open-source-energy.org

Off Topic => Off Topic => Topic started by: Zweistein on March 18th, 2018, 07:04 AM

Title: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Zweistein on March 18th, 2018, 07:04 AM
Hi guys, i saw the post "Logic" is already locked, so my post would be more apropriate for that discussion. Never mind, another possibile couse to consider:

https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-09-10-175-patents-prove-that-geoengineering-and-weather-control-technologies-are-real.html
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 18th, 2018, 02:39 PM
I encourage those interested to review the posts made here(http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3201.msg48840#msg48840) and here(http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3201.msg48837#msg48837).

(https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_swe.png)
As a result of solar output falling faster than at any time in the past 9300 years(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557394/), the convective winds containing the Polar Vortex are weakened, allowing the Polar Vortex to 'meander' and dump record levels of snow in more southerly regions (see chart above). This increases the albedo of those regions, whilst the sunless winter Arctic doesn't offset this increase. Thus Northern Hemisphere albedo increases overall, reflecting more sunlight back out to space before it can warm the planet... this is the amplification effect which, given enough snow coverage, tips the planet into glaciation events.

(https://www.iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Last-4-warm-periods-Weise.png)
You'll note we're not even at the temperature of the Medieval Warm Period, let alone the Roman Warm Period nor the Minoan Warm Period. None of the prior warm periods coincide with a preceding rise in atmospheric CO2 (CO2 lags temperature change at all measured time scales... the increasing global temperature increases oceanic respiration of CO2 in accordance with Henry's Law, as the solubility of gasses in water is temperature dependent). Hence CO2 is not a driver of climate, it's an effect of a climate changing from other causes.

As I described in the thread 'Logic(http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3201.msg48837#msg48837)', CO2 has been found to actually cause global cooling. Thus the Catastrophic Anthropogenic CO2-induced Global Warming hypothesis (and that's all it is... a hypothesis. It cannot be called a theory, it has no empirical substantiation... in fact, the empirical evidence nulls the hypothesis... so it's a falsified hypothesis at that) is not only scientifically implausible, it's scientifically impossible.

The Stefan-Boltzmann Law of Radiation and the Laws of Thermodynamics would be violated if CAGW were true.

The continued pushing of the already well-falsified CAGW hypothesis can mean only one thing... it's not about science, it's about politics. And it's a scam. A scam designed to blame you for global warming, so the politicians can tax and control you to a greater degree.

In short, the CAGW proponents have conflated causation and correlation. They've conflated the correlation between the recent Solar Grand Maximum's (F10.7 flux peaked at ~230) global temperature increase with the increase of CO2 and attempted to state that it's the CO2 which is the cause of that temperature increase.

Of course, now that the sun has entered a quiescent phase (F10.7 flux(http://swc.nict.go.jp/sunspot/latest30sunspot_e.php) average 68.43... below 100 denotes global cooling), solar activity has fallen faster than at any time in the past 9300 years(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557394/), and it will remain in that quiescent phase until at least 2053, we have empirical evidence of global temperature falling by 0.6 C over the past 3 years(https://static-sls.smf.aws.sanomacloud.net/tiede.fi/s3fs-public/styles/medium_main_image_no_upscale/public/discussion_comment_image/amovs_uah.jpg), global SST (Sea Surface Temperature)(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Bw6Bg3cSLAU/Wmoj7naWrQI/AAAAAAAAAmk/_z1Slvtf6kYnxrqlLbwAMH4ecojMN9XdwCLcBGAs/s1600/HADSST2018125.png) falling(https://i0.wp.com/www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png), global land surface temperatures falling at the fastest rate in recorded history(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3974846/Stunning-new-data-indicates-El-Nino-drove-record-highs-global-temperatures-suggesting-rise-not-man-emissions.html), sea level falling by 2.75 mm(https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-27/nasa-confirms-falling-sea-levels-two-years-amidst-media-blackout) over the past 2 years(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/05/falling-sea-level-the-critical-factor-in-2016-great-barrier-reef-bleaching/), the typical weakening of the Polar Vortex seen during periods of global cooling (and its resultant record(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/14/an-exceptionally-large-amount-of-winter-snow-in-northern-hemisphere-this-year/) cold and snow in further-south regions), a decline of between 5 and 10 C in the lower and middle mesosphere during the past three decades (ironically, correctly attributed to increased CO2 atmospheric concentration, while ignoring the ramifications of that correct attribution of the cooling effects of CO2), causing thermospheric contraction (leading experts to project that space junk would stay in orbit for as long as 25% longer due to less atmospheric drag)... the CAGW hypothesis and the entire global warming scam is falling apart.

As such, those pushing the scam are scrambling to remain relevant and retain some semblance of credibility... some of them have revised sea level rise projections downward while the more alarmist (such as Mann) have doubled-down, dredging up the old "NY is going to be flooded!" Al Goreism, they were caught adjusting temperature records as they happened(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/20/noaa-caught-cooking-the-books-again-this-time-by-erasing-a-record-cold-snap/) in order to try to erase the current cold conditions, they've said the record cold covering most of North America, Asia, Europe and even extending to:

- there being more than 15" of snow in the Sahara Desert(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/07/cold-snap-brings-snowfall-to-the-sahara-desert-for-the-second-winter-in-a-row/),

- many frosts during summer in southern Brazil(https://www.iceagenow.info/twelfth-frost-of-the-summer-in-sao-joaquim-south-brazil/) (they're calling it the "Year Without A Summer(https://www.iceagenow.info/year-without-summer-brazil/)", a tribute to the year 1816),

- a record cold Australian winter(https://www.iceagenow.info/record-cold-winter-australia/),

- the heaviest snow in Naples, Italy in 50 years(https://www.iceagenow.info/heaviest-snow-naples-50-years/),

- the beaches of France being covered in 6" of snow (for the first time in 30 years)(https://www.iceagenow.info/corsica-beaches-ajaccio-covered-snow/),

- summer snow in New Zealand(https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/101120583/snow-in-summer-the-latest-twist-to-our-weird-weather-week).

...was just a "hole" in global warming, and they've actually stated "That snow outside is what global warming looks like.(https://climatism.wordpress.com/2018/03/01/life-inside-the-global-warming-bubble/)"... yeah... in liberal NewSpeak, "Cold Is The New Warm".

Their cognitive dissonance must be clanging in their skulls like a bell on an old-timey fire truck... or it would if they actually believed the BS they shovel at the hoi polloi.

I have a most apropos adage: "Never attribute to stupidity that which can be attributed to greed."

The world currently spends $1,000,000,000 (one billion US dollars) a day in attempting to "prevent" their claimed (but in actuality, nonexistent) anthropogenic global warming... and the Paris climate accord, if fully implemented, would cost upwards of $100,000,000,000,000 (one hundred trillion US dollars), while by its own admission only "postponing" their claimed (but in actuality, nonexistent) anthropogenic global warming by 4 years.

In other words, Catastrophic Anthropogenic CO2-induced Global Warming (CAGW) is the largest scam ever perpetrated upon the world.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 18th, 2018, 10:04 PM
Nothing to see except a whole bevy of peer-reviewed scientific studies which reveal CAGW as a scam.

I've got 30 peer-reviewed studies showing no link between CAGW and hurricane intensity / frequency.

I've got 285 peer-reviewed studies from 2017 alone showing that global temperature is not correlated to atmospheric CO2 concentration.

I've got several retractions of studies from some of the heavyweights pushing the CAGW scam.

I've got a few attempts by those pushing the CAGW scam to SLAPP-suit anyone questioning their anti-science rhetoric... all of which were either dismissed (with prejudice) or dropped.

I've got ClimateGate 1.0 and ClimateGate 2.0 showing attempts at colluding to change the peer-review process to 'pal-review' and to exclude data from an IPCC report because it didn't fit the narrative.

I've got one university spending a half million dollars to fight an FOIA request for their climate 'scientist's' data.

I've got a climate 'scientist' committing contempt of court in Canada for refusing to release the falsified data he used to testify before Congress with.

I've got 'red team/blue team' debates in which the climate alarmists get beaten badly every single time, despite sending their best people to do the debating.

And on top of all that, I've got science on my side... you cannot refute that CO2 is transparent to downwelling radiation and very nearly transparent to upwelling radiation... so just how is 0.041% of the atmosphere, which is nearly transparent to all radiation except that which corresponds to a blackbody temperature of approximately -81C (CO2's absorption spectrum) warming anything at all?

It's amazing how the scientific method wins out over hand-waving, rhetoric, alarmism and falsehoods. Every. Single. Time.

What've you got? A stubborn insistence upon denying scientific reality? :D
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: massive on March 18th, 2018, 10:17 PM
they cant even accurately predict the weather , if they did , theyd be fortune telling
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Zweistein on March 19th, 2018, 03:37 AM
CO2 is food for plants, nothing else. Now, what happens when you lower co2 in the atmosphere?
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Apoc4lypse on March 19th, 2018, 11:46 AM
The plants die.

All of them.

All plants dead.

The end.

 :rofl:
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: PeakPositive on March 19th, 2018, 12:05 PM
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/18/approaching-grand-solar-minimum-could-cause-global-cooling/


http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/03/18/gore-doubles-down-global-warming-triggering-flying-rivers-rain-bombs/



Al Gore the mother of Global Warming BS is back at it so look out for those flying rivers. HaHaHa !!!

But you know if you would just pay a Carbon Tax all the warming would end. LOL
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: onepower on March 19th, 2018, 02:35 PM
Nothing to worry about, LOL
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2018-01-12-drought-south-increase-since-fall-dry-outlook
Quote
Drought Has Expanded Rapidly Across the Southern U.S. Since Fall and the Outlook Into Spring Is Worrisome
Drier-than-average conditions have impacted much of the South since early fall, resulting in a rapidly expanding drought across the region. Unfortunately, this trend in below-average precipitation is expected to continue into early spring.
The latest data released by the U.S. Drought Monitor this week showed that almost 58 percent of the contiguous U.S. is seeing at least abnormally dry conditions.
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2018-01-08-united-states-2017-third-warmest-year-noaa
Quote
2017 Was Third-Warmest Year on Record for U.S
In 2017, the United States had its third-warmest year in 123 years of records, with record warmth felt in a handful of states in the South, according to a just-released government report.
I think many other countries will be laughing when the southern U.S. see's massive crop failures again but it won't be the U.S. farmers who are seeing ever increasing water shortages.

http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-about-to-hit-a-water-crisis-2015-4
Quote
A looming national issue
While the rest of the US hasn't been ordered to reduce water use, that doesn't mean we have a free pass to use as much water as we want. Many states — 4o out of 50 according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office— have at least one region that's expected to face some kind of water shortage in the next 10 years.
I think CO2 and supposed climate change is the least of your worries and it could be an interesting summer. At the end of the day there is a great deal of speculation on both sides however I think all can agree that something is happening.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 19th, 2018, 04:27 PM
Quote from onepower on March 19th, 2018, 02:35 PM
Nothing to worry about, LOL
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2018-01-12-drought-south-increase-since-fall-dry-outlook
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2018-01-08-united-states-2017-third-warmest-year-noaaI think many other countries will be laughing when the southern U.S. see's massive crop failures again but it won't be the U.S. farmers who are seeing ever increasing water shortages.

http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-about-to-hit-a-water-crisis-2015-4
I think CO2 and supposed climate change is the least of your worries and it could be an interesting summer. At the end of the day there is a great deal of speculation on both sides however I think all can agree that something is happening.
The following is from a post I made on another site:
Quote
The Symptoms of Global… Warming?

Here’s an interesting article… the vicious cold which large swaths of the world finds itself beset with due to a weakened polar vortex has been claimed by the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks as “DUUURRRHHH! Pruuf!” of CAGW. Al ‘ManBearPig’ Gore himself said this was ‘exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis’.

“For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa’s drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast.”

{ASIDE: And there is drought in Africa… South Africa has declared a national emergency due to drought; there is drought in Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia which UNICEF has said threatens 18.4 million people; OxFam says 30 million people in Yemen and Nigeria are on the brink of starvation due to drought. Zimbabwe and Uganda are also experiencing drought There’s also drought in India which the Indian government is attempting to ameliorate by teaming up with an Israeli firm to extract drinking water from thin air. Central America has severe to exceptional drought watches stretching from Baja, Mexico to Nayarit, Jalisco, Colima, and Michoacan further south. And of course, scientists working in the Middle East are predicting “endless mega-droughts”.}

So that quote above looks pretty damaging to global warming skeptics, no? Except for the one sentence preceding it…

“Scientists have found other indications of global cooling.”

That’s from Time magazine, Jun 24, 1974.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060721203314/http://time-proxy.yaga.com:80/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

You’ll remember the 70’s as the era when the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks attempted to tell everyone they’d be buried under a mile of ice in less than a decade, unless governments threw money at the “experts” so they could spread coal dust on the poles ‘to save humanity!’. Now a lot of those same sort of Klimate Katastrophe Kooks are denying anything of the sort, saying Spock hosting a program extolling ice age freeze-porn was a “myth”, that the Newsweek, Time and hundreds of other articles weren’t “scientific studies” (yeah, but they were based upon those “scientific studies”… remember?).

“The scientists and computers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were confidently predicting that the frigid weather would continue. The chilling pronouncement of NOAA’s senior climatologist: ‘The forecast is for no change.'”
– Time Magazine, 1977

Hundreds of articles were written and many TV shows were aired, based upon the NOAA prediction of continued cold. They even trotted out Howard Kronkite (the most trusted man in America?) to push the ice-age scare:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

And of course, you had the ever-ubiquitous humanity-hating anti-capitalists saying we needed to get rid of democracy ‘so we can save humanity’… same as today. Nevermind that capitalism has lifted more than half a billion people out of poverty in the past century, whereas their socialism has killed more than 124 million and impoverished even more in the past century. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

In point of fact, the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks admitted to what they now call a “myth”:
“One could effectively argue that in the early 1970s the prevailing view was that the earth was moving toward a new ice age. Many articles appeared in the scientific literature as well as in the popular press speculating about the impact on agriculture of a 1-2 C cooling.” – Climatic Change, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp. 159–183, June 1985 Thomas R. Stewart, Michael H. Glantz

So the NOAA was pimping an ice age when they thought it’d get them more government money, and now they’re doing the same for CAGW, all while denying any involvement in what the Klimate Katastrophe Kooks now call a “myth”, despite their quotes from that period being readily available.
And in other news, it's been discovered that a very basic, very fundamental, very elementary 'error' was made in climate models... the climate modelers assumed no feedback forcing for surface emissions for all the years prior to the industrial age, yet assumed a very large feedback forcing for the minor temperature change (and thus the surface emissions) after the industrial age... they attempted to attribute two different effects to the same thing.

To cover for this (and to still allow them to blame CO2 for the completely natural warming), they jacked up the feedback forcing for water and CO2, while lowering the forcing for our only source of energy, the sun... the IPCC report has a nearly zero solar effect in their models.

The only global warming taking place is in the computer models of the IPCC and their politicized ilk. In the real world, empirical evidence shows the planet is cooling. In effect, they're asking you to disbelieve your own lying eyes, and rely upon them... and any time someone does that, it's usually a prelude to some sort of abuse being perpetrated against you.

You've been lied to. Don't be gullible. Figure things out for yourself. Don't rely upon the so-called 'experts', because they have an agenda.

Global warming on trial and the elementary error of physics that caused the global warming scare(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/19/global-warming-on-trial-and-the-elementary-error-of-physics-that-caused-the-global-warming-scare/)
Quote from https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/19/global-warming-on-trial-and-the-elementary-error-of-physics-that-caused-the-global-warming-scare/
The parties will not be able to dismiss our result lightly. To refute it, they would have to show that our pre-industrial feedback fraction f = 0.08, obtained by theoretical means rooted in mainstream control theory, is incorrect; that our industrial-era value f = 0.05, obtained empirically from IPCC’s estimate of the net anthropogenic forcing to date and from the HadCRUT4 temperature record, is also incorrect; that our campaign of ten empirical calculations giving a mean feedback fraction f = 0.12, is incorrect; that the rate of observed warming over the past 68 years is either incorrect or irrelevant; that the rate of observed warming this century to date is also either incorrect or irrelevant; that the results from our test rig are inapplicable; that the results from a government laboratory are likewise inapplicable; and, above all, that it is justifiable to assume that control theory is wrong and that, per impossibile, 255.4 K of emission temperature generates no feedback at all, while the next 8 K of warming suddenly causes 24 K of feedback, as if by magic.

We do not believe in magic.
You'll also note the pre-industrial era feedback forcing fraction was higher than the industrial era feedback forcing fraction. That alone negates CAGW... while also corroborating what I'd said previously about CO2 actually causing global cooling(http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3201.msg48837#msg48837).

The recently ended Solar Grand Maximum, according to the climate 'scientists', had absolutely nothing to do with temperature change... in reality, our increased anthropogenic CO2 emission partially offset the solar forcing-caused temperature increase.

In other words, if we hadn't dumped all that CO2 into the atmosphere, the planet would have warmed more than it did.

Another stake in the heart of CAGW:

The work of Niels Henrik David Bohr (1922 Nobel prize winner) proved that when a gas absorbs electromagnetic radiation it does not heat the gas, it causes the electrons in the molecule to gain energy and move to a higher orbital radius (higher potential energy, which is released (when the electron subsequently drops to a lower orbital radius) in the form of photons of the same wavelength as that which was absorbed to excite the electron). And since the photon emitted is the same wavelength as the photon absorbed, there is no extra energy with which to increase molecular kinetic energy (heat). E=hf is a well-established relation, known as the Planck-Einstein relation(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%E2%80%93Einstein_relation).

Gasses heat by conduction, which results in the molecule moving at higher velocity (higher kinetic energy)... that is the heat we can measure with a thermometer.

In other words, for CAGW to be true, we'd have to tear down everything we know about quantum mechanics.

So even quantum mechanics proves that the CAGW hypothesis is total bunkum.

Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Matt Watts on March 19th, 2018, 06:27 PM
Quote from Cycle on March 19th, 2018, 04:27 PM
You've been lied to. Don't be gullible. Figure things out for yourself. Don't rely upon the so-called 'experts', because they have an agenda.
The beautiful thing in all this is:

The elite stick to a plan, forever.  If global warming doesn't work, they'll back-off and come at you again with climate change, but it's the same gig every time.  The chutzpah these guys have is completely over-the-top.  If you fail to see that, then you're really not paying attention, because it's right in your face.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: onepower on March 19th, 2018, 07:57 PM
As an argument one could take climate change out of the equation. So lets say the record heat waves and drought are a short term phenomena of less than 50 years. That does not change the fact that all water bodies have been proven to be becoming more acidic due to acid rain from fossil fuel pollution. As we all know acid rain is beyond dispute and based on decades of science. It is based on basic science found in any high school text book. Thus even if you could dodge the climate change bullet mother nature still has a full clip and your going to lose. Then we have those large yellow clouds of toxic smog hanging over every major city for all to see due to fossil fuel pollution. Toxic clouds everyone is breathing which has now been linked indirectly to more deaths than all other diseases combined. I remember the first time I flew into LAX, a monument to human arrogance with pavement and buildings and millions of people all covered in a thick yellow toxic smog as far as the eye could see in every direction... it was mind boggling.

So you even if long term climate change is not directly linked to burning fossils fuels that in no way changes the fact that burning fossil fuels is destroying the environment and it is killing people. It is a dirty filthy toxic and primitive way to transform energy and every intelligent and modern society is moving away from them. So in effect... the argument for or against CO2 induced climate change has little relevance when compared to the massive number of problems associated with burning fossil fuels.

Here is an interesting read on the subject.
Vaclav Smil -- "Energy and Civilization: A History".
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 19th, 2018, 08:05 PM
Quote from onepower on March 19th, 2018, 07:57 PM
As an argument one could take climate change out of the equation. So lets say the record heat waves and drought are a short term phenomena of less than 50 years. That does not change the fact
For some value of "fact".
Quote from onepower on March 19th, 2018, 07:57 PM
that all water bodies have been proven to be becoming more acidic due to acid rain from fossil fuel pollution.
https://www.umdrightnow.umd.edu/news/changes-river-chemistry-affect-water-supplies
Quote from https://www.umdrightnow.umd.edu/news/changes-river-chemistry-affect-water-supplies
Over time spans of 25 to 60 years, two-thirds of the rivers had become significantly more alkaline and none had become more acidic.
Whoopsie... seems you've been caught chugging the libtard koolaid again. Don't you ever check your "facts" before you post? :D

It seems Mother Nature has no problem counteracting the tiny amount of "acid rain" we cause.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2249/report.pdf
Quote
The increase in New England and New York occurred primarily before the mid-1950's. Since the mid-1960's, there has been no significant change in the acidity of precipitation in this region.

The decrease in pH from 6.05 in the mid-1950's to recent (1978) values of about 4.1 was attributable almost entirely to the decrease in alkaline dust.
Seems it has more to do with less dust being kicked up, rather than any anthropogenic cause. You'll note the 4.1 pH value was from 1978, right about the time that anthropogenic emissions of acid rain-causing pollutants was at its worst... it's since rebounded to an average of 5.5 to 5.8, depending upon several factors (such as temperature of the rain, location collected, etc.).

If you insist upon being alarmist and promulgating incorrect information, you can expect that others will take you to task for it.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: onepower on March 19th, 2018, 08:34 PM
Okay cycle
If I have to be the only adult in the room before Matt has to close yet another thread then so be it. It seems obvious you have no intention of debating anything like a responsible adult. Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 19th, 2018, 08:49 PM
That's why I said, "It seems Mother Nature has no problem counteracting the tiny amount of "acid rain" we cause.".

The alkaline rock will never be gone... it's ubiquitous. Your lack of sense of scale is showing again.

Further, your reading comprehension problem has reared its ugly head again:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2249/report.pdf
Quote
The increase in New England and New York occurred primarily before the mid-1950's. Since the mid-1960's, there has been no significant change in the acidity of precipitation in this region.

The decrease in pH from 6.05 in the mid-1950's to recent (1978) values of about 4.1 was attributable almost entirely to the decrease in alkaline dust.
Here's some more info:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1966.tb00236.x
Quote from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1966.tb00236.x
Since 1957 more than 200 samples of rain water have been analysed at the Meteorological Observatory of Dresden‐Wahnsdorf. At four mountain summit stations and one coastal station fog water was sampled and analysed.

The yearly mean of the pH has remained constant since 1958.
Oh look, US emission of 'acid rain' causing pollution has been dramatically falling:
(https://amedia.britannica.com/700x450/35/146335-004-25B13619.jpg)

Further, your lack of knowledge of chemistry is showing:
(http://slideplayer.com/9015168/27/images/4/Acid+rain+%3C+pH+5.6+THIS+IS+NOT+ACID+RAIN%21%21%21.jpg)

You should be embarrassed. You specifically said:
Quote from onepower
...all water bodies have been proven to be becoming more acidic due to acid rain from fossil fuel pollution.
That has quite obviously been proven incorrect.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 19th, 2018, 09:57 PM
Quote from onepower on March 19th, 2018, 08:34 PM
Okay cycle
If I have to be the only adult in the room before Matt has to close yet another thread then so be it. It seems obvious you have no intention of debating anything like a responsible adult. Good luck with that.
Presenting facts corroborated by peer-reviewed studies is "no intention of debating anything like a responsible adult" to you.

You've been wrong about everything you've posted thus far... Occam's Razor asserts that you're simply tired of being proven wrong, rather than your transparent attempt at playing the part of "the bigger man". ;)
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Apoc4lypse on March 20th, 2018, 12:12 AM
I was going to make a public post, but I'm pretty sure Russ is already annoyed enough about the other thread and where that one went.

But I'm just going to leave this here.

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F


And if fossil fuels aren't such a problem then why don't we just continue burning them and see what happens, Flack it...
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Matt Watts on March 20th, 2018, 01:23 AM
Cycle,

You're pretty good at digging up data.  What do you have in regards to ozone, specifically the ozone layer?

I keep hearing about ozone layer depletion and I'm quite curious as to whether this is solar related or some other cause.  There was a big push a while back about fluorocarbons and how freon and other such pressurized gases released into the atmosphere where causing major damage.  I never really bought into the story, but I'm still curious what you might know about it.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: onepower on March 20th, 2018, 06:43 AM
Quote
You've been wrong about everything you've posted thus far... Occam's Razor asserts that you're simply tired of being proven wrong
That is your personal opinion and I disagree because the premise of most all of your posts is that a cause (fossil fuel related pollution) has had literally no effect on the environment. Not only that but in many cases you have proposed that the cause has had an opposite effect to that known to the scientific community.

In any case your opinions are in disagreement with the consensus of the scientific community and in fact the premise of most all science which is that every cause must have an equivalent effect. I guess the obvious place to start is...

1) Do believe the billions upon billions of tons of hydrocarbon gasses released into the atmosphere annually have had no harmful effects on people?

2)Do believe the billions upon billions of tons of hydrocarbon gasses released into the atmosphere annually have had no harmful effects on plants and animals?

3)Do believe the billions upon billions of tons of hydrocarbon gasses released into the atmosphere annually have had no harmful effects on the atmosphere or our water bodies?.

Here is an informative link to what actual scientists think---
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/hidden-cost-of-fossils#.WrETtE2Wy70


Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: onepower on March 20th, 2018, 07:52 AM
Apoc4lypse
Quote
I was going to make a public post, but I'm pretty sure Russ is already annoyed enough about the other thread and where that one went.
But I'm just going to leave this here.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov…/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F
There in lies the problem and cycles claims directly contradict what may be the largest scientific research institution on the planet filled with the best scientists. So who is one to believe?.... tens of thousands of the best scientists using the latest state of the art equipment "or" some anonymous guy on the internet who is afraid to post his real name.

You see real scientists with real credibility use there real names and they take responsibility for their claims unlike this absurd nonsense we see on the internet where ... b0B302 thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax because XYZ.com posted some fabricated and misleading data.

In my opinion anyone who claims to have compiled data or facts who is afraid to post their real name has zero credibility.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: PeakPositive on March 20th, 2018, 03:04 PM
Happy 1st day of Spring and its snowing here, Burrrr!

If truly worried then plant some tree’s you can always chop them down for heat or if it get to warm you can use them for shade to cool off.

 :thumbsup:   :popcorn:
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 20th, 2018, 04:45 PM
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 2018, 06:43 AM
That is your personal opinion
It also happens to be the opinion of the authors of those multiple peer-reviewed studies, and a great number of scientists and physicists throughout history.

So you deny Henry's Law, the Stefan-Boltzman Law, the Laws of Thermodynamics and the underlying premise of quantum mechanics, is what you're saying... right? What are you going to replace all those carefully empirically derived theories with? Magic?

We don't believe in magic. :D
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 2018, 06:43 AM
and I disagree because the premise of most all of your posts is that a cause (fossil fuel related pollution) has had literally no effect on the environment.
I didn't say that. I merely pointed out that those pushing the CAGW scam are trying to attribute the contemporary temperature increase 100% to CO2, which is not only scientifically implausible, it's scientifically impossible. The proof of that is in the thread above.
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 2018, 06:43 AM
Not only that but in many cases you have proposed that the cause has had an opposite effect to that known to the scientific community.
I haven't just "proposed" it, I proved it.
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 2018, 06:43 AM
In any case your opinions are in disagreement with the consensus of the scientific community
If it's science, there is no consensus. If there's a consensus, it's not science. Science is not done by consensus, so your attempt at appealing to authority in this fashion fails from the outset.
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 2018, 06:43 AM
and in fact the premise of most all science which is that every cause must have an equivalent effect. I guess the obvious place to start is...

1) Do believe the billions upon billions of tons of hydrocarbon gasses released into the atmosphere annually have had no harmful effects on people?
Your failure to appreciate the fact that the climate is dominated by the water cycle, not the carbon cycle, is noted. Not very scientific of you. :(

Did you know the IPCC can't even fully keep track of the carbon cycle? They call it the "net imbalance" problem... they can't account for 1.6 Gt +- 1.4 Gt / yr of CO2.

Did you know the IPCC has claimed carbon dioxide atmospheric residence time is as long as 250 years? If that's true, why does the graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration rise and fall on a semi-annual basis (take a gander at the chart from Moana Loa Observatory)? If what they said were true, the graph line would be smooth... in fact, CO2 residence time has been found to be ~5 months.

You'll note the two factors above are related... I'm sure you can do the research on CO2 fertilization to figure it out.

Do you believe the 37 Gt anthropogenic CO2 annually significantly changes the 759 Gt natural respiration of CO2? Especially given that plant uptake of CO2 has increased substantially with the observed global greening?

Do you not realize that CO2 is essential to all life on the planet, and we're very near the lowest the planet has been in the past million or so years? We go much lower, and plants won't be able to pull CO2 out of the air. When plants die, animals die, including humans.
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 2018, 06:43 AM
2)Do believe the billions upon billions of tons of hydrocarbon gasses released into the atmosphere annually have had no harmful effects on plants and animals?
The planet has greened. Do you believe plant life expanding its area by 2.5 times the size of Australia is detrimental to plants?

Did you not realize that increased atmospheric CO2 concentration means a plant doesn't have to open its stomata as often nor as long, making it able to survive with less water?

Do you believe with the observed global greening, that plant-eating animals have somehow suffered?
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 2018, 06:43 AM
3)Do believe the billions upon billions of tons of hydrocarbon gasses released into the atmosphere annually have had no harmful effects on the atmosphere or our water bodies?.
You've already been embarrassed on the water bodies issue... your cheap ploy of returning to the same topic you've already conceded defeat on is shoddy debating tactic.

The water bodies are becoming more alkaline, not more acidic. The oceans have a much larger pH variance on a daily basis than is ascribed to the changes caused by humanity throughout its entire history.

But if you wish to be embarrassed a second time on the same topic, I'll accommodate you. :D
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 2018, 06:43 AM
Here is an informative link to what actual scientists think---
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/hidden-cost-of-fossils#.WrETtE2Wy70
Bahahaa! The Union of Concerned Scientists... the same group who just recently leapt to the ramparts to defend the climate scientists' practice of not making public their data, stating that to make their data publicly available would open the scientists up to scientific scrutiny of their methodologies? Honestly? This is the best you've got?

The scientific method requires that a scientist's methodology be open to scientific scrutiny. If it's not, science is not being done.

So in siding with the UoCS you're asking everyone to forego the scientific method and instead rely upon the unaccountable 'scientists' and their hidden data and methodologies... honestly, if you keep shooting yourself in the foot like that, people are gonna start thinking you're on my side. :D
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 20th, 2018, 05:12 PM
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 2018, 07:52 AM
Apoc4lypse
There in lies the problem and cycles claims directly contradict what may be the largest scientific research institution on the planet filled with the best scientists.
Who says that? Oh yeah... those very same scientists... but they're not biased or anything.

So you're essentially making a plea to authority, while completely ignoring the actual underlying science which proves CAGW is nothing more than a scam... that's recursive logic... how's that working out for ya? :D
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 2018, 07:52 AM
So who is one to believe?.... tens of thousands of the best scientists using the latest state of the art equipment "or" some anonymous guy on the internet who is afraid to post his real name.
Your so-called "consensus" is anything but...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/21/ooops-not-al-31-scientific-societies-actually-signed-the-aaas-consensus-letter/
Quote from https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/21/ooops-not-al-31-scientific-societies-actually-signed-the-aaas-consensus-letter/
The American Physical Society has explicitly rejected the discussed letter: “The American Physical Society did not sign the letter because it was presented as a fait accompli, and there are significant differences between the letter and the APS Statement on Earth’s Changing Climate.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/10/the-97-climate-consensusstarts-to-crumble-with-485-new-papers-in-2017-that-question-it/
Quote from https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/10/the-97-climate-consensusstarts-to-crumble-with-485-new-papers-in-2017-that-question-it/
According to Richard’s analysis, the 485 new papers underscore the “significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes,” which in turn suggests that climate science is not nearly as settled as media reports and some policymakers would have people believe.
The actual consensus (depending upon which study you're looking at) ranges from 0.54% to 66%, but in no cases was it the claimed 97%. And to get that 66% figure, they excluded a great number of studies which didn't fit the narrative:
https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

Sometimes the truth hurts. You've been lied to. You were gullible enough to believe the lies without bothering to check for yourself whether they were true or not. Now you're burying your head in the sand and denying science so you don't have to face that reality. Deal with it.
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 2018, 07:52 AM
You see real scientists with real credibility use there real names and they take responsibility for their claims unlike this absurd nonsense we see on the internet where ... b0B302 thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax because XYZ.com posted some fabricated and misleading data.

In my opinion anyone who claims to have compiled data or facts who is afraid to post their real name has zero credibility.
Ironic, given that you're posting under a pseudonym. :D

Doubly ironic, given that you've just sided with the Union of Concerned Scientists and thus defended their desire to keep climate scientist data and methodology hidden from scientific scrutiny... apparently all you need is a name, not the data, nor the methodology. :D

The names of all the scientists are in those multiple peer-reviewed studies in the thread above. Your straw-man argument thus fails.

Here you go... educate yourself:
http://notrickszone.com/global-warming-disputed-300-graphs/

The data says the planet was warming from a Solar Grand Maximum, that it has now ended, and that global temperature is dropping, while anthropogenic CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration continue increasing... how do you explain that in your fairy tale anti-science world?

Because in the world of science, it's easy to explain.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: onepower on March 20th, 2018, 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.

For example:
Quote
The scientific consensus is clear. Building on two previous studies, a landmark 2013 peer-reviewed study evaluated 10,306 scientists to confirm that over 97 percent climate scientists agree, and over 97 percent of scientific articles find that global warming is real and largely caused by humans.
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. The fact is you have proven nothing... nada.
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.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: onepower on March 20th, 2018, 05:40 PM
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2129548-cutting-through-the-smog-is-pollution-getting-worse/(https://www.newscientist.com/article/2129548-cutting-through-the-smog-is-pollution-getting-worse/)
(https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/02163148/p8713477-2.jpg)

(https://fthmb.tqn.com/BdJiN8_LibP-rAMIhCtDTqQZCps=/2101x1429/filters:no_upscale():fill(FFCC00,1)/Smog_RayPfortner_Photolibrary_139822519-56a2ad6e5f9b58b7d0cd505b.jpg)

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 20th, 2018, 06:46 PM
Quote from Matt Watts on March 20th, 2018, 01:23 AM
Cycle,

You're pretty good at digging up data.  What do you have in regards to ozone, specifically the ozone layer?

I keep hearing about ozone layer depletion and I'm quite curious as to whether this is solar related or some other cause.  There was a big push a while back about fluorocarbons and how freon and other such pressurized gases released into the atmosphere where causing major damage.  I never really bought into the story, but I'm still curious what you might know about it.
The ozone layer is a pretty difficult subject... it's an ionized oxidizer, so it'll latch onto pretty much anything. Thus, there can be any number of chemical causes for its decline.

But looking at what generates ozone in the lower stratosphere, we know that it's UV from the sun:
(https://www.learner.org/courses/envsci/visual/img_med/ozone_production.jpg)

That's complicated by the creation and destruction mechanisms for ozone... particularly pressure. With an increase of UV-B, atmospheric expansion pushes the zone for ozone production away from its optimum by shifting optimum pressure downward, thus ozone creation decreases because the less-dense air allows UV-C (the only type of UV which has the energy necessary to generate ozone) to bypass the zone of optimum pressure.

We know that prior to 1999, the UV output of the sun had risen significantly (remember all those warnings about skin cancer and such?). We also know that recently, as the sun has slid into a quiescent phase, its UV output has dropped significantly.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100826152217.htm
Quote from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100826152217.htm
Results of a new study link a recent, temporary shrinking of a high atmospheric layer with a sharp drop in the sun's ultraviolet radiation levels.
{ASIDE}
You'll remember my discussing the thermospheric shrinkage which is projected to cause space junk to remain in orbit for as long as 25% longer than previously predicted due to less atmospheric drag... the above is the reason why, exacerbated by the empirically observed and scientifically accepted cooling caused by increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration.
{/ASIDE}

You'll note that global temperature is also tied to solar UV output. That's because the "solar constant" isn't so constant as we had believed... the UV output of the sun varies greatly between solar maximums and solar minimums.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Woods-Solar-UV-Variability.pdf
Solar Ultraviolet Variability Over Time Periods Of Aeronomic Interest
Thomas N. Woods and Gary J. Rottman
Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
Quote from http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Woods-Solar-UV-Variability.pdf
The solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation is a primary energy source for planetary atmospheres and is also a tool for remote sensing of the planets.
{ASIDE}
That goes back to my post above, which states that a gaseous molecule absorbing electromagnetic energy does not increase its kinetic energy, it increases its potential energy, which is then released in the form of photons of the same wavelength as that which was absorbed to excite the electron, and since photon wavelength is correlated to photon energy, there is no extra available energy with which to increase molecular kinetic energy (heat). This is how astrophysicists can determine what molecules make up an exoplanet's atmosphere. Gaseous molecules can only obtain or shed heat (kinetic energy) via conduction (collision, usually with the ground or water), not by absorption of EM energy. Thus the CAGW hypothesis fails, as one of its base claims is that CO2 is absorbing EM radiation and causing heating of the atmosphere.

Now, one may be asking... "But... but... but... the temperature changes as one goes up in altitude! How does it do that? Hmmm? HMMMM??"

And I'd encourage you to become more scientifically literate by studying up on adiabatic lapse rate, as well as the effects of stratospheric ionizing radiation. :D
{/ASIDE}

Anyway, since the solar UV output has waned due to the weakest solar cycle in more than 100 years and due to it falling into a solar minimum (and with a good possibility it will fall into a Grand Solar Minimum), there is less ozone created.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 20th, 2018, 07:14 PM
Quote from onepower on March 20th, 2018, 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, 2018, 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(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/02/alarmists-throw-in-the-towel-on-poor-quality-surface-temperature-data-pitch-for-a-new-global-climate-reference-network/) 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:
(https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/rss-change-data-animation-09-to-10-2016.gif)
and another:
(http://landscapesandcycles.net/image/75157969_scaled_419x316.png)
and another:
(http://landscapesandcycles.net/image/75158304_scaled_576x434.jpg)
and another:
(https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/sale_thumb.gif)
and another:
(http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Corn-belt-JJA-temperature-precip-1895-2013-diff-in-datasets.png)
and another:
(https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/texasdatatampering2011-2015.gif)
and another:
(https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/nuukgif_thumb.gif)
and another:
(http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b7c7851b28970b-400wi)
and another:
(http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b8d10527b3970c-400wi)
and another (thanks, PeakPositive):
(https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018_03_20_05_47_24.png)
and another (this one doubled the 1890 to 1980 warming trend):
(https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/giss-1981-2002-2014-global.gif)
and another:
(https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/northernhemispherechanges.gif)
and another:
(https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/gissus1999vs2015.gif)
and another:
(https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/ncdcbaseline1990-20147.gif)
and another:
(https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/reykjavikgiss2012-2013.gif)
and another:
(https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/vestmannaeyja.gif)
and another:
(https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/alicespringsgiss2012-2014.gif)
and another:
(https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/puertocasado1.gif)
and another:
(https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/ithacanyjan.gif)
and another:
(https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/addisonnyjan.gif)
and another:
(https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/nyjan-marrawfinal.gif)
and another:
(http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b7c7688179970b-400wi)

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, 2018, 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, 2018, 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.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Matt Watts on March 20th, 2018, 07:17 PM
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.  :-)
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: PeakPositive on March 20th, 2018, 09:01 PM
Memory is not that good sometimes, have we seen this? :hillbilly: :thinking:

https://realclimatescience.com/2018/03/noaa-data-tampering-approaching-2-5-degrees/

Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: haxar on March 20th, 2018, 10:24 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Matt Watts on March 20th, 2018, 11:17 PM
Probably game over...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY5SReQ2Kqc

Don't worry, just die.  Should be the new motto.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Apoc4lypse on March 20th, 2018, 11:18 PM
"The planet is fine the people are Flacked"  :rofl:

Pretty much sums it up...
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Apoc4lypse on March 20th, 2018, 11:47 PM
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....
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Matt Watts on March 20th, 2018, 11:57 PM
Let me say this and you all think about it until it sets in:

"Nothing of any significance happens by chance.  Nothing."
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: onepower on March 21st, 2018, 04:50 AM
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.

Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: PeakPositive on March 21st, 2018, 12:46 PM
Mark Steyn cracks me up.  :rofl2:

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

 :rofl:

Ooops! is it a microaggression to laugh at this ? LOL

Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 21st, 2018, 11:09 PM
Nearly all of Europe is below the freezing point:
(https://i.imgur.com/TDP3iEz.jpg)

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(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/21/boom-federal-judge-dismisses-claim-of-a-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:
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: onepower on March 22nd, 2018, 09:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: PeakPositive on March 22nd, 2018, 11:56 AM
Quote from onepower on March 22nd, 2018, 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:


Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: onepower on March 22nd, 2018, 02:06 PM
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(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.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Apoc4lypse on March 22nd, 2018, 02:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Matt Watts on March 22nd, 2018, 03:31 PM
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 22nd, 2018, 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.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 22nd, 2018, 03:54 PM
Quote from onepower on March 22nd, 2018, 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
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 22nd, 2018, 04:18 PM
Quote from PeakPositive on March 22nd, 2018, 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, 2018, 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, 2018, 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
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 22nd, 2018, 05:30 PM
And in other news:
Spain's Port of Montenegro is closed due to snow(https://www.iceagenow.info/spain-port-of-montenegro-closed-due-to-snow/)
Washington, DC doubles previous snowfall record(https://www.iceagenow.info/d-c-doubles-previous-snowfall-record/)
NY has its snowiest season in 130 years(https://www.iceagenow.info/snowiest-season-in-new-york-city-in-130-years/)
Bulgarian storks are freezing to death(https://www.iceagenow.info/bulgarians-rush-to-save-frozen-storks/)
California's Sierra Nevada received 16 feet of snow in 18 days(https://www.iceagenow.info/california-too-much-snow-for-a-ski-trip/)
Paris has their coldest days since 1888(https://www.iceagenow.info/paris-coldest-consecutive-late-march-days-since-1888/)
Record cold in Essen, Germany(https://www.iceagenow.info/record-cold-in-essen-germany/)
Record snowfall for Worcester, MA(https://www.iceagenow.info/massachusetts-city-smashes-snowfall-record-for-2nd-time-in-2-weeks/)
Yankton, SD breaks 98 year old snowfall record(https://www.iceagenow.info/yankton-sd-snowfall-breaks-98-year-old-record/)
Record cold winter for Australia(https://www.iceagenow.info/record-cold-winter-australia/)
Cold records shattered in Ukraine(https://www.iceagenow.info/abnormal-cold-europe-cold-records-shattered-ukraine/)
Record snowfall in Scotland(https://www.iceagenow.info/record-snowfall-scotland/)
Record cold in Russia(https://www.iceagenow.info/record-cold-russia-2/)
Record snow and cold in Croatia(https://www.iceagenow.info/record-snow-cold-croatia/)
21 New Norwegian Cold Records(https://www.iceagenow.info/21-new-norwegian-cold-records/)
Record snowfall in Northern Japan(https://www.iceagenow.info/record-snowfall-northern-japan/)
Record snowfall in Vancouver, BC(https://www.iceagenow.info/record-snowfall-vancouver-bc/)
Record cold in San Francisco, CA(https://www.iceagenow.info/record-cold-san-francisco/)
Record snowfall in Windsor, Ontario(https://www.iceagenow.info/record-snowfall-windsor-ontario-2/)
New snowfall record for Calgary, Alberta(https://www.iceagenow.info/new-snowfall-record-calgary-alberta/)
Heaviest snowfall on record in Moscow, Russia(https://www.iceagenow.info/update-heaviest-snowfall-record-moscow/)
Lowest temperature ever recorded in Bangladesh history(https://www.iceagenow.info/lowest-temperature-ever-recorded-bangladesh-history/)
Record cold in Siberia(https://www.iceagenow.info/record-cold-siberia/)
Cold Records Shattered In Baton Rouge and New Orleans(https://www.iceagenow.info/cold-records-shattered-new-orleans-baton-rouge/)
Record cold in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi(https://www.iceagenow.info/record-cold-deep-south-least-10-dead/)
Record snowfall in French and Italian Alps(https://www.iceagenow.info/record-snowfall-french-italian-alps-skiers-now-playing-find-car/)
Record snowfall in China(https://www.iceagenow.info/record-snowfall-china-2-5-million-lose-power/)
Animals freeze solid standing up in Kazakhstan(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5310825/Animals-FROZEN-SOLID-amid-56C-conditions-Kazakhstan.html)
Dogs in Connecticut, Ohio, Cincinnati, Michigan freeze solid(https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/dogs-animal-cruelty-freeze-to-death-historic-cold-us-connecticut-ohio-cincinnati-michigan-a8146321.html)
More frozen sharks!(http://www.newsweek.com/more-sharks-found-dead-because-cold-us-right-now-771877)
Florida iguanas so cold they fall out of the trees(http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-05/us-cold-weather-sees-iguanas-freezing-falling-from-trees-florida/9305938)
Sea water so cold it's spontaneously desalinating, freezing and killing everything it touches(https://www.iceagenow.info/brinicle-ice-finger-death-antarctic-video/)

(https://images.theconversation.com/files/208960/original/file-20180305-146655-17ihxh4.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: PeakPositive on March 22nd, 2018, 07:09 PM
Quote from onepower on March 22nd, 2018, 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?
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 22nd, 2018, 07:20 PM
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(http://eidclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/La-Jolla-Climate-Report-June-2012.pdf).

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(https://www.energyindepth.org/national/bombshell-activists-admit-exxonknew-is-about-attacking-free-speech/). 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(http://eidclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/La-Jolla-Climate-Report-June-2012.pdf) 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". ;)
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: onepower on March 22nd, 2018, 08:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 22nd, 2018, 09:47 PM
Quote from onepower on March 22nd, 2018, 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(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/25/why-did-pbs-frontline-electronically-alter-the-signature-of-one-of-the-worlds-most-distinguished-physicists-in-their-report-climate-of-doubt/).

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, 2018, 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
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 22nd, 2018, 10:43 PM
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(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/14/study-reveals-that-manns-bristlecone-pine-trees-may-not-be-good-treemometers-after-all/)) 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:
(http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph/paleo/mwp-lia/sheep_mountain_update3.png)
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
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 23rd, 2018, 08:17 PM

(http://strangesounds.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/snow-anomaly-germany.jpg)
5 meters of snow in Blocksberg, the highest peak of the Harz mountain.

(https://dsx.weather.com/util/image/w/eriesnow12.jpg)
Erie, PA more than double the previous snow record

(https://www.sott.net/image/s22/444015/large/2c03d636eb4a054aa18b19900ba3f8.jpg)
French Alps

(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/919c61d79db8c571c532efa6f13d611d8b7c5513/c=250-0-1798-1164&r=x393&c=520x390/local/-/media/2018/03/21/Louisville/Louisville/636572245023008015-Snow-Louisville-March.jpg)
Louisville, KY gets 8.4 inches of snow to start spring.

(http://c-8oqtgrjgwu46x24yyyx2evtdkoix2eeqo.g00.mcall.com/g00/3_c-8yyy.oecnn.eqo_/c-8OQTGRJGWU46x24jvvrx3ax2fx2fyyy.vtdkoi.eqox2fkoi-7cd51236x2fvwtdkpgx2foe-rkevwtgu-pqtgcuvgt6-cttkx78gu-kp-vjg-ngjkij-x78cnnga-42302543x2f972x2f972z644x3fk32e.octmx3dkocig_$/$/$/$/$/$)
Lehigh Valley, PA gets 13.5 inches of snow to start spring.

(https://thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/global-warming-lies-750.jpg)
The past...

(https://pics.me.me/twas-so-cold-this-morning-saw-a-socialist-with-his-29981954.png)
Today.

:D
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Apoc4lypse on March 23rd, 2018, 09:31 PM
The only question you should ask is "what the bleep do we know".

We got a lot of snow, according to you anyway.

For me I saw average snowfall where I live.

It comes back to the question, if a tree falls in a forest and no ones around to hear it does it make a sound?

Sure you can setup something to record the sound, but would it still have made that sound if the recording device that was designed to record sound wasn't there.

Seeing is believing, and believing is everything. That is at the heart of everything that happens, but if you can logically believe something its more likely to happen that way than another way.

My problem lays with facts. Facts are opinions that were proven using imperfect tests that people saw which led to a more popular opinion.

"If you believe, Even though you can not see,You Will See." ~Russ

I love this quote because it holds true for everything even this subject.

I don't believe in global warming, but I do see climate change. I see it every time I look out the window or go outside from day to day. I see climate change because I was taught that it happens since I was born as well as experienced it. Everyone always watches the weather. The best thing to do really is be prepared for every weather situation you've ever experienced personally and then just let it happen the way its going to because we can't control it anyway. In other words prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

I like science but I like creative science that involves questioning what we think we know to find different solutions by using what we think we know and learn by questioning that to do something previously thought impossible.

I don't likely blindly following everything that has been presented as a truth even if it is scientifically "proven" because if you go back to the metaphoric question about the sound of a tree falling in the forest, we just don't know beyond the smallest doubt possible.

 
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 12:22 AM
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 23rd, 2018, 09:31 PM
It comes back to the question, if a tree falls in a forest and no ones around to hear it does it make a sound?
Of course it does. Truth is objective. Your attempt to claim it is subjective fails... remember, to you, truth is subjective, so you can state no absolutes.

I, on the other hand, am not hindered by that misapprehension.

Facts are not opinions, they are facts. You're entitled to your own opinions, however you are not entitled to your own facts.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Matt Watts on March 24th, 2018, 12:56 AM
Quote from Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 12:22 AM
Facts are not opinions, they are facts. You're entitled to your own opinions, however you are not entitled to your own facts.
Careful now Cycle.  I can have a dogma that is mine and it works just fine for me; when I state something as fact, it still lives under the umbrella of my dogma.  What I'm getting at is, I can say, "I can prove this as an absolute fact."  But in reality, it is not and I cannot.  Why?  Because my "absolute fact" is tied to my dogma, my perspective.  Every one of us has that same limitation.  My awareness of my reality is not the same as reality and likely not the same as your awareness of your reality.  We are biological machines and we don't all process information the same way.  On top of that we have other abilities, gut instincts, intuition that sways our motivations and interpretations.  What do we do about this?

We have to merge those things we have in common and use them as a basis for resolution of our conflicts.  Given enough time they will approach reality, but never actually get there.  At some point we will declare self evidence, because we agree, but regardless, it will still be an approximation of reality tied to multiple perspectives.  Close enough will have to do, because it's all we got.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 01:33 AM
And if your dogma says that pink unicorns fart pixie dust, which is the impetus of gravity... those are "facts" to you?

Facts are based in objective truth. Opinion is opinion, and may or may not be based in objective truth, nor even align with reality.

If my 'dogma' says "1+1=2", that is a fact. It cannot be falsified.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: PeakPositive on March 24th, 2018, 01:53 AM
I know one thing if we enter a mini Ice Age and a tree falls in the woods there will be the sound of a chainsaw cutting it up for heat. :rofl: :whofarted: :clap2:
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: haxar on March 24th, 2018, 02:39 AM
Your facts could get caught in lies you believe too.

A lier in the political climate: Clintons
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Matt Watts on March 24th, 2018, 10:50 AM
Quote from haxar on March 24th, 2018, 02:39 AM
Your facts could get caught in lies you believe too.
Yeap.
Quote from Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 01:33 AM
And if your dogma says that pink unicorns fart pixie dust, which is the impetus of gravity... those are "facts" to you?

Facts are based in objective truth. Opinion is opinion, and may or may not be based in objective truth, nor even align with reality.

If my 'dogma' says "1+1=2", that is a fact. It cannot be falsified.
It cannot be falsified by you at the moment you declare it a fact.

Cycle, you need to read the book Flowers for Algernon(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowers_for_Algernon).
Quote
Anyone who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 11:18 AM
Quote from Matt Watts on March 24th, 2018, 10:50 AM
It cannot be falsified by you at the moment you declare it a fact.
This should be good.

Please falsify '1+1=2'.

 :fdrum:

After you've expended your lifetime pondering that and failing to falsify it, you can answer this:

"Why is it true that 3-3=5?"

And you'll yet again expend yet another lifetime pondering that and failing to answer it, because it is inherently untrue that 3-3=5.

So you've just spent two lifetimes proving me right by two different avenues.

Thanks. :D

Now ponder that all actual science is reducible to mathematics. CAGW, on the other hand, violates the mathematics of describing physical phenomenon, and is therefore a falsified hypothesis.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: onepower on March 24th, 2018, 11:20 AM
No worries, soon we will have free energy and fossil fuels and climate change will go the way of the dodo bird. Problem solved.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 11:36 AM
Quote from onepower on March 24th, 2018, 11:20 AM
No worries, soon we will have free energy and fossil fuels and climate change will go the way of the dodo bird. Problem solved.
One big difference between CAGW and the dodo bird... the dodo actually existed at one point in time, whereas CAGW is as real as pink unicorns farting pixie dust.

But according to Matt Watts, all you have to do is assert that pink unicorns farting pixie dust are real, and poof!... they become a reality. Apparently, libtards believe the same sort of 'reasoning' applies to CAGW. :lol:
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: PeakPositive on March 24th, 2018, 12:08 PM
Sorry couldn’t resist. :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6blD-cfko1A
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 2018, 03:51 PM
Quote from Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 11:18 AM
Please falsify '1+1=2'.
I'll take a shot at this because the answer was given to me by someone who was years ahead of me in math when I was in school.

1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3

Except divide 1 by 3 and take that decimal answer and add it together 3 times don't let a calculator do it because they just round the answer.

Which is 0.3333 with the 3 repeating infinitely. Add together all 0.3333's and you end up with a 0.9999 with the 9 repeating infinitely.

So 1 technically can never technically equal 1 exactly... if you entered in 1+1 into a calculator using fractions in correct decimal form you wouldn't get 2.

It should also be noted that most scientific calculators are programmed to round an input of (1/3)+(1/3)+(1/3) to the answer of 1 instead of .0.9999 repeating. There is actually no way to enter 1/3 into a calculator perfectly because 0.3333 repeats the 3 infinitely... hence the calculator just rounds the answer up to 1, when technically the answer is 0.999 repeating infinitely.

In fact I'm pretty sure I remember learning there is actually a formula used for complex calculations to account for this inconsistency of the number 1 that takes this into account for "Error Correction" purposes to get a more accurate answer when dealing with large amounts of data and large numbers.

Of course I am by no means insinuating that everything you think will automatically become reality... and everything you want to happen will happen.

But everything you want to happen there is a way of making happen no matter how ridiculous the idea is, but that's my own personal belief. It doesn't mean I'm going to try and materialize something out of thin air and its just going to happen because I wished it to, but I could question scientifically how to make something materialize, and there may even be an answer and method for doing that.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 03:54 PM
Quote from PeakPositive on March 24th, 2018, 12:08 PM
Sorry couldn’t resist. :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6blD-cfko1A
That's why rule #1 describing libtards is that they're notoriously bad at math.

1) They're notoriously bad at math.
2) They have no sense of scale.
3) They have no sense of history.
4) They're gullible enough to believe every scary story they manage to read.
5) They remain clue-repellent. Willingly so.

I forgot to add rule #6:
6) When beaten by facts, they believe feigning moral outrage makes them 'more right' than those facts. Expect infantile tantrums.
 :D
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 03:58 PM
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 2018, 03:51 PM
I'll take a shot at this because the answer was given to me by someone who was years ahead of me in math when I was in school.

1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3

Except divide 1 by 3 and take that decimal answer and add it together 3 times don't let a calculator do it because they just round the answer.

Which is 0.3333 with the 3 repeating infinitely. Add together all 0.3333's and you end up with a 0.9999 with the 9 repeating infinitely.

So 1 technically can never technically equal 1 exactly... if you entered in 1+1 into a calculator using fractions in correct decimal form you wouldn't get 2.

It should also be noted that most scientific calculators are programmed to round an input of (1/3)+(1/3)+(1/3) to the answer of 1 instead of .0.9999 repeating. There is actually no way to enter 1/3 into a calculator perfectly because 0.3333 repeats the 3 infinitely... hence the calculator just rounds the answer up to 1, when technically the answer is 0.999 repeating infinitely.

In fact I'm pretty sure I remember learning there is actually a formula used for complex calculations to account for this inconsistency of the number 1 that takes this into account for "Error Correction" purposes to get a more accurate answer when dealing with large amounts of data and large numbers.

Of course I am by no means insinuating that everything you think will automatically become reality... and everything you want to happen will happen.
I don't think it's mere 'rounding errors' which explain libtards being notoriously bad at math... but your demonstration of the principle is taken as corroboration of Rule #1 describing libtards. :D

By the way, you've not falsified '1+1=2', you've merely chosen a flawed formalism and conflated it to the objective fact that '1+1=2'... so you've used a logical flaw to try to falsify an objective fact, and you've failed. :-[

Now go on to the second part.

"Why is 3-3=5 true?"

Good luck.
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 2018, 03:51 PM
But everything you want to happen there is a way of making happen no matter how ridiculous the idea is, but that's my own personal belief. It doesn't mean I'm going to try and materialize something out of thin air and its just going to happen because I wished it to, but I could question scientifically how to make something materialize, and there may even be an answer and method for doing that.
You have a wonderful opportunity to prove me wrong! All you have to do is wish really, really hard that pink unicorns farting pixie dust exist, and that it's found that the pixie dust is the impetus for gravity.

Try clicking your heels and crossing your fingers. You have your lucky rabbit's foot, right? Knock on wood. :rofl:
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 2018, 04:06 PM
3 - 3 = 5

Its true because its written write above what I'm typing right now and two more times in the thread.

The thing is its also been written 3 - 3 = 0 more times than its been written 3 - 3 = 5 since arithmetic has existed.

Our collective reality is defined by our collective consciousness and our collective reality effects our individual consciousness.

It is what ever you want it to be, but it also is what ever it is and what everyone else believes it is.

I mean we can argue about this till the end of time... I'm just surprised you were never presented the 1/3 fraction as a decimal issue when defining 1 because it is covered and demonstrated by some math teachers and professors and then you claim it to be a demonstration only liberals would explain.

It always comes back to Liberals versus Conservatives with half of your answers on these subjects and I get the feeling you've painted me as a Liberal or a Libtard lol.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 04:24 PM
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 2018, 04:06 PM
3 - 3 = 5

Its true because its written write above what I'm typing right now and two more times in the thread.

The thing is its also been written 3 - 3 = 0 more times than its been written 3 - 3 = 5 since arithmetic has existed.

Our collective reality is defined by our collective consciousness and our collective reality effects our individual consciousness.

It is what ever you want it to be, but it also is what ever it is and what everyone else believes it is.

I mean we can argue about this till the end of time... I'm just surprised you were never presented the 1/3 fraction as a decimal issue when defining 1 because it is covered and demonstrated by some math teachers and professors and then you claim it to be a demonstration only liberals would explain.
It's still a logical fallacy conflated to an objective truth, and thus fails to falsify that objective truth. That you would try to use it without realizing that speaks volumes about the shifting sands of your belief system... a belief system which the socialists throughout history have exploited.
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 2018, 04:06 PM
It always comes back to Liberals versus Conservatives with half of your answers on these subjects and I get the feeling you've painted me as a Liberal or a Libtard lol.
Ah, "New Math"... that explains why libtards are notoriously bad at math.

You're so inculcated that you're living Orwell's book 1984. You've accepted it without question... you are the sheeple steeped in DoubleThink that The Party relies upon to remain in power.

Or are you simply a brain-washed Stalinist?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Yakov_Guminer_-_Arithmetic_of_a_counter-plan_poster_%281931%29.jpg/220px-Yakov_Guminer_-_Arithmetic_of_a_counter-plan_poster_%281931%29.jpg)

Your kind of thinking would take us back to the dystopian thinking of the Stalinists and the Nazis, you know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5

By the way, your way of thinking used to be listed in the dictionary (including that 2+2=5 example) from as far back as 1728... under the word "absurd".

And that ties into yet another rule describing libtards:
3) They have no sense of history.

Let me guess... you voted for Obama simply because he asserted that we "needed change".. without once considering the ramifications of that change. He said it so it must be true, according to you.

Say, did you know people who display such delusional thought processes are able to get oxygen directly from water in order to breathe, so they can live underwater? Go on, try it. Someone said it, so it must be true.

 :laughing:
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 05:05 PM
You get those pink unicorns farting pixie dust to pop into existence yet?

Oh, before I forget... you owe every member of OSE $10,000.00 US each. It's been written, so it must be true. That's your own belief system at work, so don't blame me for your being destitute afterward.

 :rofl:
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 05:26 PM
You owe every member of OSE $10,000.00 US each. It's been written, so it must be true. That's your own belief system at work, so don't blame me for your being destitute afterward.

Look! It's been written twice! That makes it twice as true as it was before!

 :clap:
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 05:39 PM
You owe every member of OSE $10,000.00 US each. It's been written, so it must be true. That's your own belief system at work, so don't blame me for your being destitute afterward.

That's three times it's been asserted! If I'd known making money was as easy as just saying people owed it to me, I never would have spent all those years studying nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics, stochastic electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics and various and sundry other BSM theories!

Hey everyone!  Apoc4lypse is handing out money! All you have to do is assert that he owes it to you, and it's a big payday for you!

Remember to come back and get more anytime you need it... his belief system leaves him no choice but to pay up. Ostensibly, he won't even have a defense in court if he doesn't pay up and you sue him for the money... after all, he's written that whatever is written is "true"... and according to him, whatever is written more must be "more true".

 :-D
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 05:46 PM
Still waiting on you popping those pink unicorns farting pixie dust into existence... maybe you're not wishing hard enough.

You should try wishing upon a star... I've heard that works. And look! It's written, so it must be true!
 :D
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 2018, 06:16 PM
Well cycle, you've done a great job, now I'm both a liberal extremist and apparently a socialist trying to become a nazi all at the same time. :shocked:

I've never voted because I know its all rigged. I only just registered to vote this year, and I'm not even sure I'll bother voting.

Thank you for confirming that you do see me as a Liberal Extremist and not only that but a socialist too...

Your so far off the mark on my political stance simply because I disagree with your views of reality and politics. Your becoming your own version of a Libtard but with Conservative views instead by refusing to see other peoples points of view just as a Liberal extremist refuses to see any benefits of Conservatism and tradition. Why don't we call it what it is... being Closed Minded. :fdrum:

I'd say something else but honestly I know your just going to glance at it and then form another rebuttal to anything I say because apparently your logic is better than everyone else's (now that's delusional thinking). You didn't even respond to the fact that the 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 problem is covered in some schools and universities and ignored it and labeled it libtard thinking. :roll:

Anyway, I'm not going to talk about anything political on this forum anymore, its a waste of time and energy.

If I bring up anymore concepts on altering reality ever again it will be based in forms of scientific reasoning like the fact that our minds can actually alter matter on a subatomic level via the concentration and transmission of fields within the brain and the body and yes there have been experiments done in relation to this subject with mixed results some proving it and some disproving it but I question the control of the experiments themselves as we know very little about this concept right now in scientific terms as its unknown territory and the double slit experiment is really the only thing that proves it could be possible but there are different interpretations of that experiment.

You completely missed the the point of what I was saying about numbers and facts by the way...

This is getting tiresome... and I don't like people insinuating that I'm a nazi when half my family is jewish.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 06:48 PM
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 2018, 06:16 PM
Well cycle, you've done a great job, now I'm both a liberal extremist and apparently a socialist trying to become a nazi all at the same time. :shocked:

I've never voted because I know its all rigged. I only just registered to vote this year, and I'm not even sure I'll bother voting.

Thank you for confirming that you do see me as a Liberal Extremist and not only that but a socialist too...
Your own words put truth to your denials. You think and act exactly like a brainwashed liberal... you can say anything you like about what you believe yourself to be (I notice more and more blatantly obvious liberals denying their liberalism as the democrat party and their CAGW scam implodes), but what you write here paints an entirely different story to your denials.
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 2018, 06:16 PM
Your so far off the mark on my political stance
So simply because you've not voted at all (by your own admission), that makes you a "not a liberal"?
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 2018, 06:16 PM
simply because I disagree with your views of reality and politics.
There are no "views of reality", there is only reality. It is objective. Your continued insistence that reality is subjective is part and parcel of your admitted mental illness. If you have no anchor to reality, what did you expect your brain to do, given that it's evolved to pattern-match and alter its behavior to best ensure survival? With a shifting reality such as you believe in, it doesn't know what to do, so it goes a bit... erm, crazy. Right?

You should give Objectivism a try... you'll likely be much saner for it.
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 2018, 06:16 PM
Your becoming your own version of a Libtard but with Conservative views instead by refusing to see other peoples points of view
You mean I refuse to waste my time considering points of view which are absurd on their face. That's a Good Thing.
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 2018, 06:16 PM
just as a Liberal extremist refuses to see any benefits of Conservatism and tradition. Why don't we call it what it is... being Closed Minded. :fdrum:
It's not "closed-minded" to exclude views which are demonstrably deluded and detrimental to existence. It's common sense, which you've amply demonstrated you lack.

Did you manage to get those pink unicorns farting pixie dust to pop into existence yet? No?! You're not trying hard enough. Really, do you want people to consider your failure to prove me wrong as my being right? You'd better try much harder. :D
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 2018, 06:16 PM
I'd say something else but honestly I know your just going to glance at it and then form another rebuttal to anything I say because apparently your logic is better than everyone else's (now that's delusional thinking). You didn't even respond to the fact that the 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 problem is covered in some schools and universities and ignored it and labeled it libtard thinking. :roll:
It's a logical flaw, a rounding error, and you've attempted to apply that logical flaw to falsify an objective truth. If you can't see the absurdity of your attempt, you're beyond any mathematical help anyone can give you.
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 2018, 06:16 PM
Anyway, I'm not going to talk about anything political on this forum anymore, its a waste of time and energy.
You've said that before, yet you keep crawling back to bleat more libtard mewlings.
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 2018, 06:16 PM
If I bring up anymore concepts on altering reality ever again it will be based in forms of scientific reasoning like the fact that our minds can actually alter matter on a subatomic level
No, no our minds cannot "alter matter on a subatomic level"... that's metaphysical bunkum. The universe is deterministic. Our misunderstanding of it has led some off into the brambles of metaphysicalism, but that doesn't change objective reality no matter how hard you wish.
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 2018, 06:16 PM
via the concentration and transmission of fields within the brain and the body
Strange that these "fields within the brain and body" have never been scientifically double-blind studied, nor proven to even exist, let alone "alter matter on a subatomic level".
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 2018, 06:16 PM
and yes there have been experiments done in relation to this subject with mixed results some proving it and some disproving it
It only takes the valid results from one experiment to null an hypothesis. I note you've not provided any links to double-blind studies that haven't engaged in p-hacking. Let's see if you can accomplish that, eh?
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 2018, 06:16 PM
but I question the control of the experiments themselves as we know very little about this concept right now in scientific terms as its unknown territory and the double slit experiment is really the only thing that proves it could be possible but there are different interpretations of that experiment.
I encourage you to peruse my prior posts in which I discuss this... the previous results of the double-slit experiments were a result of our introducing errors into the process by interacting with the system, then misinterpreting the results... a new experiment which greatly reduces this unwanted interaction shows the universe to be deterministic.
Quote from Apoc4lypse on March 24th, 2018, 06:16 PM
You completely missed the the point of what I was saying about numbers and facts by the way...

This is getting tiresome... and I don't like people insinuating that I'm a nazi when half my family is jewish.
Your failed attempt at claiming I insinuated that you were a Nazi is noted. I stated that your way of thinking would lead us back to the dystopian thinking of the Stalinists and the Nazis, and I inquired if you were a brain-washed Stalinist. I also emphatically stated that you're a sheeple so inculcated with 1984 DoubleThink that you haven't bothered to even so much as question it.

Do try to keep your "facts" straight, won't you? :D
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: haxar on March 24th, 2018, 07:07 PM
Repeat a lie enough, it becomes "truth."

Apparently, a lie had to be made to cover up the truth.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 07:16 PM
Getting back to the topic at hand:

As regards the so-called "consensus" which some of the more deluded and non-thinking use as an appeal to authority to justify their continued religious belief in something which has been proven to be scientifically impossible:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/97-consensus-is-only-76-self-selected.html
The 97% "Consensus" is only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists
Quote
The graphic below comes via our friends at [un]skepticalscience, assuring us that while 97% of "climate scientists think  that global warming is 'significantly' due to human activity," a shocking 72% of news coverage does not reflect this "consensus" and similarly 74% of the public are not convinced.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/TFWQ1MDEYYI/AAAAAAAABOk/jRGDN4BnEiY/s320/ScreenShot1919.jpg)
However, close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren't buying it.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/TFWQ1hhi0NI/AAAAAAAABOs/YURM-ivSHqQ/s320/ScreenShot1920.jpg)
They didn't even get the arithmetic right. 75 out of 79 is 94.9367%, which is 95% rounded to 2 significant digits.

This further corroborates Rule #1 to describe libtards:
1) They are notoriously bad at math.
 :rofl:
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: haxar on March 24th, 2018, 07:38 PM
Quote from Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 05:39 PM
That's three times it's been asserted! If I'd known making money was as easy as just saying people owed it to me, I never would have spent all those years studying nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics, stochastic electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics and various and sundry other BSM theories!
Corporations, or strawmen, exchange commercial paper, such as promissory notes, by banking law.

The "Federal Reserve" creatures-from-Jekyll-island had a big stake in the Fed Act.
Quote from the Rothschilds
Give me control of a Nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.
Rothschilds' wanted control over a Nation's lawful money supply, so that they could lien everything for their benefit (a.k.a. taxation), via Fed Act.

The taxman has jurisdiction because a lien exists. The role of the I.R.S. is obvious with a "Notice of Lien," since they're only interested in liened private credit from the Fed that you hold as unredeemed notes. Fortunately, they cannot dispute lawful money, or they'd spill the beans.

The redemption clause by restricted endorsement of all items for deposit is the only way out of the legal matrix and into the lawful private common law side.

Legislation is how they installed this current banking system, and for every other bankrupted country. Libya recently went bankrupt by this Western influence.

Of course it's not taught in school...
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 08:00 PM
Quote from haxar on March 24th, 2018, 07:38 PM
Corporations, or strawmen, exchange commercial paper, such as promissory notes, by banking law.

The "Federal Reserve" creatures-from-Jekyll-island had a big stake in the Fed Act.

Rothschilds' wanted control over a Nation's lawful money supply, so that they could lien everything for their benefit (a.k.a. taxation), via Fed Act.

The taxman has jurisdiction because a lien exists. The role of the I.R.S. is obvious with a "Notice of Lien," since they're only interested in liened private credit from the Fed that you hold as unredeemed notes. Fortunately, they cannot dispute lawful money, or they'd spill the beans.

The redemption clause by restricted endorsement of all items for deposit is the only way out of the legal matrix and into the lawful private common law side.

Legislation is how they installed this current banking system, and for every other bankrupted country. Libya recently went bankrupt by this Western influence.

Of course it's not taught in school...
Well, that's a good demonstration of just how delusional the whole taxation and monetary system is, eh?

Theft is theft, whether it is done by a thug on the street, by a mob of people with pitchforks and torches, or by a mob of politicians with a stack of verbiage-on-paper. Therefore, objectively, taxation is theft.

Let the government charge for services it provides to earn its money (and put control of the money supply back in the hands of Congress, where it rightfully belongs, rather than in the hands of a secretive, largely unaccountable and privately-owned business), and most of the problems go away. The government should have no lien against the sweat and toil of the people, given that the government provides precious little in the way of value for the money taken by force of government (up to and including at the barrel of a gun, making it de facto theft).

Do away with the welfare system and return it to being the local society's (usually the church's, but not necessarily restricted to that) responsibility to take care of their own and we not only get rid of a massive waste and a magnet for every moocher in the world, but we have better social cohesiveness, less loneliness, more people with an incentive to work, less need to patrol the border for illegals, fewer mental issues and fewer people acting out violently.

Of course, the democrats, as part of their ideology, reject religion, so they must replace the social fabric of a church with the faux-fabric of 'government as god'. And from this, they raise up 'priests' who must not be questioned under penalty of personal and professional destruction ala witch trials... hence we get such debacles as CAGW, a wholly money-driven and political-power-driven attempt at instituting global governance of the same variety as the big-government the liberals (socialists all) want for our Federal government, only much larger, much more menacing and much more able (and likely) to infringe upon personal rights and freedoms. In order to do this, though, they must disarm the populace, hence the liberal's constant attack against the 2nd Amendment.

How anyone not in on the scam can be induced to go along with it is beyond me... there truly are "useful idiots" in the world.

Have you read any of Rand's work?
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 09:32 PM
This sums up everything as regards libtards and their being notoriously bad at math:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh3Yz3PiXZw

Ironically, that film was made by liberals... they're so tone-deaf they don't even realize that it's them doing this sort of stuff.

How do I know it was made by liberals? Well, they've admitted it, but the most glaring proof is that they messed up their own "New Math"!

At the end, the principle is tallying up how much the school owes the teacher, and says, "That's $2,000 for last pay period, and $2,000 for this one. That makes $4,000."

And the teacher replied, "Wrong. It's $22,000."

If they're adding 2+2=22, then 2000+2000 = 20,002,000

Twenty million and two thousand dollars.

Yet again, we see that Rule #1 to describe liberals holds true:
1) They're notoriously bad at math.

Even their own "New Math". :rofl:

I guarantee, if they keep it up, we'll be hearing about "math safe spaces" for schools. :laughing:
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: haxar on March 24th, 2018, 09:32 PM
Quote from Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 08:00 PM
Have you read any of Rand's work?
Admiralty or maritime law jurisdiction is based in legal fiction.

Common law jurisdiction is about as non-fiction and simple as it can get: no property trespass without consent

Or, for a case docked in a court: legal counsel admits the admiralty/maritime jurisdiction for you, when you'll have to represent yourself to claim your property (incl. children) back (Karl Lentz). Is the common law competent enough to give your property back?

Sounds as if the 4th and 5th "Bill of Rights" constitutional amendments are common law trespass guarantees.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJa4lQsUDpA
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: haxar on March 24th, 2018, 10:03 PM
Quote from Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 08:00 PM
The government should have no lien against the sweat and toil of the people, given that the government provides precious little in the way of value for the money taken by force of government (up to and including at the barrel of a gun, making it de facto theft).
The "United States" is a separate corporation from the "Federal Reserve" corporation.

It was simply the consent of Congress & President C.E.O., in common law, to implement the Fed Act, in 1913.

The act is now reverse-engineered by this research.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 10:13 PM
Math quiz

All you need is:
y = 1/x
x2 + y2 = 10
y = |-2x|
x = -3|sin y|

{EDIT}
Hint: https://www.desmos.com/calculator
(https://i.imgur.com/dB5Ve0X.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/YiFnr9s.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ms4EbvH.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Xb4GsOZ.png)

 :-D
{/EDIT}
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 10:25 PM
Math quiz

9 - 3 ÷ 1/3 + 1 = ?
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: haxar on March 24th, 2018, 11:20 PM
I'm missing algebraic procedures in order to solve these problems.

If I just had the procedure, then these problems would've been solved by now.

This is what school does to you: learning programs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_programming

+ - × ÷ is all I need to make a good C/PHP/bash program, or procedure.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Matt Watts on March 25th, 2018, 03:02 AM
Quote from Cycle on March 24th, 2018, 10:13 PM
Math quiz

All you need is:
y = 1/x
x2 + y2 = 10
y = |-2x|
x = -3|sin y|
Brilliant Cycle.  What else ya got?   Pink unicorn pixie dust farts?   

 :rofl2:

Sometimes I crack myself up.   :-D
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Zweistein on March 25th, 2018, 08:23 AM
lol. back to topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 25th, 2018, 08:34 AM
Quote from Matt Watts on March 25th, 2018, 03:02 AM
Brilliant Cycle.  What else ya got?   Pink unicorn pixie dust farts?   

 :rofl2:

Sometimes I crack myself up.   :-D

(http://open-source-energy.org/?action=dlattach;topic=3210.0;attach=17898;image)
What cracks me up is that you sought an incorrect formalism for the solution, leading to an incorrect result. In other words, you did it wrong. :D
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Matt Watts on March 25th, 2018, 12:06 PM
Quote from Cycle on March 25th, 2018, 08:34 AM
What cracks me up is that you sought an incorrect formalism for the solution. In other words, you did it wrong. :D
No, not your way, which was my point.  Perspective.  Even something formal like mathematical equations or logic can have perspective, cryptography is a good example.  I can hide a very specific meaning in something that would otherwise be perceived as gibberish.  I could do this with symbols or geometry too.  I could write a 500 page dissertation and the only hidden meaning I really wish to convey is that "God loves you."

So we are discussing global warming.  Does anyone know the reason the universe exists?  What its purpose is?  What our role is in being here on earth?  Where this is all going?

If you know the answers to these questions, all I can say is you are really hooked up.  You must have the inside scoop.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 25th, 2018, 03:45 PM
Quote from Matt Watts on March 25th, 2018, 12:06 PM
No, not your way,
You  mean the correct way? :D
Quote from Matt Watts on March 25th, 2018, 12:06 PM
which was my point.  Perspective.
It's math, there's only one right answer. All else are incorrect formalisms leading to incorrect results. Don't you know that mathematics is unfalsifiable?
Quote from Matt Watts on March 25th, 2018, 12:06 PM
Even something formal like mathematical equations or logic can have perspective
No, it can't. I refer you to that video above, and to the solution to the first math quiz (included in the relevant post).
Quote from Matt Watts on March 25th, 2018, 12:06 PM
, cryptography is a good example.  I can hide a very specific meaning in something that would otherwise be perceived as gibberish.
But if you're using cryptography, there is only one solution which returns a correct result (that's kind of the point of cryptography, after all)... as you said, the rest result in gibberish (just as incorrect thinking leads to gibberish beliefs). Thanks for corroborating what I've said. :D
Quote from Matt Watts on March 25th, 2018, 12:06 PM
I could write a 500 page dissertation and the only hidden meaning I really wish to convey is that "God loves you."
Ironic, given that I did something similar with 4 equations in the first math quiz. Thanks again for proving me right. I suspect you're suspecting that I'm thinking two or three steps ahead of everyone else.. or that I'm psychic. {cue spooky music} :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d1yDCWicf0
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: PeakPositive on March 25th, 2018, 05:45 PM
Global Warming


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8dcmLscf3g
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: chuff1 on March 25th, 2018, 06:23 PM
Cycle, Never assume your the smartest person in the room...  There is no logical reason to continue to impress upon us that you have the solution to our problems and all others are wrong and we should bow down and accept you as "The truth".   That being said... We all chose to be here.  So let us not forget why we are here and lets start giving each other a leg up not one that is pulling them down.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 25th, 2018, 07:11 PM
Quote from chuff1 on March 25th, 2018, 06:23 PM
Cycle, Never assume your the smartest person in the room...  There is no logical reason to continue to impress upon us that you have the solution to our problems and all others are wrong and we should bow down and accept you as "The truth".   That being said... We all chose to be here.  So let us not forget why we are here and lets start giving each other a leg up not one that is pulling them down.
I never made any such assumption... but when I see others exhibiting delusional ideation such as believing that whatever they wish hard enough for, "no matter how ridiculous the idea is" (not my words) on a forum which is supposed to be pursuing a scientific means of achieving affordable, safe, abundant energy... would you rather I allow this forum to be subsumed by metaphysical thinking?

You know, like Energetic Forum was a few years back? It got so bad they had Ken Wheeler "proving" that magnets gave off heat (because he didn't understand that the magnet was reflecting IR from the nightvision IR LED on the camera and from his own body), and demonstrating his "motionless generator" (which was actually lighting the LED because he was holding it, and his hand was minutely wavering, cutting lines of flux from an enormously powerful magnet)... both of which were debunked eventually... but only eventually, and after much back and forth between those who knew better and Wheeler, who engaged in multiple foot-stomping invective-riddled profanity-laced tirades in lieu of providing actual proof of his ridiculous assertions.

We're better than that. If it were as simple as saying "You're being idiotic. Wake up.", then I'd do that, but it appears to require actually proving that their thinking is skewed, at a tangent to reality... and even then there are quite a few who won't reorient their thinking to reality. But at least they keep most of their unscientific prattle to themselves after a fact-based drubbing. :D
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 25th, 2018, 10:42 PM
Getting back on topic... did anyone remember to participate in Earth Hour?

Now even the CAGW virtue signalling is a failure:

Alberta, Canada:
(https://clivesphotos.weebly.com/uploads/5/1/0/9/51095487/earth-hour-2018-900_orig.jpg)
Further, electricity draw this year was higher than in previous years... because global temperature is lower.

All of California ('Earth Hour' represented a miniscule dip in the already-declining trend of power usage for the day, with less than 1/2 the drop in power draw than the prior day's same time period... 'Earth Hour' didn't even rise above the statistical noise):
(https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/caiso_power_03-23-18-2040pst.png?w=720&h=390)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/25/in-california-earthhour-failed-to-register-a-blip-in-electricity-reduction/
If the result is negligible in far-left California, then it's a dying exercise in fake eco-piety, nothing more than an attempt at mind-herding the sheeple to the shearing stations.

https://twitter.com/ecobusinesscom/status/844748852208951298
73% of people believe 'Earth Hour' is ineffective... that'd be because it sends the message that sitting in the dark, without electricity, is somehow a good thing... tell that to people in the third-world, who have to suffer through blackouts all the time.

You'll note that includes Australia now, due to the liberals pushing so much wind and solar power that they've destabilized Australia's electric grid, causing blackouts, skyrocketing electric rates and necessitating a whole fleet of mobile diesel generators to keep the lights on... not to mention that boondoggle of the Musk Battery, which can supply less than 1% of the grid's needs for only an hour, at a cost to the taxpayers of $50,000,000 Aus... and Tesla makes money going forward by banking energy when electric rates are low, then doling it back out when electric rates are high, raising the average price of electricity for everyone.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Matt Watts on March 25th, 2018, 10:49 PM
Quote from Cycle on March 25th, 2018, 03:45 PM
But if you're using cryptography, there is only one solution which returns a correct result (that's kind of the point of cryptography, after all)... as you said, the rest result in gibberish (just as incorrect thinking leads to gibberish beliefs). Thanks for corroborating what I've said. :D
Funny you should mention that.  I once wrote an algorithm for group password management that would return multiple correct answers.  I was told explicitly it was not possible, but it was and I did it.
Quote from Cycle on March 25th, 2018, 03:45 PM
Ironic, given that I did something similar with 4 equations in the first math quiz. Thanks again for proving me right. I suspect you're suspecting that I'm thinking two or three steps ahead of everyone else.. or that I'm psychic. {cue spooky music} :D
In school I majored in AI.  Yes my heuristics were simple, but I could look-ahead orders of magnitude beyond my competition.  Even still, I could not look-ahead infinite levels.  If I could, then those questions I asked above, I would already know the answer to.

When I was a kid, my ol' man would whip my ass at chess, day after day.  Then one day, everything changed.  It was me cleaning his clock.  He would always say, "Eagles listen not to the chirping of sparrows."

I said that because "I get it" Cycle.  This isn't my first rodeo.  Most of us here seek to know the truth.  To me, yeah, it would be nice to know the truth, but a bigger question I have is, why do I need to know the truth?  Why should I even care?

So we debate global warming and I ask myself, "What difference does it make?"  People get all bent out of shape when they're cornered and it starts to become obvious they are wrong.  So the flip what?  Just be wrong.  Or right.  Or stupid.  Or brilliant.  Instead, go do something that makes you smile.  Go play fetch with the dog.  What I'm certain of is we were not put here for petty foolishness.  I want to build a "fuel-less" electrical generator; not because we need it, not because it will change the world, not because I have something to prove.  I want to do this because I think it's possible and I think I can do it.  If my solution looks to you like pink unicorn pixie dust farts, fine.  Have a good laugh, then go build your own.  It's never been my job to convince anyone of anything.  I'm here trying to learn, explore and put some pieces together in whatever form they happen to present themselves.  And that will have to be good enough.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 25th, 2018, 11:28 PM
Here's something that's in my wheelhouse:
https://www.iceagenow.info/submarines-in-trouble-in-the-arctic-due-to-ice/

Back when I was stationed aboard a USS Los Angeles (SSN-688) class submarine, we had no problem punching through the Arctic ice.

You'll note that while NOAA were reporting that the ice in that area was only 16" thick, that class of submarine is designed to punch through 6 feet of ice. I've seen them punch through 8 feet. So either they aren't building submarines like they used to (for the same class of submarines), or NOAA has been caught in yet another lie... this time a lie that's damaged two very expensive pieces of equipment (two submarines), put the lives of hundreds of men at risk and caused operational problems for the submarine service which results in a lowering of national security.

Strange that these sort of empirical observations all show exactly the opposite of what the CAGW clowns are claiming, eh?

It's time to disband the NOAA, or at the very least drain the swamp of the libtards. Their politicization of the climate is now merging into the realm of causing real danger.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 26th, 2018, 05:05 PM
Quote from Matt Watts on March 25th, 2018, 10:49 PM
Funny you should mention that.  I once wrote an algorithm for group password management that would return multiple correct answers.  I was told explicitly it was not possible, but it was and I did it.

In school I majored in AI.  Yes my heuristics were simple, but I could look-ahead orders of magnitude beyond my competition.  Even still, I could not look-ahead infinite levels.  If I could, then those questions I asked above, I would already know the answer to.

When I was a kid, my ol' man would whip my ass at chess, day after day.  Then one day, everything changed.  It was me cleaning his clock.  He would always say, "Eagles listen not to the chirping of sparrows."

I said that because "I get it" Cycle.  This isn't my first rodeo.  Most of us here seek to know the truth.  To me, yeah, it would be nice to know the truth, but a bigger question I have is, why do I need to know the truth?  Why should I even care?

So we debate global warming and I ask myself, "What difference does it make?"  People get all bent out of shape when they're cornered and it starts to become obvious they are wrong.  So the flip what?  Just be wrong.  Or right.  Or stupid.  Or brilliant.  Instead, go do something that makes you smile.  Go play fetch with the dog.  What I'm certain of is we were not put here for petty foolishness.  I want to build a "fuel-less" electrical generator; not because we need it, not because it will change the world, not because I have something to prove.  I want to do this because I think it's possible and I think I can do it.  If my solution looks to you like pink unicorn pixie dust farts, fine.  Have a good laugh, then go build your own.  It's never been my job to convince anyone of anything.  I'm here trying to learn, explore and put some pieces together in whatever form they happen to present themselves.  And that will have to be good enough.
Agreed with one caveat... no one has ever made a working machine to extract energy from the quantum vacuum (and yes, they exist) who doesn't strictly subscribe to reality. If you'll remember, Ken Wheeler tried, and if no one had countered his blather with facts, he'd likely be selling "magnetic room heaters" and "battery-free lights" to gullible yokels today. Even with being proven absolutely wrong, he's attempting to foist on those same gullible yokels his incorrect take on how magnetism (and indeed the entire universe) works via selling that compilation of pontificating science-denialism and foul-mouthed denigration of the greats of science that he calls a book.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 26th, 2018, 05:52 PM
Getting back on topic again...

Whaaaaa?!?!?!?! :wtf:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3111
(Donchyts et al., 2016)
Earth's surface water change over the past 30 years
Gennadii Donchyts, Fedor Baart, Hessel Winsemius, Noel Gorelick, Jaap Kwadijk & Nick van de Giesen
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
{For those requiring names only, you can stop at the above line. For the rest, the data are below. :D}
Quote from https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3111
Earth's surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas. Here, we analyse the gains and losses through the Deltares Aqua Monitor — an open tool that detects land and water changes around the globe.

“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” said Dr Baart.
Well, that quashes "OMG! We're all going to drown!" alarmism. :-D

(http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Holocene-Cooling-Sea-Level-Gulf-Mexico-Donoghue-2011.jpg)
Zooming in...
(https://i0.wp.com/i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/SL6_zps417bba83.png)
Note the sea level decline from the Holocene Highstand (while keeping in mind that anthropogenic contributions could not have in any measurable way contributed to the Holocene Highstand sea level rise). Note further that the climate alarmists are screaming bloody murder about only a small portion of the circled part of the graph above (labeled 1700-2013)... the 1950-2013 part, in this case.

That covers 3 rules to describe libtards:
2) They have no sense of scale.
3) They have no sense of history.
4) They're gullible enough to believe every scary story they manage to read.
 :D

Perhaps they aren't aware of the facts such as...

Much of modern Finland is former seabed or archipelago that shows sea level immediately after the last ice age... it isostatically rebounded faster than the sea level rise (which was at times more than 20 times faster than the modern average of sea level rise (see chart above)).

Or that Global Mean Sea Level has actually fallen by 2.75 mm(https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-27/nasa-confirms-falling-sea-levels-two-years-amidst-media-blackout) over the past two years(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/05/falling-sea-level-the-critical-factor-in-2016-great-barrier-reef-bleaching/), and that trend is expected to accelerate.

Or that the continental shelves we see off our coasts is where sea level used to be at the end of the last ice age, and much of the sea level rise that could have happened as we climbed out of the last ice age has already happened... now isostatic rebound of the land is outpacing the minuscule amount of sea level rise in most areas.

Or that with Antarctica containing 90% of all global ice, net deposition of snow on Antarctica means that 90% of all glacier mass is growing, not shrinking. You'll note that doesn't take into account Greenland adding ice mass, nor the Himalayan glaciers, nor the Montana glaciers, nor the WA state glaciers, nor New Zealand's glaciers, etc.

Or that climate scientists admit that anthropogenic contribution to sea level rise is so negligible as to be immeasurable.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 27th, 2018, 07:35 PM
And for those who think, "Ice ages take decades to take effect. We've got plenty of time.".

https://www.sott.net/article/196671-Mini-Ice-Age-Took-Hold-Of-Europe-In-Just-Months
Quote from https://www.sott.net/article/196671-Mini-Ice-Age-Took-Hold-Of-Europe-In-Just-Months
Just months - that’s how long it took for Europe to be engulfed by an ice age. The scenario, which comes straight out of Hollywood blockbuster 'The Day After Tomorrow', was revealed by the most precise record of the climate from paleohistory ever generated.

Around 12,800 years ago the northern hemisphere was hit by the Younger Dryas mini ice age, or “Big Freeze”. It was triggered by the slowdown of the Gulf Stream, led to the decline of the Clovis culture in North America, and lasted around 1300 years.

The group studied a mud core from an ancient lake, Lough Monreagh, in western Ireland. Using a scalpel they sliced off layers 0.5 to 1 millimetre thick, each representing up to three months of time. No other measurements from the period have approached this level of detail.

Carbon isotopes in each slice revealed how productive the lake was and oxygen isotopes gave a picture of temperature and rainfall. They show that at the start of the Big Freeze, temperatures plummeted and lake productivity stopped within months, or a year at most. “It would be like taking Ireland today and moving it up to Svalbard” in the Arctic, says Patterson, who presented the findings at the BOREAS conference in Rovaniemi, Finland, on 31 October.

“This is significantly shorter than what has been suggested before, but it is plausible,” says Derek Vance of the University of Bristol, UK. Hans Renssen, a climate researcher at Vrije University in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, says recent findings from Greenland ice cores indicate the Younger Dryas event may have happened in one to three years. Patterson’s results confirm this was a very sudden change, he says.
If the same doesn't happen this year (and it's trying, what with the Beast From The East, Beast 2.0 and Beast 3.0 causing much of Europe to be as much as 10 C lower than normal, and global temperature dropping at the fastest rate in recorded history), it'll likely happen next year.

Keep in mind that we're still in an ice age... we have glaciers all over the world. That already-existing store of cold will cause the next descent into glaciation to be faster, more brutal and more protracted.

Now, one must ask oneself... why were the so-called climate 'experts' telling people to prepare for catastrophic global warming when the preponderance of the empirical evidence points to a planet that is cooling at an accelerating rate?
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 27th, 2018, 09:49 PM
In a world where 1 + 1 != 2... scientific reproducibility becomes an impossibility, turning science into mythomaniacal guesswork rife with bias and preconception.

https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2018/03/25/perils-of-gpu-math-for-scientific-computing/
Quote from https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2018/03/25/perils-of-gpu-math-for-scientific-computing/
One engineer told The Register that when he tried to run identical simulations of an interaction between a protein and enzyme on Nvidia’s Titan V cards, the results varied. After repeated tests on four of the top-of-the-line GPUs, he found two gave numerical errors about 10 per cent of the time. These tests should produce the same output values each time again and again.
The really scary thing is that the Nvidia GPUs in question are specifically designed for 'scientific computing', and are used for the vision and control systems of self-driving cars(https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/27/nvidia-reportedly-suspends-self-driving-tests-globally.html)... and they run the climate models of the climate alarmists... there's a reason not to blindly trust in technology, nor in the so-called 'experts'. Because in both cases, they can easily run you (or all of humanity) straight into a brick wall.

Compound the guileful perfidy of the climate 'scientists' with GPU-based data corruption... and what've you got? A big steaming pile of CAGW, based wholly upon bits and pieces of reality-based data taken out of context or so 'adjusted' as to be outright falsified, strung together with miles of politicized fantasy.

CAGW is the 'pink unicorn farting pixie dust' of our age.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: onepower on March 27th, 2018, 10:12 PM
Read the last page of new posts and the only word which comes to mind is... embarrassing. This forum has become a joke in my opinion and I think we all know why.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: Cycle on March 27th, 2018, 10:20 PM
You're just butthurt that you were proven wrong on every single one of your climate-based assertions. Any other CAGW-based topics you dare bring up, I've got 1300+ peer-reviewed studies to prove you wrong... for the simple fact that you are wrong. You drank the libtard koolade. You never once bothered to think for yourself and question the pabulum being spoon-fed to you by dissembling climate 'scientists' and the wholly-complicit fake-news main-stream media.

Subscribe to reality, and that won't happen.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: onepower on March 27th, 2018, 10:32 PM
No actually I could care less what you think and what concerns me is when the administrators allow assclowns to spam post vomit that goes against all that this forum should stand for.

Free, clean, sustainable energy.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: haxar on March 27th, 2018, 10:37 PM
Quote from onepower on March 27th, 2018, 10:12 PM
This forum has become a joke in my opinion and I think we all know why.
Title: Re: Global warming-or is it?
Post by: ~Russ on March 28th, 2018, 01:21 PM
well here is the deal,

I have discussed this with other here, and i (we) have to be fare and also make the choices we may not like.

so with that said. it appears that a few members have been bending the rules about name calling and non positive cretinism.

from the rule list. : http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=1702.0
Quote
18. Constructive criticism, questioning theories and challenging false claims are of course not considered to be offensive, it's only when the arguments starts to include personal insults that the lines have been crossed.
I'm publicly posting this for all to read so we can all see that this is not tolerated. 

for all of us have given this place some good and helpful posts. and we all have the right to have our opinion, however, we all also have have some respect to know that we all come from different backgrounds. have different beliefs. and will have disagreements. there is nothing wrong with this.

however, what is posted here is public. And everyone can come and see what kinda of place this is.

and from what i gather whats happening lately between some folks here is not acceptable. if we cant agree to disagree and keep the work here to a positive note then we forced to make a decision that we may not like.

however this place is here because a few of us put our money, time , and effort in to it. so there for those few are responsible for making this place what we want it to be. and that is a place where we ALL work together to achieve our common goals.   we are not here argue our differences.

I'm going to force a 1 week ban for those members who I'm directing this message to. For what reason?

from the rule list. : http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=1702.0
Quote
18. Constructive criticism, questioning theories and challenging false claims are of course not considered to be offensive, it's only when the arguments starts to include personal insults that the lines have been crossed.
I feel there has been a few people who has crossed this line.

for those members, do not take it personal, just understand that this will not be tolerated.  and EVERYONE gets the punishment who is involved.

we are not going to play he said she said games. I dont have time for this. we are adults right?
Quote
22. This forum will not tolerate any derogatory behavior from any member, so if you value your membership here then you'd better act accordingly.
I LOVE everyone who is here, because you are here, it means that you are part of the ultimate goal we are trying to achieve.

I'm sorry we have to do this but you should understand that its not ME who made the rules. its the owners of this forum.

~Russ Gries
OSE staff.