Global warming-or is it?

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #25,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 05:23 PM
Okay I will take a stab at this, first science is when a bunch of intelligent people or experts look at the data and determine how accurate it is and what it means. Then they share what they found with each other to form a consensus or common agreement.
Wrong. Science is data, facts.

If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.

Consensus is a political and social ploy, an appeal to authority.
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 05:23 PM
For example:
So you can claim whatever you want, you can blame it on unicorns for all it matters however the greater majority of all experts on this planet disagree with everything you have said.
Still appealing to authority while completely ignoring actual science?

Still asking people to believe a computer model over empirical data?

That's not scientific at all.

Say, did you know that more than 50% of the temperatures used by climate scientists are completely made up? Yeah, there's no temperature monitoring station anywhere near where those temperature data are sited to... and the other part of the data, while based upon empirical temperature measurements, is "adjusted"... you'll note it's often "adjusted" for no good reason, and always toward higher temperatures. That is, after all, what put WattsUpWithThat.com on the map.
Quote from U.S. Office of the Inspector General
Lack of oversight, non-compliance and a lax review process for the State Department’s global climate change programs have led the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to conclude that program data “cannot be consistently relied upon by decision-makers” and it cannot be ensured “that Federal funds were being spent in an appropriate manner.”
In fact:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/bombshell-study-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-government-climate-data/
Quote from https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/bombshell-study-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-government-climate-data/
“Nearly all of the warming they are now showing are in the adjustments,” Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview. “Each dataset pushed down the 1940s warming and pushed up the current warming.”
That was their "trick to hide the decline", by the way... they adjusted past temperatures cooler, so present temperatures appeared to be warmer, so they could keep making alarmist proclamations of "Warmest Year Ever!", so they could keep getting funding. In actuality, modern temperature has been decreasing. Kinda strange, though, that they adjusted the data so it exactly fit changes in CO2 concentration.

They kind of backed themselves into a corner, though... they erased the Little Ice Age, forcing them to claim it was only regional... then hundreds of studies from all over the world proved they were lying, that the Little Ice Age was global. They even tried to erase the Medieval Warm Period so they could claim modern temperatures were "warmest ever!". Got roundly slapped for that one, they did.

Here's one they changed:

and another:

and another:

and another:

and another:

and another:

and another:

and another:

and another:

and another (thanks, PeakPositive):

and another (this one doubled the 1890 to 1980 warming trend):

and another:

and another:

and another:

and another:

and another:

and another:

and another:

and another:

and another:

and another:

and another:


I could do this all day. :D

(They did the same for sea level... lowering historical sea level so contemporary sea level looked higher. Would you like to see the hundreds of graphs proving that?)

In fact, for Greenland, Iceland, northern Norway, Russia and Siberia only 4 stations (Vardo, Ust Cil Ma, Kanin Nos and Murmansk) weren't "adjusted" to show warmer temperatures. Nearly a third of Russia doesn't even have temperature monitoring stations, but that didn't stop the climate alarmists from claiming rapid warming in those areas. Those were the areas in Russia where locals with mercury thermometers said their thermometers no longer worked... the mercury had sunk all the way into the bulb (so at least -40 C, the freezing point of mercury).

Adjustment is supposed to be used when a station is recalibrated... yet we can see month-after-month upward adjustments for stations that were not recalibrated. And why were past temperatures progressively adjusted downward more the further back in time the data was obtained? How's that work?

In fact, NOAA were caught falsifying data in real time to erase the current cold temperatures:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/03/15/noaa-tamper-with-ny-temperatures-again/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/20/delingpole-noaa-caught-adjusting-big-freeze-out-of-existence/
Quote from http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/20/delingpole-noaa-caught-adjusting-big-freeze-out-of-existence/
We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda.
Nothing to see here, folks. Sharks being frozen solid, starfish freezing to death by the hundreds of thousands, iguanas being so cold they fall out of the trees, flocks of sheep being completely buried in snow, entire herds of caribou freezing solid... all completely normal. See it every year. Carry on. Nothing to see here.

Here's a NOAA study stating that they had to "adjust" empirical data by 19% to match their computer models!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/24/nasa-global-warming-observations-need-a-further-19-upward-adjustment/
Quote from https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/24/nasa-global-warming-observations-need-a-further-19-upward-adjustment/
The study explains why projections of future climate based solely on historical records estimate lower rates of warming than predictions from climate models.
How insane and unscientific is that?! Rather than adjust their computers models to match empirical data, they adjusted empirical data to match the models!

In fact, NASA was caught yet again:
https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CorrectCorrections.pdf
Quote from https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CorrectCorrections.pdf
An audit by researcher Steve McIntyre reveals that NASA has made urban adjustments of temperature data in its GISS temperature record in the wrong direction. The temperatures in urban areas are generally warmer than in rural areas. McIntyre classified the 7364 weather stations in the GISS world-wide network into various categories depending on the direction of the urban adjustment. NASA has applied a "negative urban adjustment" to 45% of the urban station measurements (where adjustments are made), meaning that the adjustments makes the warming trends steeper

The conclusion is: Fully correcting the surface temperature data for “non-climatic effects reduce the estimated 1980-2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half.
So rather than adjust the data for the Urban Heat Island effect, they adjusted the data the opposite direction! Maybe if they applied the scientific method, rather than a politicized ploy for funding, they wouldn't be so bad at that sciencey stuff. :rofl:

And even then, they couldn't "hide the decline"... global temperature first paused (and the climate alarmists tried in vain to erase that from the temperature record, only to have more studies prove them wrong), then it fell at the fastest rate in recorded history, to the point that thousands of low temperature records are being smashed this year.

Oh look, an NOAA whistleblower:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
Quote from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the 'pause' or 'slowdown' in global warming in the period since 1998 - revealed by UN scientists in 2013 - never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world's media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, 'unverified' data.

Dr Bates said: 'They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and 'corrected' it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that's what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.'
NOAA's response? "Wuullll... we never archived that data, we threw it away, so that whistleblower can't prove anything!"

Yeah... because the scientific method includes throwing out data so your faked-up study can't be subjected to scientific scrutiny. :roll:

A brief video synopsis from 2015... you'll note he correctly called the rapid cooling of 2017/2018:

https://youtu.be/U6pZKZX0FYc

Here are the failures of your consensus "science":
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_failures_part_1.pdf
Quote
1. Warming is said to be unprecedented and accelerating. It is neither.
2. Global warming is not GLOBAL
3. Winters would grow increasingly warm
4. The entire Northern Hemisphere would experience less snow and snowcover
5. Increasingly positive AO
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_failures_part_II.pdf
Quote
6. Global warming may lead to a permanent or semi-permanent El Nino
7. Atmosphere will warm faster than surface (because that is where the heat trapping gases are).
8. Record highs and heat waves are increasing
9. Sea levels are rising at an increasing rate
10. Droughts and floods will worsen in places like Australia
All of the above predictions failed to pan out. The two parts of that enormous study are corroborated by hundreds of peer-reviewed studies.

The only place any of the alarmist predictions made by your consensus "science" took place was in the computer models... in reality, though, empirical data proved the computer models to be deeply flawed.

In addition, here's more than 450 studies proving the consensus CAGW "science" wrong:
http://notrickszone.com/global-warming-disputed-300-graphs/
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 05:23 PM
The fact is you have proven nothing... nada.
Except that CO2 cannot cause warming... and I've proven it via several various avenues. In fact, I proved it causes cooling.

I note you've found yourself utterly unable to actually address the science, all you've done is issued denial after denial of that science, while appealing to authority and asking people to believe in computer models rather than empirical data.
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 05:23 PM
Your cherry picking data which is not real science and if you ever went before any real experts they would reject it so fast it would make your head spin.
No "cherry picking" was done... how does one "cherry pick" the fact that quantum mechanics (to bring up but one avenue by which I proved CAGW to be a falsified hypothesis) proves that CO2 cannot cause global warming?

How does one "cherry pick" the fact that the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann Law would be violated (to bring up another avenue by which I proved CAGW to be a falsified hypothesis) if CAGW were true?

Address the science... prove me wrong. Good luck with that, by the way... you'll be overturning centuries of established science in the process. You'll get a Nobel Prize just like Al 'ManBearPig' Gore has! :rofl:

You can sit there and blather out your insipid denials all day, and that does absolutely nothing to refute the science. You can bow before your authority figures and ask others to appeal to authority with you until your head implodes, and it won't change scientific reality.

You've been lied to. Stop being gullible. Do the research and prove yourself wrong, or admit you'd rather have the comforting lie rather than the painful truth that you were gullible enough to believe a lie without checking it out for yourself.

Matt Watts

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #26,  »
So it sounds like ozone is in a sense self-regulating (as one might expect).  The levels of ozone vary proportionally with the levels of UV-C.  So it would be expected when the solar UV-C increases sometime in the future, ozone (as a protective layer) will also increase, just when we need it to.  That's pretty good news.  It would seem our Grand Creator thought of everything.  :-)

PeakPositive


haxar


Matt Watts


Apoc4lypse

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #30,  »
"The planet is fine the people are Flacked"  :rofl:

Pretty much sums it up...
Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #31,  »Last edited
Also Matt Watts, you just brought forward the source of my "schizophrenia".

Honestly when it occurred to me just what the technology all around us is capable of I didn't even want to read into it because I was afraid of just how far it goes and what they might do with it.

Everything is fields oscillating vibrating and interacting with one another, and almost every single electrical device you own works on the same principals and could be reconfigured with the right quantity and materials to interact with the fields inside the human body. Transmitters are what worry me the most because they can create signals that potentially atoms all around you and in you can interact with.

With what they probably know about the brain I bet they can even influence synapse firing and electro-chemical reactions in the brain to influence thoughts and even trigger heightened fear responses.

Welcome to the nightmare.

We are puppets on a string, and we are expendable.


As for what 5g is... well I guess now I know..... ignorance is bliss people, because knowledge is power, and they want all the power.

I thought it was weird that they were bringing out 5g... 4g is already fast enough to online game using a gaming laptop in the middle of nowhere using your phone as a hot spot....

Matt Watts

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #32,  »
Let me say this and you all think about it until it sets in:

"Nothing of any significance happens by chance.  Nothing."

onepower

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #33,  »Last edited
So they want to herd people into smog infested cesspools bathed in high frequency radiation they call a city?... got it. I think I will pass and I don't herd very well, kind of busy this week and spring clean up on the farm is in full swing.

However it begs the question, when we know the cities are basically crime riddled, overpopulated, toxic cesspools of human misery then... why go there?. The first step in my opinion is to stop blaming others for our own stupidity.

It just keeps getting stranger and stranger out there in lala-land.


PeakPositive


Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #35,  »Last edited by Cycle
Nearly all of Europe is below the freezing point:


And it has been in this state pretty much since 25 Feb 2018, when the Beast From The East rolled in. Now they're on Beast 2.0. Beast 3.0 is expected soon.

Are you beginning to see a trend? :D

And in other news:
BOOM! Federal Judge Dismisses Claim Of “Big-Oil” Conspiracy To Suppress Global Warming Science

The judge slammed the plaintiffs, saying they'd misled the court, and that no 'conspiracy' to hide the truth about climate change by the oil companies took place.

This is the way CAGW dies. :rofl:

onepower

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #36,  »Last edited
Quote
The judge slammed the plaintiffs, saying they'd misled the court, and that no 'conspiracy' to hide the truth about climate change by the oil companies took place.
This is the way CAGW dies
That is the alt right American viewpoint however almost all civilized countries agree climate change is real. Obviously this small group in the U.S. is not the global community and if you want to turn your own country into a cesspool that is your choice. The problems arise when you try to force your nonsense on other countries and the majority have clearly rejected your claims.

So you can say climate change is not real all you want however I have taken action and in the last year I stopped buying American products. In my case alone the U.S. economy lost $50,000 last year when I chose to buy elsewhere and many I know are doing the same. You see I don't have to buy into your nonsense cycle. You have choices however so does the rest of the world... you may want to think about that.

Personally I think it's kind of weird that you seem to think your alt right government can just force your false beliefs on others without blowback however I can assure you this is not the case. I think it is kind of neat that in fact I can impose any penalties or tariffs I see fit on any other countries... as a consumer.

Life is about choices.

PeakPositive

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #37,  »
Quote from onepower on March 22nd, 09:17 AM
That is the alt right American viewpoint however almost all civilized countries agree climate change is real. Obviously this small group in the U.S. is not the global community and if you want to turn your own country into a cesspool that is your choice. The problems arise when you try to force your nonsense on other countries and the majority have clearly rejected your claims.

So you can say climate change is not real all you want however I have taken action and in the last year I stopped buying American products. In my case alone the U.S. economy lost $50,000 last year when I chose to buy elsewhere and many I know are doing the same. You see I don't have to buy into your nonsense cycle. You have choices however so does the rest of the world... you may want to think about that.

Personally I think it's kind of weird that you seem to think your alt right government can just force your false beliefs on others without blowback however I can assure you this is not the case. I think it is kind of neat that in fact I can impose any penalties or tariffs I see fit on any other countries... as a consumer.

Life is about choices.
Well now the truth is coming out you are not an American and you hate America enough to boycott it. Good to know.

No one is forcing our beliefs on you it is you who is trying to force your beliefs on us. It is shown Global Warming is not real now you want to change it to Climate Change and pollution, Well news for you the climate changes all the time that’s why we have Weathermen/women.

Nothing wrong with the air quality in America; now if you live in a city/country that is filled with air pollution that is your country fault.

No reason for Americans to pay a carbon tax for your country short sightedness.

I’m sure we Americans will survive your boycott. Tell us what country you are from and maybe we can return the favor. Heck we might even be willing to sell you some coal for heat. :rofl:



onepower

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #38,  »Last edited
Quote
Well now the truth is coming out you are not an American and you hate America enough to boycott it. Good to know
Interesting logic you have, so if I didn't work at walmart and I was to boycott walmart does that mean I hate walmart?. Well no it means I disagree with them. Why do you think everyone hates each other?, you own that not me I don't hate.
Quote
No one is forcing our beliefs on you it is you who is trying to force your beliefs on us.
When you act unsustainably you do force your beliefs on everyone because we all have to live on this planet and breath the same air. As I said believe what you want, do what you want however know your actions do have consequences regardless of what you believe.
Quote
I’m sure we Americans will survive your boycott. Tell us what country you are from and maybe we can return the favor. Heck we might even be willing to sell you some coal for heat.
Of course however this may not always be the case and in the end the global consumer will decide not you or your country. I think consumerism is the ultimate form of choice because it doesn't matter where you live for you to reach out and touch someone's ... wallet. One person means little means but millions do and they have the capacity to burn entire corporations to the ground overnight when motivated to do so. Welcome to 2018.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/20/news/companies/facebook-stock-price-mark-zuckerberg/index.html
Quote
Shares of Facebook fell another 3% Tuesday on the heels of the company's worst day in four years. $49.4 billion has been wiped off Facebook's market value this week.

Apoc4lypse

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #39,  »Last edited
This topic is going the way of the last one quick.

Anyway, here's my thoughts on Climate Change.

Yes the Climate is always changing, but it can also change enough to become inhospitable to life on it. The question is are we currently doing anything that can lead to the climate changing to become inhospitable.

The problem with answering that question is its like trying to predict a hurricane happening on the other side of the planet years in advanced, its just not possible the only thing that comes close is to following Temperature Precipitation Air quality and consistency wind speed and directions and jet stream intensities and directions.

So, figure out what those need to become in order for our planet to become less hospitable to a point where it makes life difficult for us, then figure out what we do that might contribute to those attributes changing.

The big one everyone talks about is fossil fuels. Then there's people faking or manipulating the data either in favor of continued use of fossil fuels, or for discontinuing that usage.

Then I personally look at who is capable of manipulating data like this, generally the most power goes to the people with the most money, so it would probably be them right?

Of the most profitable industries in the world that are generally listed Oil and Gas always seems to make that list.

There's already evidence of data tampering in this area, the people with the means and motive are the Oil and Gas industry.


So I question every time someone presents data for this subject because there's always different conflicting data on the subject, and both sides claim the data has been manipulated. The only people with the means and motive of doing this are the Oil and Gas industries...


Could the data be manipulated by people that want to put Oil and Gas down? Sure its completely possible, but why and how? They don't really have a motive unless they have a better energy source to offer in place of Oil and Gas. The only other motive I could think of is other countries who own less Oil and Gas and want to discredit it's use for their own agendas to change the economy in their favor a bit, but in the end it wouldn't really achieve anything substantial that would really benefit their country because chances are they don't have access to another energy source besides Oil and Gas in the first place if they are in that position.

So all the science aside, who benefits the most from Oil and Gas being phased out?
Who benefits the most from its continued use?

That's what its all about and that's where the truth lies on that subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves I know its wikipedia but its a starting point...

But look at that list and then look at the countries Above the United States in that list because we aren't number 1 on it. If the pollution data from Oil and Gas is being manipulated, its being done by them and possibly us to because were pretty higher on that list too, ranked 10 out of 97.

The list under that is also interesting to note too because it lists the widely used sources, and on that part were at the bottom of the list, but this is based on Oil reserves in countries, and we end up at the bottom of that list, but we also have significant military influence over at least 2 of the top countries when it comes to Oil Reserves...

The only people that benefit from Data manipulation on pollution from Oil are the ones at the top of those Oil reserves and we have a major millitary influence over at least two of them.


So ignoring the science and looking purely at the social political aspect, we benefit the most from manipulating Oil pollution data along with other countries that have influence over the countries with the higher oil reserves.


This is why I don't trust our government, this is why I don't believe any of the data I see on this subject anymore. There's too much money involved and too much power struggle and too much conflict. The only thing that could change it is a different energy source just as abundant as Oil but cleaner, and if one did already exist the people with the most influence and control of those oil reserves are most likely going to be the ones manipulating that data because they have the biggest incentive out of anyone to do it.

Once the energy source changes, that money and power no longer exists in the oil industry especially if people believe Oil to be a danger to the very air we breathe, and the industry that benefits the most is technology and the materials used to execute that new energy resource... They're covering their asses very carefully, and will probably do it by any means necessary.

The funny thing is the companies with the least problems here are the car companies that build both fossil fuel vehicles and electric ones. They just sit back and watch it happen while benefiting from both potential outcomes.

Matt Watts

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #40,  »
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 22nd, 02:52 PM
So all the science aside, who benefits the most from Oil and Gas being phased out?
Who benefits the most from its continued use?
Now you're getting it.  Asking the right questions will take you on one hell of a journey.

Cui bono.


One you comprehend what ultimate power can do, all the rest is easy.  You just have to put yourself in their position and think like a criminal, i.e. how do I get everything I want and make sure no one ever takes it away from me.

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #41,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from onepower on March 22nd, 09:17 AM
That is the alt right American viewpoint however almost all civilized countries agree climate change is real.
Perhaps you weren't aware that Judge Alsup is a liberal. A very rare liberal... one who uses common sense and actually acknowledges scientific reality. :D

As for your "alt-right" crack... the alt-right is better known as "the alternative to the right". The right didn't agree with their ideas, so the 'alt-right' formed their own political and ideological 'clique'.

What are the stated political and ideological goals of the 'alt-right'?
1) White identity politics
2) The rejection of God
3) The subjugation of the individual to the collective

Now, let's make a comparison between the alt-right's stated goals and the historical behavior of the democrats:
https://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3201.msg48728#msg48728

Gee... it seems the 'alt-right', the "alternative to the right" are leftists... just as the liberals are. They share the same ideology, the same behavior and the same goals. So your attempt at conflating the right and the 'alt-right' is yet another example of a deluded libtard being 180 degrees diametrically opposed to reality.

The rest of your deluded libtard blather has thus been rendered moot.

Seems you're so deluded you don't stand a chance of winning. Perhaps you should just give up and crawl back into your 'safe space', TrigglyPuff. :-D
Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #42,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from PeakPositive on March 22nd, 11:56 AM
Well now the truth is coming out you are not an American and you hate America enough to boycott it. Good to know.
He's also ripped the mask off and exposed himself as a libtard. Is anyone surprised?
Quote from PeakPositive on March 22nd, 11:56 AM
No one is forcing our beliefs on you it is you who is trying to force your beliefs on us. It is shown Global Warming is not real now you want to change it to Climate Change and pollution, Well news for you the climate changes all the time that’s why we have Weathermen/women.
CAGW (Catastrophic CO2-induced Anthropogenic Global Warming) is not only not real, it's entirely manufactured. The alarmists have been caught faking the data and lying so many times that by now only an idiot would still lend them any credibility.
Quote from PeakPositive on March 22nd, 11:56 AM
Nothing wrong with the air quality in America; now if you live in a city/country that is filled with air pollution that is your country fault.

No reason for Americans to pay a carbon tax for your country short sightedness.

I’m sure we Americans will survive your boycott. Tell us what country you are from and maybe we can return the favor. Heck we might even be willing to sell you some coal for heat. :rofl:
Nah, we don't sell them coal, that's far too useful for us... with the thousands of low temperature records being smashed, we're going to need it.

We ship the really deluded ones wood pellets which have a higher CO2 output than the fuel they were previously using. They hand-wave away that fact by claiming wood pellets are 'sustainable'... not realizing that they burn even more in fossil fuel shipping and processing the wood pellets (adding to the CO2 tally).

Stupid is as stupid does, after all. And those who fall for the green / CAGW scam are amongst the dumbest because the data are there to enlighten themselves... they choose not to.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHwdgtxMPUs

The shorter the hydrocarbon chain and the less carbon it contains, the cleaner the fuel will burn. That's why natural gas usage in the US has reduced overall emissions. And that's all thanks to fracking.

Wood, on the other hand, has very long-chain hydrocarbons and burns very slowly unless it's dustified. Even pellets burn slow compared to natural gas. Thus, it emits a lot of CO2.

Natural gas - primarily CH4
Wood - 65%-75% (CH2O)n, (usually denoted by C6H12O6) and 25%-35% lignin (C3H3O1)

So what's the 'n'? It's a big number. Really big. Something in the millions (meaning very long-chain hydrocarbons). But it's different for every fiber of that wood.

So for every C atom of CH4, you get 4 H.

For wood, you get 2 H for every C for the hydrocarbon, and 1 H for every 1 C for the lignin, along with calcium, nitrogen (leading to NOx emissions), sodium, chlorine... just to name a few of the other chemicals in wood.

Ideally, a pure H fuel would produce no CO2 emissions. Natural gas is the best available to date.

That's called science. Deal with it (or bury your head in the sand and keep making infantile denials of reality). :rofl:

How do people who are researching projects such as Meyer's setup not know this basic stuff?

(That's not a slam of you, PeakPositive... it's intended for the deluded ones amongst us.) :D
Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #43,  »Last edited by Cycle
And in other news:
Spain's Port of Montenegro is closed due to snow
Washington, DC doubles previous snowfall record
NY has its snowiest season in 130 years
Bulgarian storks are freezing to death
California's Sierra Nevada received 16 feet of snow in 18 days
Paris has their coldest days since 1888
Record cold in Essen, Germany
Record snowfall for Worcester, MA
Yankton, SD breaks 98 year old snowfall record
Record cold winter for Australia
Cold records shattered in Ukraine
Record snowfall in Scotland
Record cold in Russia
Record snow and cold in Croatia
21 New Norwegian Cold Records
Record snowfall in Northern Japan
Record snowfall in Vancouver, BC
Record cold in San Francisco, CA
Record snowfall in Windsor, Ontario
New snowfall record for Calgary, Alberta
Heaviest snowfall on record in Moscow, Russia
Lowest temperature ever recorded in Bangladesh history
Record cold in Siberia
Cold Records Shattered In Baton Rouge and New Orleans
Record cold in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi
Record snowfall in French and Italian Alps
Record snowfall in China
Animals freeze solid standing up in Kazakhstan
Dogs in Connecticut, Ohio, Cincinnati, Michigan freeze solid
More frozen sharks!
Florida iguanas so cold they fall out of the trees
Sea water so cold it's spontaneously desalinating, freezing and killing everything it touches


That horrific scene is hundreds of thousands of starfish that froze to death.

Are you beginning to see a trend here?

Remember the chem-trails conspiracy theory? Yeah... they were con-trails. They lasted longer than usual because the planet is cooling, so the condensed water turned to ice crystals and remained in that phase far longer than we'd become used to seeing.

People who have the evidence right in front of them, and instead choose to defer to so-called "experts" because they're so brainwashed and dumbed-down that they can't think for themselves... those are the very people the libtards depend upon to perpetuate the CAGW scam.

PeakPositive

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #44,  »
Quote from onepower on March 22nd, 02:06 PM
One person means little means but millions do and they have the capacity to burn entire corporations to the ground overnight when motivated to do so. Welcome to 2018.
When you do that won’t it add to the imaginary Global Warming you are worried so much about?

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #45,  »Last edited by Cycle
And in other, other news... the "Exxon Knew" campaign to silence dissent and tear down American energy production capability was actually a conspiracy, put into motion in 2012. It was a shakedown from the get-go. It is only now blowing up in their faces. :rofl:

http://eidclimate.org/about/
Quote from http://eidclimate.org/about/
Why does Energy In Depth – a research program of the Independent Petroleum Association of America – have a website debunking the #ExxonKnew campaign? Simple: because #ExxonKnew isn’t actually about one energy company. It’s a tactical component of a much broader anti-fossil fuel campaign known as “Keep It In the Ground.” It’s part of a strategy to use climate change as a weapon to silence dissent and shut down American energy production.

Back in 2012, the environmental activists now leading the #ExxonKnew campaign met in La Jolla, Calif., to strategize how to convince government officials to demonize and ultimately prosecute energy companies for causing global warming. Sounds too silly to be true, right? Well, it happened. They even produced a report spelling it all out. You can read that here.

Fast forward a few years, and every major anti-fossil fuel group is now tweeting about #ExxonKnew, and cheerfully encouraging state attorneys general to harass and intimidate anyone who disagrees with them, even non-profit groups that simply oppose certain climate policies.

This kind of sophisticated and well-funded campaign is not just a threat to American energy companies; it’s a threat to our economic livelihood. It’s a threat to all the men and women who work in the oil and natural gas industry. And yes, by attacking American oil and natural gas production, it’s a direct threat to our future energy security. Although it is being conducted under the guise of climate change, this anti-fossil fuel campaign – if successful – would not solve any environmental problems; it would only create new hardships for American families.

On this site, you’ll find more information about the #ExxonKnew campaign, including the wealthy family that bankrolls it (the Rockefellers) and the manufactured “fake news” echo chamber that allows activists to maintain a constant stream of media attention. But you’ll also find other information on climate change, like how natural gas has been the primary reason why the United States has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions in recent years, and how the industry is reducing methane emissions even as development expands. These are critical data points for any discussion on climate change, but unsurprisingly, the groups prosecuting the #ExxonKnew campaign refuse to disclose them.
http://eidclimate.org/an-orchestrated-campaign/
Quote from http://eidclimate.org/an-orchestrated-campaign/
Well-devised and generously funded environmental campaigns are nothing new. But from the very beginning, the #ExxonKnew campaign has been different. It has brought together activists, rich donors (like the Rockefellers), academics, and even organizations that pass themselves off as news outlets. It has manufactured its own echo chamber not just as a vehicle for advocacy, but also to prod government officials to open investigations into entities that haven’t supported the kinds of policies that environmentalists want.

If you think that sounds like a threat to free speech, you’re right – and the #ExxonKnew activists have admitted they are doing exactly that. But first, let’s take a look at how all of this started.

The origins of #ExxonKnew go back several years, with the most obvious starting point being a June 2012 conference in La Jolla, California. Two organizations – the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Climate Accountability Institute – held a strategy session on how they could develop a campaign to seek financial compensation from American energy companies for the effects of climate change. Attendees included environmental campaigners, lawyers with a history of suing the oil and natural gas industry, and even academics like Harvard University’s Naomi Oreskes.

The workshop attendees identified how strategic litigation could bring internal company documents into the public domain, which activists could then use to develop new narratives against the targeted companies. Their goal from the beginning: use litigation to link energy producers and tobacco companies, according to a summary report that the workshop attendees published
In addition, apparently the cities filing suit didn't disclose in their bond offerings the same purported risk they're trying to sue the oil companies for... this represents fraud on the part of those cities.

Looks like these libtards about to be hoisted by their own petard. :-D

Kind of strange that they persist in spite of the fact that empirical measurement of global temperature finds that it's falling at the fastest rate in recorded history... I think they have an agenda completely divorced from "global warming". ;)

onepower

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #46,  »Last edited
So basically everyone in the world is in on this supposed global conspiracy except you?... got it. You know you could be an alien. Do you recall being beamed aboard the mothership, does the term anal probe ring a bell, do humans seem strange to you, do you often say greetings Earthling?. If so you may be an alien which would explain the conspiracy thing because...its true, lol.

Cycle

Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #47,  »Last edited by Cycle
Quote from onepower on March 22nd, 08:31 PM
So basically everyone in the world is in on this supposed global conspiracy except you?... got it.
Except me and 31,487 scientists and science graduates (and those are just from America... worldwide, there are hundreds of thousands)... or weren't you aware of the OISM Project?

That petition includes a distinguished physicist who worked on the Manhattan project, and was director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Among the honors he received were the Albert Einstein Award, the Enrico Fermi Award, the Corvin Chain and the National Medal of Science. He was awarded with the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George W. Bush less than two months before his death in 2003. You might know him as "The Father Of The Hydrogen Bomb"... Edward Teller.

PBS FrontLine didn't like that someone so intelligent and distinguished disagreed with the CAGW propaganda, so during their "Climate of Doubt" show, they electronically altered his signature.

The petition also includes Freeman J. Dyson (of Dyson Sphere fame), theoretical physicist and mathematician, famous for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering.

You know, the OISM Project, run by scientists:

The petition drive was begun by Dr. Frederick Seitz, now deceased. Seitz was a physicist and past president of both the National Academy of Sciences and Rockefeller University.

Professor Kamen was the discoverer of Carbon 14 and the originator of many of the techniques for the use of radioactive tracers in biochemistry and molecular biology. He also carried out extensive research that underlies much of our understanding of the biochemistry of photosynthesis.

Professor Merrifield was the originator of solid phase organic chemistry, which now underlies many of the essential techniques in peptide, protein, and DNA chemistry and other fields of biochemistry. He invented and perfected solid-phase peptide synthesis, with which he carried out the first chemical synthesis of an enzyme. In recognition of these accomplishments, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1984.

Professor Fred Westall is an expert in the biochemistry of immunology and autoimmune disease. Educated at the University of California at San Diego, he later served as director of laboratory work for Jonas Salk at the Salk Institute. His research has included definitive elucidation of the peptide and protein structures that stimulate experimental allergic encephalomyelitis, a primary experimental model for study of Multiple Sclerosis and related diseases.

Professor Boehme is a Stanford University educated electrical engineer who has made many contributions to the computerized aspects of the Institute's research. This has included especially the building of computerized controls and data acquisition hardware for research in health profiling work and work on software systems for this work.

Professor Orient is a physician educated at Columbia University. She is Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. She and AAPS are widely credited for their effective work toward preventing socialized medicine in the United States.

Professor Arthur Robinson carries out laboratory research on the deamidation of peptides and proteins and on the development of new analytical methods for the clinical laboratory. He also works on the development of home schooling techniques and on the public dissemination of information on civil defense. Approximately 60,000 American children use the Robinson home school curriculum, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency has commended and utilized Robinson work on emergency preparedness. Dr. Robinson also edits the newsletter, Access to Energy.

Professor Noah Robinson carries out laboratory research on the deamidation of peptides and proteins and on the development of new analytical methods for the clinical laboratory. He also works on the development of Robinson home schooling techniques, which are used by more than 60,000 American students, and on the public dissemination of information on civil defense.

Professor Zachary Robinson is a chemist and doctor of veterinary medicine educated at Oregon State University and Iowa State University. In addition to his work in veterinary medicine, Professor Robinson supervises animal work at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has included extensive studies of the effects of elevated levels of carbon dioxide on the health and longevity of mice.

You see, scientists know CAGW is a scam because... science.

It's becoming increasingly evident that you've not even bothered to peruse the more than 450 studies proving the consensus CAGW "science" wrong:
http://notrickszone.com/global-warming-disputed-300-graphs/

So you do prefer to stick with your comforting lie that you can just continue not thinking for yourself and rely upon so-called 'experts' to tax you and 'fix' a non-problem, rather than facing the truth that you're so gullible you bought the CAGW scam hook, line and sinker without bothering to check out their claims for yourself. If you'd done even a cursory check, you'd have discovered lies layered upon lies layered upon manipulated data.
Quote from onepower on March 22nd, 08:31 PM
You know you could be an alien. Do you recall being beamed aboard the mothership, does the term anal probe ring a bell, do humans seem strange to you, do you often say greetings Earthling?. If so you may be an alien which would explain the conspiracy thing because...its true, lol.
You're starting to throw another tantrum... and you've still not refuted any of that science in the thread above.

You gonna get another thread locked because of your infantile rantings? :D
Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #48,  »Last edited by Cycle
Oh look, more people proving CAGW is a scam:

Dr. David Evans used to work for the Australian Greenhouse Office (the main modeler of carbon in Australia’s biosphere) from 1999 to 2005. He has 6 degrees, including a PhD from Stanford in electrical engineering. Evans believes that CO2 has been causing global warming over the last century, but investigates the question: how much global warming does CO2 cause? In 2012, Evans pointed out how the IPCC (the very political Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) models were flawed. These models are based on data sourced by NASA and Argo satellites, and assume that CO2 is the only warming agent. They fail to take into consideration other warming agents. He shows how the models, both for air and water, have consistently over-estimated, predicting warming that never happened.

Evans shows data from Envisat (European satellites) which reveal how the sea level is rising 0.33 mm per year (3.3 cm per century), far below what the IPCC predicts (26-59 cm per century) and fearmonger Al Gore predicted (20 feet per century!). Evans compares the models vs. reality, and concludes:
"The climate model’s understanding of the atmosphere is incompatible with the data … the data is being suppressed … this is not about science and truth, it’s about power and politics."

Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Ottowa describes manmade global warming as a psychological and social phenomenon backed by no solid scientific evidence. The problem is that the AGW movement has become a giant gravy train (estimated to be worth anywhere between $22 billion to $1.5 trillion per year). It’s hard for scientists and politicians alike to get off such a comfortable and profitable moving vehicle, since their prestige, reputations and salaries all depend on it. He reveals how real activists understand that the AGW is not true activism, but rather an invention of the privileged world:
“NGOs and environmental groups who agree to buy into the global warming thing benefit from it a lot, in the sense that the powerful interests … fund them. They have to pretend they are doing important research without ever criticizing powerful interests. They look for comfortable lies … they look for elusive, sanitized things like acid rain, global warming … it helps to neutralize any kind of dissent … if you’re really concerned about saving the forest, habitat destruction and so on, then fight against habitat destruction; don’t go off into this tenuous thing about CO2 concentration …”

The 91-year-old mathematical physicist and scientist at Princeton University, Freeman Dyson, started studying the effects of carbon dioxide on vegetation 37 years ago! His work has shown how the increase in CO2 has been overall very beneficial for the Earth:
“There are huge non-climate effects of carbon dioxide which are highly favorable … The whole Earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so it’s increasing agricultural yields, forests and all kinds of growth in the biological world – and that’s more important and more certain than the effects on climate. It’s enormously important for food production … “

Dr. Judith Curry is Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She used to be on board with the AGW agenda, but after the November 2009 ClimateGate email scandal, she changed her mind. She saw a lot of “sausage-making and bullying” was needed to build a consensus. She realized she had fallen into groupthink, based on second-order evidence: the (mere) assertion that a consensus existed. She was subsequently labeled a climate heretic. This is interesting, and suggests parallels between the religious fanaticism of the manmade global warming movement and the Inquisition - which persecuted and killed those who thought differently. Many have said that AGW is a religion. In her testimony Curry states:
“No one questions that surface temperatures have increased since 1880 … however there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes vs. natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether the warming is dangerous. We have been misled in our quest to understand climate change by not paying sufficient attention to natural causes of climate variability, in particular to the sun and from the long term oscillations and ocean circulations. How, then, and why, have climate scientists come to a consensus about a very complex scientific problem, that the scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties? Climate scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious political debate …”

Professor Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics, talks about how manmade global warming has become the new religion which cannot be challenged. He likens CO2 fearmongering to the story of the Emperor’s new clothes. The purported 97% consensus and the hockey stick graphs are both utterly fake. He states that:
“Global Warming is pseudoscience … from 1880 to 2013 the temperature has increased from ~288K to 288.8K (0.3%) … the temperature has been amazingly stable."

Dr. Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, exposes how the data has been tampered with (by NASA, NOAA and the National Science Foundation). He points out (in his 2013 presentation) that:

– all high temperature records were set in 1930s before the rise of CO2;

– global cooling has been in effect since 1998, according to ground and satellite measurements;

– both the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets are growing;

– CO2 is incapable of causing global warming (given that it constitutes 41/1000th of 1 percent of atmospheric gases);

– there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature;

– CO2 follows temperature rather than preceding or causing it;

– the sea level is rising (Seattle in specific) and falling (US Pacific Northwest in general) depending on where you are, and that the sea is rising at a very slow and declining rate;

– extreme weather (such as hurricanes) has not increased;

– snowfall has increased across the US; and

– that the oceans are still very alkaline (pH 8.2) not acidic.

Meteorologist and physicist Piers Corbyn claims the world is cooling. He states outright that “there is no such thing as manmade climate change“. He also states that “the truth is the IPCC of the UN is a political not a scientific body, and it even amends scientific documents before publication to conform to diplomatic niceties.” The scientists are politically appointed to the IPCC. Corbyn explains that “science” as we think of it gets so entrenched in its current thinking that it’s often difficult for new theories or more accurate explanations to break through the status quo. As esteemed scientist Max Planck once said:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

John Casey is a former White House national space policy advisor, NASA headquarters consultant, space shuttle engineer and author. He wrote the book Cold Sun which contains his research into global cooling. Casey investigated solar activity and concluded that we are now in a solar cycle or phase which could well lead to global cooling, not global warming, for the next 30 years to come. He claims this new cold climate will have a severe and dangerous affect on the world. In Cold Sun he provides evidence for the following:

– the end of natural global warming;

– the beginning of a “solar hibernation”;

– a historic reduction in the energy output of the Sun;

– a long-term drop in the Earth’s temperatures;

– the start of the next climate change to decades of dangerously cold weather; and much more.

Casey experienced firsthand in the White House how the US Government fired anyone not toeing the line with AGW propaganda - and has the power to easily destroy the career and livelihood of any contractor (scientist) who dissented.

Meteorologist John Coleman has studied the facts about global warming and asserts that the data shows we are not undergoing global warming, manmade or not. He reveals how a great scientist named Roger Revelle happened to have Al Gore in his class at Harvard - and thus the Global Warming campaign was born. Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore went on to become Vice President, make a documentary, win an Oscar and win the Nobel Peace Prize. Gore lied and claimed that Revelle was senile, and thus Gore refused to debate him. Coleman shows how tax dollars are perpetuating the manmade global warming alarmist campaign despite the hard evidence.

Piers Forster (Climate Change Professor, Leeds University) who said:
“Global surface temperatures have not risen in 15 years. They make the high estimates unlikely.”

Dr. David Whitehouse (Global Warming Policy Foundation) who stated:
“Global warming should no longer be the main determinant of economic or energy policy.”


Say, maybe you can answer this... what was the "consensus" of 97% of the 'experts' 25 years ago as to what caused ulcers? Wasn't it "excess stomach acid", leading to the antacid industry boom? Then they found out it was actually helicobacter pylori bacteria. If we'd relied upon "consensus", people would still be suffering from ulcers... we've advanced our knowledge because we didn't rely upon "consensus". All "consensus" does is stifle the advancement of knowledge... which is exactly what the libtards want... they don't want anyone questioning their anti-science politicized CAGW propaganda.

I'd encourage you to check out Lindzen, 1992, in which M.I.T. Professor Richard K. Lindzen credits water vapor and clouds with 98% of any ‘‘greenhouse effect’’ (given that water vapor has a much wider absorption spectrum than CO2 and can be upwards of 20,000 ppm (2% vs. CO2's 410 ppm or 0.041%) atmospheric concentration without any fog or rain, and much higher concentration with fog or rain).

I'd encourage you to check out Endersbee, 2007a, showing ground-station results from 27 rural locations in Australia with a mean temperature of 17.38 C in 1880, dropping irregularly to 16.78 C in 1946, then rising irregularly to 16.98 C in 1990, an overall move of minus 0.40 C in 110 years. Of course, there is no correlation with CO2 levels.

I'd encourage you to check out the 2012 Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz tree-ring study showing a 200 year European cooling trend (you'll note that blows Mann's 'hockey stick' right out of the water, given that he used only a handful of trees (which were later proven to be poor temperature proxies) and conflated that to the entire globe).
Quote
An international team including scientists from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) has published a reconstruction of the climate in northern Europe over the last 2,000 years based on the information provided by tree-rings. Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC. In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling. "We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Esper. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods."
Here's data from another tree-ring study (Salzer et al 2014) using the same set of trees as Mann's 'hockey stick' study:

The black line is MBH98 – the Michael Mann curve of Hockeystick fantasy. The red line is HadCRU (the Hadley best guess of surface temperatures, from surface thermometers and computers). The droopy green line is the Graybill chronology to 1987, while the blue lines are the updates to the SheepMountain series of tree ring “temperatures”. Oops... does that show a declining temperature proxy? :D

I'd encourage you to peruse the more than 450 studies proving CAGW is nothing more than a politicized scam:
http://notrickszone.com/global-warming-disputed-300-graphs/

I'd encourage you to read the 27 page synopsis outlining the scam:
http://www.co2web.info/Kauffman_JSE-21-4-723_2007.pdf

I'd also encourage you to check out Singer & Avery, 2007: p 65–66 as a debunkment of your "consensus" blather (90% of state climatologists do not agree with CAGW hypothesis)... but we all know you won't. Some people seem to want to stay 'stuck on stupid'. :D
Re: Global warming-or is it?
« Reply #49,  »Last edited by Cycle


5 meters of snow in Blocksberg, the highest peak of the Harz mountain.


Erie, PA more than double the previous snow record


French Alps


Louisville, KY gets 8.4 inches of snow to start spring.


Lehigh Valley, PA gets 13.5 inches of snow to start spring.


The past...


Today.

:D