaly maps atop this article (Figure 1.), it becomes very apparent that the entire Atlantic Ocean is cooling, and not just in the northern portion of the Atlantic that is adjacent to Greenland. This strongly suggests that outflow of summertime Greenland Ice Cap melt water into the northern portion of the Atlantic Ocean is not the primary driving force behind cooling the entire Atlantic Ocean.

Many noted and well-intentioned climate scientists and universities are now starting to publicly admit that overwhelming amounts of new research indicates that the theory of man-made global warming does not properly explain many observed climate trends. It certainly does not explain why the temperatures of Earth’s three most dominant fluid systems—the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean and the atmosphere—are trending in different directions.

Reason dictates that a more balanced approach to studying climate trends is needed. Any approach needs to take into account the effects of natural variability and whether man is having a real influence. Let’s stop trying to force fit every observed climate occurrence, including cooling of the entire Atlantic Ocean, into a global warming context.

It’s time to jump off the consensus bandwagon!


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 10:01 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21361
Location: Southeastern US
http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topsto ... nweather11

Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, soared to 75 degrees (24 Celsius) Thursday – marking the warmest temperature ever recorded in the Arctic country during June. Nuuk sits on Greenland’s southwest coast, where the country’s warmest weather typically occurs.

The Danish Meteorological Institute has confirmed on a preliminary basis that the measurement would replace the previous record of 73.8 degrees (23.2 Celsius), which was set in Kangerlussuaq on June 15, in 2014. That temperature was also recorded in southwest Greenland about 200 miles (320 km) north of Nuuk.

John Cappelen, a senior climatologist at the DMI, told The Post that the warm weather was brought on by winds from the east that set up between high pressure over northeast Greenland and low pressure south of Greenland. When winds come from the east over Nuuk, they blow downhill, which leads to an increase in temperature. This is the result of adiabatic warming, where air is compressed from low pressure (at the top of a mountain) to high pressure (at sea level). It’s the same kind of dry warmth that occurs as a result of Santa Ana winds in Southern California.

Thursday’s toasty reading in Nuuk marks the second exceptionally warm temperature recorded in southwest Greenland since April, when the ice melt season began about month prematurely.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 11:20 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 806
Warm temperatures in the northern hemisphere in June. Yes, how unusual. :lol: :lol:

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 11, 2016 2:55 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21361
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Warm temperatures in the northern hemisphere in June. Yes, how unusual. :lol: :lol:


You missed the RECORD warm portion right? And the second exceptionally warm temperature recorded since April? And that the ice melt was a MONTH early this year?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 12, 2016 11:00 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 806
The hits just keep coming fence sitters.

http://notrickszone.com/2016/06/11/alar ... LIhad.dpbs

Quote:
Stefan Rahmstorf had to deal with a bitter defeat over the past few days. His idea that the Atlantic Current would gradually come to a standstill due to man-made CO2 emissions has once again been falsified. A team of scientists led by Laura Jackson were able to show in a paper published in Nature Geoscience that short-term fluctuations of the Atlantic Current were the result of natural cycles. On May 23 2016 Climate Central reported on a study:

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1345 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 ... 90  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group