Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
I know, I read it - the summary articles are a mixed bag. The example I gave - the person who wrote it, "gpwayne" neither understands thermodynamics, latent energy/energy intertia, nor oceanic currents, nor systems, nor kinetic energy... he just flipped off a propaganda piece about 'alterations in global ocean currents'.
Because they are proposing solutions and next steps..."gluing themselves to the gates of London’s Buckingham Palace and interrupting a summit at the Colorado Governor’s Mansion."
So, I ask 'Where are the real world, real solutions then?' If they are in the business of how to approach next steps... Why not commission a value chain study on the carbon nodal contribution for each annual US Corn Crop? That would help business planners target the largest contributors there - then legislators might even actually know what they could do about climate change...
We got tons of feckless political ADHD sites like this...
So, I ask 'Where are the real world, real solutions then?' If they are in the business of how to approach next steps... Why not commission a value chain study on the carbon nodal contribution for each annual US Corn Crop? That would help business planners target the largest contributors there - then legislators might even actually know what they could do about climate change...
We got tons of feckless political ADHD sites like this...
Well let's make sure the readers don't get as easily fooled as you shall we?
The site is a propaganda piece of the highest order. A survey of 68 studies is a classic example of the errors of small sample size effects. The truth of the matter is that it was not just media outlets reporting it. There are reports of joint efforts of the U.S and Soviet Union to investigate why Arctic ice is getting "ominously thicker". We also have data from the National Academy of Sciences showing the cooling trend from 1940. Again in 1975 The National Center of Atmospheric Research produced data also showing the cooling from 1940. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said at the time that global cooling was indisputable. Other headlines also read that international teams of experts find no end to the global cooling trend. This sounds very familiar doesn't it? It was summarized in a 1974 report entitled "potential implications of trends in world population, food production and climate". You can find it here at THE BLACK VAULT. Because this was stricken from the record as they attempted to re write history, also because it was a CIA document. So the CIA also believed in global cooling.
https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...world-population-food-production-and-climate/
One technique of propaganda is to omit certain facts and emphasize others, and that is what the propaganda site you are endorsing has exactly done. It is very transparent. It is quite laughable. The cooling was such a problem that NASA went on to erase it form the record. But of course we can trust NASA right? Not only did they erase it they show a slight warming instead. They are liars plane and simple. Nothing to see here! Climategate emails also show the effort to distort the truth and eliminate history from the record. See the video for details on this and all of the above. This little gem is yet more falsification of the AGW myth, which is why history has been rewritten.
The site is a propaganda piece of the highest order. A survey of 68 studies is a classic example of the errors of small sample size effects. The truth of the matter is that it was not just media outlets reporting it. There are reports of joint efforts of the U.S and Soviet Union to investigate why Arctic ice is getting "ominously thicker". We also have data from the National Academy of Sciences showing the cooling trend from 1940. Again in 1975 The National Center of Atmospheric Research produced data also showing the cooling from 1940. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said at the time that global cooling was indisputable. Other headlines also read that international teams of experts find no end to the global cooling trend. This sounds very familiar doesn't it? It was summarized in a 1974 report entitled "potential implications of trends in world population, food production and climate". You can find it here at THE BLACK VAULT. Because this was stricken from the record as they attempted to re write history, also because it was a CIA document. So the CIA also believed in global cooling.
https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...world-population-food-production-and-climate/
One technique of propaganda is to omit certain facts and emphasize others, and that is what the propaganda site you are endorsing has exactly done. It is very transparent. It is quite laughable. The cooling was such a problem that NASA went on to erase it form the record. But of course we can trust NASA right? Not only did they erase it they show a slight warming instead. They are liars plane and simple. Nothing to see here! Climategate emails also show the effort to distort the truth and eliminate history from the record. See the video for details on this and all of the above. This little gem is yet more falsification of the AGW myth, which is why history has been rewritten.
The Ministry Of Climate Truth - Erasing The 1970's Global Cooling Scare
Last edited:
It is interesting T.E.S.
The only thing I disagree with really is the point about sea level rise. I will cover that in time. Though you don't specifically relate methane to the climate here?? I don't see how it can given the spectral range of absorption. However I do agree whole heartedly with everything else. Some things are undeniable I think.
The point you make regarding the ocean heat is extremely interesting. I can't comment on that as it is new to me. "This implies conveyance and a heat source which is near the deep ocean and not the surface." I have never heard of this before, you may very well have something there. As you suggest this has implications beyond cause of AGW. Given that the ocean is by far the most dominant source of atmospheric CO2 this only further blurs the lines of detection of a anthropomorphic signal in the climate, as there would be more out gassing from the ocean.
The only thing I disagree with really is the point about sea level rise. I will cover that in time. Though you don't specifically relate methane to the climate here?? I don't see how it can given the spectral range of absorption. However I do agree whole heartedly with everything else. Some things are undeniable I think.
The point you make regarding the ocean heat is extremely interesting. I can't comment on that as it is new to me. "This implies conveyance and a heat source which is near the deep ocean and not the surface." I have never heard of this before, you may very well have something there. As you suggest this has implications beyond cause of AGW. Given that the ocean is by far the most dominant source of atmospheric CO2 this only further blurs the lines of detection of a anthropomorphic signal in the climate, as there would be more out gassing from the ocean.
Last edited:
How much are sea levels rising?
There is no correlation between CO2 and sea level rise. None. There is however a correlation between sunspots and sea level rise, most likely due to thermal expansion. Sea level rise is much slower now than in the past. This of course has no congruence with AGW theory. in 1990 the even the IPCC stated that "There is no convincing evidence of an acceleration in global sea level rise during the twentieth century". The other factor is that some land masses lower while others rise.
Globally, coasts have grown since the 1980s
Duvat (2019) also identified a global trend in island shoreline net growth since the 1980s despite recent sea level rise, as none of the globe’s islands larger than 10 ha – and just 1.2% of the 334 islands larger than 5 ha – have decreased in size since the 1980s.
https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/05...or-higher-than-now-during-the-little-ice-age/
You can also bet your bottom dollar that the Banks know for a fact that the coastlines are not about to be submerged due to AGW. They absolutely know it is BS, otherwise they would never, ever be giving out mortgages for land that would be underwater. They need to make their money from nothing, otherwise they may just throw that debt directly into the ocean!
Last edited:
When this conference was scheduled in its usual location, a Munich hotel, a media campaign smeared it as anti-scientific, right-wing and even for ‚killing people‘ by denying climate change. The most prominent newspaper pushing that campaign was the Berlin based newspaper Tagesspiegel, which published several articles smearing the conference. Shortly before its start, the Munich based Umweltinstitut published an open letter calling the hotel to cancel the conference which it did after a group of activists entered its lobby and smeared the conference and upset guests.
I think this is no more than an extreme example of the pressure climate scientists have had to endure for decades. Not surprisingly, many have left the field (probably a rather dreary field once you realise there is no cause for alarm), and others just go along with the nonsense. It is worth remembering that back in 2011, Ivar Giaevar protested that members of the APS were being roped in on block and supporters of CAGW.
David
I think this is no more than an extreme example of the pressure climate scientists have had to endure for decades. Not surprisingly, many have left the field (probably a rather dreary field once you realise there is no cause for alarm), and others just go along with the nonsense. It is worth remembering that back in 2011, Ivar Giaevar protested that members of the APS were being roped in on block and supporters of CAGW.
David
In principle yes, shakeup is required. My heart is allied with this ethic of change. 
The political class however, does not hold solutions. They rely upon technology/market strategists, engineers, designers and capital planners to develop solutions for them. Then they sponsor and approve those solutions. Everyone doing their job as normal. What you with good intent call shakeup - that I agree with. But what arrives in Wash DC are these messages 'end fossil fuels now', 'raise taxes on the working class again', 'appropriate the means of production', 'you are stupid and anti-science', 'pigs', 'patriarchy', 'establish income equality now', 'overthrow institutions of capital', 'quit intervention in all countries', 'eliminate borders', 'climate justice'.
No wonder people mistrust the climate change movement. They are their own worst enemy.
This makes my job very difficult.
The political class however, does not hold solutions. They rely upon technology/market strategists, engineers, designers and capital planners to develop solutions for them. Then they sponsor and approve those solutions. Everyone doing their job as normal. What you with good intent call shakeup - that I agree with. But what arrives in Wash DC are these messages 'end fossil fuels now', 'raise taxes on the working class again', 'appropriate the means of production', 'you are stupid and anti-science', 'pigs', 'patriarchy', 'establish income equality now', 'overthrow institutions of capital', 'quit intervention in all countries', 'eliminate borders', 'climate justice'.
No wonder people mistrust the climate change movement. They are their own worst enemy.
This makes my job very difficult.
Yes, out of skepticism - I began to track the data of some of the tidal tracking stations. Especially those near where I have sailed or moved ships - to see for myself. This is the data from one - I generally will choose one at random and then plot this same graph. Since there are hundreds of these stations globally, it will be a long effort. But so far I have seen a coincident relationship between carbon and sea level rise (I avoid the word correlation).
However, since there is 'mechanism' - it is more than correlation between global temps and sea level rise. But this is all inductive, and not conclusive.
Examine the right hand side of this graph above - and note the expanding AMPLITUDE of the MSL tidal ranging. If it were a case of mere sea level rise, we should not see this. To wit, I ran a blended graph of three stations in the same region. Notice the expansion of the MSL 95% bandings. They are growing in signal GAIN!!!!!!!!!!!
There is only one thing which can cause this, short of the moon changing orbit... and that is Mantle Displacements...
So
Clue #1 - Deep oceans are heating faster
Clue #2 - Tides are NOT rising like simple warming would dictate, but rather by changes in localized gravitation
However, since there is 'mechanism' - it is more than correlation between global temps and sea level rise. But this is all inductive, and not conclusive.
Examine the right hand side of this graph above - and note the expanding AMPLITUDE of the MSL tidal ranging. If it were a case of mere sea level rise, we should not see this. To wit, I ran a blended graph of three stations in the same region. Notice the expansion of the MSL 95% bandings. They are growing in signal GAIN!!!!!!!!!!!
There is only one thing which can cause this, short of the moon changing orbit... and that is Mantle Displacements...
So
Clue #1 - Deep oceans are heating faster
Clue #2 - Tides are NOT rising like simple warming would dictate, but rather by changes in localized gravitation
Last edited:
Yes, the spectral index impacts concern me. Water vapor is such a large portion of the SSI, that any slight change in its atmospheric equilibrium would result in large capture of kinetic energy by atmospheric water vapor. This too, we dismiss too flippantly/politically. Methane is a smaller frequency band of the SSI than carbon for sure. But it captures more kinetic energy per frequency than does carbon. Then after a number of years it has decayed into carbon anyway. So it is a concern, even if I do not mention it.
Last edited:
Yes, mention this to a climate scientist and their eyes will glaze over and they start rattling off one-liners, like I had sent them into the 5 stages of grief or something. Very little study has been conducted on Earth core dynamics and heat transfer to the deep ocean gradients... and that renders our 'causes' study (not the fact of its existence) to be abductive science at best. This is very concerning, yes.
There is another interesting aspect of methane. I wonder how long the methane that can be extracted by fracking actually stays underground if left alone. Since methane is supposed to be a much more powerful 'greenhouse gas' than CO2, it might be 'good for the climate' to extract the stuff and burn it for energy!
David
David
Dead on!! I support industry efforts to make sure that natural gas fracturing does not end left unattended - and that the fissure penetration feeds are capped off and monitored. By and large they are all monitored and licensed by the state.
But there is more. When a company extracts crude oil, from tectonic or any other shallower layer - it typically comes up with a 1 to 8% static admixture of natural gas. They are required by law to capture that natural gas and then use a brass screw impeller to inject that gas back into a portion of the crude uptake, to be stored in a separate tank. The oil collection company then takes that tank to a different part of the cracking operation, where the natural gas and other alkanes are extracted and used.
The warmer the crude (deeper its layer) - the more alkanes and methane that it outgasses.
So what this introduces is an idea that climate scientists have not considered. If deep oil formations are heated - they will release methane and alkanes above their old compression equilibrium. That methane and alkane set will find its way into the ocean or up through the ground and into the atmosphere.
If the upper mantle heats by 50 degrees, we will see an unexpected uptick in methane leaching...
... which is indeed what we see right now. Clue #3
But there is more. When a company extracts crude oil, from tectonic or any other shallower layer - it typically comes up with a 1 to 8% static admixture of natural gas. They are required by law to capture that natural gas and then use a brass screw impeller to inject that gas back into a portion of the crude uptake, to be stored in a separate tank. The oil collection company then takes that tank to a different part of the cracking operation, where the natural gas and other alkanes are extracted and used.
The warmer the crude (deeper its layer) - the more alkanes and methane that it outgasses.
So what this introduces is an idea that climate scientists have not considered. If deep oil formations are heated - they will release methane and alkanes above their old compression equilibrium. That methane and alkane set will find its way into the ocean or up through the ground and into the atmosphere.
If the upper mantle heats by 50 degrees, we will see an unexpected uptick in methane leaching...
... which is indeed what we see right now. Clue #3
A professor here in Queensland has been dismissed for speaking out and not towing the line. He says what many of us here know. That we can no longer trust our scientific institutions. He is an expert on the Great Barrier Reef and a environmentalist. He's been studying it since the 80's. He says It is doing just fine. It is one of the most healthiest and well preserved eco systems on the planet. It really is immaculate and beautiful. I have visited at several locations over my life.
This is what dissenters and skeptics have to deal with. Freedom of speech being shut down is stifling true science.
This is what dissenters and skeptics have to deal with. Freedom of speech being shut down is stifling true science.
Last edited:
More on methane, with interesting counter intuitive results between the relationship between methane levels and fracking.
“Given the huge benefits of more CO2 to agriculture, to forestry, and to primary photosynthetic productivity in general, more CO2 is almost certainly benefitting the world,” the authors wrote. “And radiative effects of CH4 [methane] and N2O [nitrous oxide], another greenhouse gas produced by human activities, are so small that they are irrelevant to climate.”
The post-2007 uptick in global methane levels roughly coincides with the rapid deployment of natural gas “fracking” in the United States, making fugitive emissions a logical suspect. But attempts to verify the connection have produced counter-intuitive results, according to Stefan Schwietzke, a methane expert from the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences
Schwietzke’s research suggests that methane emissions from fossil fuels are higher than countries’ self-reported inventories suggest, and they may even be increasing. And yet, he explained via email, methane derived from fossil fuels is enriched with carbon-13—a rare, heavy isotope of carbon—and air samples show that the amount of carbon-13-flavored methane is dropping worldwide.
The drop seems to rule out fossil fuel emissions, wildfires, or biomass cook stoves as the reason for the post-2007 methane surge. All those sources of methane, to a greater or lesser extent, are enriched in carbon-13, not depleted.
It’s a counterintuitive finding: methane from fossil fuels is higher than we thought, but it seems to be making up a smaller share of total global emissions. In his email, Schwietzke wrote, “The decline in the 13-C isotope of methane in the atmosphere indicates that microbial sources must have an increasing share of total methane emissions globally.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/04/how-dare-you-will-happer-calls-methane-irrelevant-to-climate/
“How dare you!” Will Happer “calls methane ‘irrelevant’ to climate”
Happer states...
“Given the huge benefits of more CO2 to agriculture, to forestry, and to primary photosynthetic productivity in general, more CO2 is almost certainly benefitting the world,” the authors wrote. “And radiative effects of CH4 [methane] and N2O [nitrous oxide], another greenhouse gas produced by human activities, are so small that they are irrelevant to climate.”
The post-2007 uptick in global methane levels roughly coincides with the rapid deployment of natural gas “fracking” in the United States, making fugitive emissions a logical suspect. But attempts to verify the connection have produced counter-intuitive results, according to Stefan Schwietzke, a methane expert from the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences
Schwietzke’s research suggests that methane emissions from fossil fuels are higher than countries’ self-reported inventories suggest, and they may even be increasing. And yet, he explained via email, methane derived from fossil fuels is enriched with carbon-13—a rare, heavy isotope of carbon—and air samples show that the amount of carbon-13-flavored methane is dropping worldwide.
The drop seems to rule out fossil fuel emissions, wildfires, or biomass cook stoves as the reason for the post-2007 methane surge. All those sources of methane, to a greater or lesser extent, are enriched in carbon-13, not depleted.
It’s a counterintuitive finding: methane from fossil fuels is higher than we thought, but it seems to be making up a smaller share of total global emissions. In his email, Schwietzke wrote, “The decline in the 13-C isotope of methane in the atmosphere indicates that microbial sources must have an increasing share of total methane emissions globally.”
Last edited:
I am curious as to how big the difference in C-13 concentration are.
If CO2 in the atmosphere became really depleted of C-13, then future generations of organic chemists might find they got less information from NMR spectra, because only C-13 nuclei have spin 1/2.
Maybe someone should start an NMR-catastrophe scare, demanding that we burn more fossil fuel
David
If CO2 in the atmosphere became really depleted of C-13, then future generations of organic chemists might find they got less information from NMR spectra, because only C-13 nuclei have spin 1/2.
Maybe someone should start an NMR-catastrophe scare, demanding that we burn more fossil fuel
David
I definitely didn't say that's all you've done. I simply summarised your position. That's a fair summary, isn't it?
Just pointing out a pattern. In both cases, the logistics of carrying out a hoax are implausibly immense, but you went with them anyway (though you now seem to have moderated your view on the moon landing?). Probably it would be interesting to delve into how you really think the hoaxes were achieved, because you must have some ideas that go beyond what you've offered so far.
Here's a scenario which gets over the implausibility:
There is a global consortium of dark-allied human beings who have "sold their souls", so to speak, and who are collaborating with malign spirits and each other to take over the planet. They know how to identify one another whereas the rest of us don't. They conspire to occupy key positions and occupations, including most of climate science, which they now control.
As you know, I have personal experience with malign spirits, so a scenario like this is not one that I would dismiss out-of-hand - not at all.
However, I am not all that sure how hoaxing a moon landing would further the aims of world domination of such a group. I also look over some of the climategate emails, and read a little of the reports exonerating the authors, and I don't see "evil conspiracy", I just see scientists going about their business.
Incidentally, re your first video analysing the sounds in the moon landing, which you embedded, I wonder whether you might consider that the objects which made the sounds were connected via an unbroken chain of matter to the astronauts' suits, such that the sound could have travelled to the microphones in their suits via that route? I haven't looked at the other video beyond the first few seconds.
Just pointing out a pattern. In both cases, the logistics of carrying out a hoax are implausibly immense, but you went with them anyway (though you now seem to have moderated your view on the moon landing?). Probably it would be interesting to delve into how you really think the hoaxes were achieved, because you must have some ideas that go beyond what you've offered so far.
Here's a scenario which gets over the implausibility:
There is a global consortium of dark-allied human beings who have "sold their souls", so to speak, and who are collaborating with malign spirits and each other to take over the planet. They know how to identify one another whereas the rest of us don't. They conspire to occupy key positions and occupations, including most of climate science, which they now control.
As you know, I have personal experience with malign spirits, so a scenario like this is not one that I would dismiss out-of-hand - not at all.
However, I am not all that sure how hoaxing a moon landing would further the aims of world domination of such a group. I also look over some of the climategate emails, and read a little of the reports exonerating the authors, and I don't see "evil conspiracy", I just see scientists going about their business.
Incidentally, re your first video analysing the sounds in the moon landing, which you embedded, I wonder whether you might consider that the objects which made the sounds were connected via an unbroken chain of matter to the astronauts' suits, such that the sound could have travelled to the microphones in their suits via that route? I haven't looked at the other video beyond the first few seconds.