Global warming...... ker boom!

Started by sakorick, April 10, 2018, 12:37:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sakorick

Climate Change: Scientists just discovered a massive, heretofore unknown, source of nitrogen. Why does this matter? Because it could dramatically change those dire global warming forecasts that everybody claims are based on "settled science." The researchers, whose findings were published in the prestigious journal Science, say they've determined that the idea that the only source of nitrogen for plant life came from the air is wrong. There are vast storehouses in the planet's bedrock that plants also feed on. This is potentially huge news, since what it means is that there is a vastly larger supply of nitrogen than previously believed. University of California at Davis environmental scientist and co-author of the study, Ben Houlton, says that "This runs counter the centuries-long paradigm that has laid the foundation for the environmental sciences." Pay close attention to the word "paradigm." If Houlton's finding about these vast, previously unknown nitrogen stores holds true, then it would have an enormous impact on global warming predictions.

Thomas Kuhn studied this phenomenon in his 1962 book "The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions." He explained how scientists develop a theory — or paradigm — based on available evidence — to explain what they're seeing.
Once that paradigm takes hold, scientists are often loath to give up on it even if evidence piles up that it might be wrong. Eventually, however, faulty paradigms do give way, ushering in a new scientific paradigm. Examples of such paradigm shifts in the past: heliocentric solar system, continental drift, Einstein's theories.

Meanwhile, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been conducting highly suspicious temperature data manipulation. The changes in the temperature data consistently make the past seem cooler, which in turn makes the present seem warmer. This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. Marc Morano, editor of the popular Climate Depot blog and author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change," notes that "science is not supposed to have a politically predetermined outcome pushed by ideology and politics. This new nitrogen study is but one example of consensus science being overturned.  The global warming science establishment should now be open to similar studies and dissenting voices on CO2 to overturn the alleged climate change consensus." But will they? With their reputations and huge amounts government grant money at stake, it's unlikely that many climate scientists would ever admit to being wrong. No matter how obvious it became that they were.
Talk to yourself. There are times you need expert advice.

Paul Hoskins

Makes one wonder if something can be found to change our loathsome politicians too. ,,,,,, Paul H

j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)

Hmmmmm... Batrachotoxin for all the politicians, no way to change them.
Turvey Stalking
Learn from the Limeys or the Canucks, or the Aussies, or the Kiwis, or the...
                   "The ONLY reason to register a firearm is for future confiscation - How can it serve ANY other purpose?"

j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)

Turvey Stalking
Learn from the Limeys or the Canucks, or the Aussies, or the Kiwis, or the...
                   "The ONLY reason to register a firearm is for future confiscation - How can it serve ANY other purpose?"

Paul Hoskins

jOe, that is interesting reading. I'm no polar bear "expert" but I never believed polar bears were in any great danger from global warming. Any time I read something along these lines by an :expert" I take it with a bucket of salt. Any open minded person can read between the lines & see the :expert" has an agenda. They don't care about facts. Only their agenda or "opinion" matter. Opinions are much like other parts of the human anatomy. Everybody has one. Generally they mean little or nothing without facts to back them up. If facts aren't available one has to use common sense. There seems to be a great shortage of that any more. All the degrees in the world mean nothing without common sense. These people drink downstream from the herd. I never went to school much but I have a HS, MS & BS degree in many things. The H stands for horse, the M stands for mule & the B stand for  bull. I don't know what the S stands for.   ......Paul H

j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)

By Tim Ball and Tom Harris  - -                         Monday, April 30, 2018              
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
On Wednesday, French President Emmanuel Macron told a joint session of Congress:
“I  believe in building a better future for our children which requires  offering them a planet that is still habitable in 25 years.  We must  find a smooth transition to a low-carbon economy  By polluting the  oceans, not mitigating CO2 emissions, and destroying our biodiversity,  we are killing our planet. Let us face it. There is no planet B  And I  am sure, one day, the United States will come back and join the Paris  Agreement.”
It is easy for Mr. Macron  to back the Paris Agreement. After all, France gets about  three-quarters of its electricity from nuclear energy which, even  considering power plant construction and decommissioning, as well as  mining and fuel preparation, produces far less CO2 emissions that does  coal, oil, and natural gas, the sources of about two-thirds of  electricity generated in the United States.
Regardless, like most politicians who support the climate scare, Mr. Macron  clearly bases his opinions on the findings of the United Nations  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the scientific  foundation of the Paris Agreement. In fact, he thinks so highly of the  IPCC that, when President Donald Trump vowed to cancel U.S. financial support of the agency, Mr. Macron told the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Bonn, Germany last June, that France would cover the cost of U.S .donations.
What  the French president does not understand, or chooses to ignore, is that  the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  is not a valid source of  scientific information. Every prediction made by the computer models  that it cites have turned out to be wrong. And, if the prediction is  wrong, the science is wrong. American Nobel Prize winning physicist  Richard P. Feynman said, “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is   If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
So,  the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not actually  practicing science when they make their forecasts. It is pseudo-science  for a political agenda. Here’s what happened.
To  create climate forecasts, the IPCC relies on computerized models built  on formulae and data to represent conditions in the atmospheric. Problem  is, we lack a comprehensive ‘theory of climate’ since we do not have  valid formulae to properly represent how the atmosphere functions.
We  also lack the data to properly understand what weather was like over  most of the planet, even in recent years. And, lacking a good  understanding of past weather, we have no way to know the history of its  average condition — the climate. Meaningful forecasts of future climate  states are therefore impossible.
An  important data set used by the computer models cited by the  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the ‘HadCRUT4’ global  average surface temperature history for the past 167 years produced by  the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and the  Hadley Centre, both based in the United Kingdom.
Until  the 1960s, HadCRUT4 temperature data was collected using mercury  thermometers located at weather stations situated mostly in the United  States, Japan, the U.K., and eastern Australia. Most of the rest of the  planet had very few temperature sensing stations. And none of the  Earth’s oceans, which cover over two-thirds of the planet, had more than  the occasional station separated from its neighbor by thousands of  miles.
The  data collected at weather stations in this sparse grid had, at best, an  accuracy of plus or minus 0.5 degrees Celsius, oftentimes no better  than plus or minus 1 degree. Averaging such inaccurate data in an  attempt to uncover global conditions cannot yield anything meaningful.
Modern  weather station temperature data is now collected using precision  thermocouples. But, starting in the 1970s, less and less data was used  for plots such as HadCRUT4. This was done initially because governments  believed that satellite monitoring could take over from most of the  ground surface data collection. But the satellites did not show the  warming forecast by computer models. So, bureaucrats closed most of the  colder rural surface temperature sensing stations, thereby yielding the  warming desired for political purposes.
Today,  there is essentially no data for about 85 percent of our planet’s  surface. Indeed, there are fewer weather stations in operation now than  there were in 1960.
So,  the HadCRUT4 and other surface temperature computations after about  1980 are meaningless. Combining this with the problems in the early  data, and the fact that we have almost no long-term data above the  surface, the conclusion is inescapable: We are unable to know how the  Earth’s climate has varied over the past 150 years. The data are  therefore useless for input to the computer models that form the basis  of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s conclusions.
Indeed,  there is insufficient data of any kind — temperature, land and sea ice,  glaciers, sea level, extreme weather, ocean pH, etc. — to be able to  determine how today’s conditions differ from the past. This means that  the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s climate forecasts have  no connection with the real world.
Mr. Trump is right to get the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement. Macron should follow his lead.
•  Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology  professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Tom Harris is  executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate  Science Coalition.
Turvey Stalking
Learn from the Limeys or the Canucks, or the Aussies, or the Kiwis, or the...
                   "The ONLY reason to register a firearm is for future confiscation - How can it serve ANY other purpose?"

Paul Hoskins

For the most part I'll agree with this article. The CO2 emission of all our power plants, motor vehicles etc, etc are a minor cause of CO 2  emission compared to volcanos. In my opinion one active volcano can spew more CO2  in one year than all other causes. Maybe our governments should put restrictions on volcanos too. As for rising sea levels the idiots that be blame global warming for causing glaciers to melt  & causing sea levels to rise. That's pure bull stuff. There's not that much ice in the entire world. Rivers, creeks & streams are busy 24/7/365 eroding the land mass & carrying it to our oceans. This naturally causes the ocean level to rise. It's been going on since the beginning of our planet just like everything else has. Be very wary of anything our government is involved in. It's most likely a scheme by some politicians to line their pockets with money. Your hard earned money.     .....Paul H

sakorick

" This means that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s climate forecasts have no connection with the real world.
Mr. Trump is right to get the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement." Thank you nice Canucks!

:MOGRIN:
Talk to yourself. There are times you need expert advice.

j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)

Turvey Stalking
Learn from the Limeys or the Canucks, or the Aussies, or the Kiwis, or the...
                   "The ONLY reason to register a firearm is for future confiscation - How can it serve ANY other purpose?"

Tags: