Climate change

What Do Climate Scientists Really Know?

Spread the love

Scientistsdiscover the biggest seaweed bloom in the world:

From Phys.Org:(https://phys.org/news/2019-07-scientists-biggest-seaweed-bloom-world.html) [N.B. I find the newest version of WordPress almost impossible to work with. There is no correlation between the commands they tell you to use and what actually happens. This might be the last post I post here. There’s no way I can set up a link. Impossible. ]

Scientists led by the USF College of Marine Science used NASA satellite observations to discover the largest bloom of macroalgae in the world called the Great Atlantic Sargassum Belt (GASB), as reported in Science.

They confirmed that the belt of brown macroalgae called Sargassum forms its shape in response to ocean currents, based on numerical simulations. It can grow so large that it blankets the surface of the tropical Atlantic Ocean from the west coast of Africa to the Gulf of Mexico. This happened last year when more than 20 million tons of it—heavier than 200 fully loaded aircraft carriers—floated in surface waters and some of which wreaked havoc on shorelines lining the tropical Atlantic, Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and east coast of Florida.

Well, where did this come from? Was it the heat? No.

The team identified key factors that are critical to bloom formation: a large seed population in the winter left over from a previous bloom, nutrient input from West Africa upwelling in winter, and nutrient input in the spring or summer from the Amazon River. In addition, Sargassum only grows well when salinity is normal and surface temperatures are normal or cooler.

Did you say ‘cooler’ Oh, my! Those darn satellites. Not only do they point out algal blooms that no one’s noticed before, they also show that temperatures are staying steady, or are even declining, over the last twenty years so.

Well now that we’ve spotted them, what about these newly discovered algal blooms? How do they affect ‘global warming”?

This, from Ecology.com:

It is estimated that marine plants produce between 70 and 80 percent of the oxygen in the atmosphere. Nearly all marine plants are single celled, photosynthetic algae. Yup, that’s right, good ol’ scum on the pond…green gak…..slip slimein’ away. Even marine seaweed is many times colonial algae. They are a bunch of single cells trying to look like a big plant, but they are really individuals.

We need marine algae a whole lot more than they need us. Think about it, 70 percent to 80 percent of all the oxygen we breathe comes from algae! Without them we would really be sucking wind, but not for long! At this point, you may be saying, “Yo! What about the trees and other land plants?” Trees and other land plants are very important, no doubt about it. But for pure survival, we couldn’t make it without algae.

Why does so much of our oxygen come from algae? First of all, remember that the oceans cover about 71 percent of this planet and land is only about 29 percent. If we assume that every square mile of the ocean produces as much oxygen as every square mile of land, then this makes sense. The oceans would produce about 71 percent and the land 29 percent of the oxygen we breathe. Looks like we are in the ballpark, don’t you think?

So, we’re told that humans add 4% to the total carbon cycle taking place. We’re also told that algal blooms amont to 70 to 80% of oxygen produced. This means that algal blooms might perhaps ‘absorb’ 70 to 80% of atmospheric carbon dioxide. But, actually, there are various kinds of ‘sinks’ other than these blooms when it comes to carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, algal blooms must represent a very high percentage of the planet’s overal uptake of carbon dioxide. This means that this discovery, by itself, has the potential of easily offsetting the 4% humans add to the normal carbon cycle.

If so, then there’s nothing to be alarmed about. Nor, is there reason to spend perhaps a 100 trillion dollars to ‘combat’ supposed ‘warming’—except, of course, to make rich people even richer as they sell the ‘world’ their newly constructed ‘lifesavers.’ “Buy our lifesavers or you will perish.”

The claims of climate alarmists now seem to border on buffoonery. There are so many unknowns that undercut the models they’ve set up. As they say, “A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous things.”

34 Replies to “What Do Climate Scientists Really Know?

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    The claims of climate alarmists now seem to border on buffoonery. There are so many unknowns that undercut the models they’ve set up. As they say, “A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous things.”

    I’d say that sounds more like grasping at straws.

    Just as a reminder

    The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.

    The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of more than 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.

    The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 286 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 127 billion tons of ice per year during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.7

    Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa

    Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and is accelerating slightly every year

    Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.13,14 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    Needless to say, the same enviroloons work HARD to eliminate algae. The city of Spokane has spent $200 million in the last few years (ordered by state enviroloon agency) to build a set of swamps and flood-makers inside the city. Why do we need more mosquitoes and floods? Because the city sewer system was emitting parts per billion of phosphorus which might have helped to increase algae in a downstream lake. This is crazy by any standard, but doubly crazy because it specifically increases CO2.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    The Biggest Lie Ever Told – Man-made Global Warming – Mar 29, 2019
    Carbon Dioxide Only Causes Climate Change in UN IPCC Climate Models
    Excerpt: Today’s climate change is well within the range of natural climate variability through Earth’s 4.5 billion-year history. In fact, it is within the range of the climate change of the last 10,000 years, a period known as the Holocene, 95% of which was warmer than today. Indeed, it is now cooler than the Holocene Optimum, which spanned a period from about 9,000 to 5,000 years ago. The Optimum was named at a time when warming was understood to be a good thing in contrast to the miserable cold times that periodically cripple mankind. A small group fooled the world into believing that warming is bad and that today’s weather is warmer than ever before, all caused by the human addition of a relatively trivial amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. It is the biggest lie ever told, and that reason alone caused many to believe.
    The lie began with the assumption that an increase in CO2 would cause an increase in temperature. In the historical record, temperature increases before CO2, so the benign gas is not causing temperature rise. Indeed, it cannot cause global warming or climate change. The only place where a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in the computer models promoted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is the main reason why the model predictions are always wrong.,,,
    Some of the small lies used to perpetuate the big lie include:
    It is warmer now than ever before.
    There is more severe weather now than ever before.
    CO2 levels are the highest ever.
    Arctic and Antarctic sea ice levels are the lowest ever.
    Extinction rates are the highest ever.
    Polar bear populations are in serious decline.
    Sea levels are rising at an increasing rate.,,,
    The Trump administration has proposed to establish a Presidential Commission on Climate Security, headed by former Princeton physicist Will Happer, to expose the climate lie by disclosing how the IPCC only examined human causes of climate change. They will show how natural climate change completely overwhelms any human effect. For example, human production of CO2 is less than the uncertainty in the measurement of the transfer of CO2 from two natural sources: the oceans, and vegetation and land. In other words, if we removed all the people from the planet, a scientist left behind to measure the CO2 levels would not detect any difference.
    https://americaoutloud.com/the-biggest-lie-ever-told-man-made-global-warming/

    Follow the (Climate Change) Money – Dec 18th, 2018
    Excerpt: The first iron rule of American politics is: Follow the money. This explains, oh, about 80 percent of what goes on in Washington.
    Shortly after the latest Chicken Little climate change report was published last month, I noted on CNN that one reason so many hundreds of scientists are persuaded that the sky is falling is that they are paid handsomely to do so.
    I noted that “In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.” And then I added: “A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.”
    https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money

    The truth about global warming
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5sGtj7QKQ
    Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, provides insight into the debate over climate change and the political games played to create policy.

    First off, c02 is not a well mixed gas as NASA’s own data reveals, and it is heavier than air – see article. This is extremely important as you have yet another key assumption (Like the falsified assumption Al Gore used as a “smoking gun”, that atmospheric c02 drives up temps, instead we found temps drive out more c02). So what you get from a sensor on a volcano is background c02 at a particular altitude, and particular latitude – they also apply a 70 year smoothing average to this data (just like they did when picking the absolute lowest ICE core c02 proxy data- then moved it over 35 years to have it magically line up perfectly with the Keeling curve), and the calibration rights to this and other “official” sensors around the globe are in the hands of former IPCC members. The well mixed gas concept was assumed from the get go – in fact the IPCC throughout 9K regional chemical analysis of c02 during the 20th century, other very important stomatal proxy evidence. So from the very lowest values they could pick, they then smoothed it with a 70 year average to take out the inconvenient normal variations with time which can be large – in fact it was well accepted before this nonsense, that c02 was at least 425ppm in the early 1940’s and almost as high two other times in the 20th century – so from the ground up, the make the data fit the theory, and they ignore graph that clearly showed a temp rise from the late 1920’s to the early 40’s, AND hide the 2.4F cooling from the late 40’s through the 70’s – these are their own graphs, and even their own words contradict what they say now. The entire “theory” is built out of fraud from the start. As Willie Soon tries to point out to us, almost everything that lives produces c02, and many abiotic systems as well. Example – plain old soil puts out 9X the amount of c02 than ALL of man’s activities, termites 2X the c02 than man’s use of FF. This is not science, it is a purposefully non-falsifiable theory – if it were evaluated as other non-political hypotheses, it would be thrown out in a heartbeat. If you have to heavily alter existing and current data, use less and less ground temp stations, and use mainly those that suffer from UHI effects, get rid of the medieval warm period and get caught in emails that you had to do it to make your point, when allow a warmunist activist admin privileges on wiki, and he hides well over 100 papers about the ice age scare of the 70’s, and still call yourself scientists then you should feel very ashamed over this agenda driven bull.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/pop-quiz-for-climatistas/#comment-650163

    March 2019
    A few inconvenient facts for those who want a global warming apocalypse.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/should-research-funding-agencies-move-resources-away-from-particle-physics-to-fighting-climate-change/#comment-674366

    Why and How the IPCC Demonized CO2 with Manufactured Information.
    BY DR. TIM BALL · NOVEMBER 14, 2013
    “It occurred to me…” The tail always wagged the dog: Now, because of political correctness, the flea on the hair on the tail wags the dog.
    Excerpt: The pre-industrial CO2 level was marginally lower than current levels and likely within the error factor. Neither they, nor the present IPCC claims of 400 ppm are high relative to the geologic record. The entire output of computer climate models begins with the assumption that pre-industrial levels were measurably lower. Elimination of this assumption further undermines the claim that the warming in the industrial era period was due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Combine this with their assumption that CO2 causes temperature increase, when all records show the opposite, it is not surprising IPCC predictions of temperature increase are consistently wrong.
    The IPCC deception was premeditated under Maurice Strong’s guidance to prove CO2 was causing global warming as pretext for shutting down industrialized nations. They partially achieved their goal as alternate energies and green job economies attest. All this occurred as contradictory evidence mounts because Nature refused to play. CO2 increases as temperatures decline, which according to IPCC science cannot happen. Politicians must deal with facts and abandon all policies based on claims that CO2 is a problem, especially those already causing damage.
    https://drtimball.ca/2013/why-and-how-the-ipcc-demonized-co2-with-manufactured-information/

    Carbon Dioxide Not a Well Mixed Gas and Can’t Cause Global Warming
    By: John O’Sullivan
    Additionally, Nahle and his Slaying the Sky Dragon compadres demonstrate that carbon dioxide loses the energy it absorbs almost instantaneously, so there is no place for any kind of storage of thermal energy by carbon dioxide. To the more technically minded what Nahle and his colleagues say is that the release of a quantum/wave, at a different wavelength and frequency, lasts the time an excited electron takes to get back to its base state.
    Thus the IPCC’s CO2 “sky blanket” is shot full of holes as rational folk are increasingly abandoning the unphysical nonsense that carbon dioxide “traps” heat and raises global temperatures. Policymakers may be the last to wise up but they, too, must nonetheless consign the man-made global warming sham to the trash can marked “junk science.”
    Sources:
    [1.] In our “current environment,” atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen vastly outweigh CO2. Nitrogen: 3,888,899 Gigatons; Oxygen: 1,191,608 Gigatons; Carbon Dioxide: 3,051 Gigatons. On a weight basis the specific heat of nitrogen and oxygen together is approximately 1 per kilogram, whereas CO2’s is about 0.844. Thus it’s clear that everyday air has a better ability to hold onto heat.
    [2.] Professor Nahle, N., ‘Determination of Mean Free Path of Quantum/Waves and Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide Considering the Molecular Cross Section’ (2011), Biology Cabinet, (Peer Reviewed by the Faculty of Physics of the University of Nuevo Leon, Mexico).
    https://co2insanity.com/2011/09/04/top-scientists-in-heated-debate-over-%E2%80%98-slaying-of-greenhouse-gas-theory/

  4. 4
    asauber says:

    They know there are a significant number of weak-minded people who will believe the hype, no matter how silly it is. See comment 1.

    Andrew

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    Hi PaV,

    I hear you on your frustrations with blocks-based WP. I don’t like it too, though it seems it is imposed because of the dominance of smart phones etc. A lot is lost.

    To get a link, while typing, select the text. A bubble should appear, including a chain symbol. Click it and paste or type in the link.

    To get images, when you hit return and get a block, there will be some icons for quotes, images and YT vids. Click images and follow the pop up dialogue.

    Similarly, for vids from YT (a bit too restrictive, but what to say).

    The quotes will put a bar, paste in the quoted text.

    To get around this mess, I suggest composing in say Kompozer and copy-pasting in then using add blocks to get images and vids. Beware, quotes lock out a lot of features.

    We need MORE posts from you, not fewer!

    KF

    PS: Amazingly, Blogger is now more flexible than WP!

  6. 6
  7. 7
    groovamos says:

    Seversky: I’d say that sounds more like grasping at straws.
    So please tell us, there must have been proof for you to believe that human activity is the cause of climate change. You know something more substantial than a propaganda website. Can you share that (irrefutable?) proof, you know for that real personal conviction? And do you share the belief that a “thing” so to speak (this ultra-amorphous “thing” labelled “change”) causes another, secondary “thing” (drought, wildfires) and at the same time causes a diametrically opposite “thing” (severe flooding) and that “science” can tell us when exactly that secondary “thing” will be which of the diametric opposites? Here in Texas we had a severe drought in 2011 and severe flooding in 2017 so it would be great if either theory, or scientific computer models can give us the scientific principle of opposites being caused by the same “thing” and when in the future this “thing” acts and which exactly of the opposite “things” it will trigger. Oh and sometime between days of my youth and now it has been discovered that severe cold in North America is caused by warm weather, as reported every cold snap by the media. Can you indicate the source of that discovery?

  8. 8
    Fasteddious says:

    Here are some middle-of-the-road thoughts on climate change; between the two extremes:
    https://www.ngtimes.ca/thoughts-and-balance-on-climate-change/

  9. 9
    Brother Brian says:

    P

    Because the city sewer system was emitting parts per billion of phosphorus which might have helped to increase algae in a downstream lake. This is crazy by any standard, but doubly crazy because it specifically increases CO2.

    You should really learn how treatment systems like wetlands work. They reduce nutrient loading to rivers, lakes and oceans, preventing algal blooms and eutrophication. They reduce CO2 by acting as a carbon sink (growth of algae and other water plants as well as trees along their borders). They reduce potential pathogens, which allows you to use that downstream lake for recreational purposes. They provide habitats for fish, birds, turtles, etc.

  10. 10
    News says:

    PaV, I hope you won’t desert us on account of new WordPress. Just post the link and people can copy it. I bury my links using a system so old it hardly bears thinking of but always converts: But I’d need to send you the code. It always converts.

  11. 11
    PaV says:

    Thanks to both News and KF for helping me out. The real problem is that I can’t find a tutorial on how to post. Everything seems to surround those constructing blogs–which makes sense, but what about posting? Do either of you know if a tutorial strictly for those attempting to post exists? I suspect not, or you would have given me a link; but, I ask anyway.

    Again, thanks.

    And, yes, KF, the “blocks” part has me completely buffaloed. What I especially miss are those commands at the top of the entry box. Alas.

    I’ve certainly learned to be more careful with what I’m doing in the new post box.

  12. 12
    PaV says:

    KF:

    I just read through your post, and what you’re describing doesn’t come close to anything I get when I’m trying to compose. In one of the ‘help’ boxes, it says that to enter a link, press CTRL + K. When I do, I get a google search box.

    Based on what you’ve written, I’m going to try out a few options and see what happens. Thanks again.

  13. 13
    PaV says:

    I’m working my way through this right now:

    https://en.support.wordpress.com/editors/post-and-page-screen/

  14. 14
    Mimus says:

    One thing that climate scientists know is that human CO2 emissions are greater than the total amount added to the atmosphere. So, whatever sinks are operating, they aren’t mopping up our emissions.

  15. 15
    Brother Brian says:

    Mimus, don’t you just hate isotope ratios? 🙂

  16. 16
    PaV says:

    Mimus:

    One thing that climate scientists know is that human CO2 emissions are greater than the total amount added to the atmosphere.

    How about this?

    But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere

    How do you square these two statements? Yours and the one from a website.

    BTW, 29 gigatons is 4% of 790 gigatons. So, this algal bloom won’t touch human produced CO2? Does human produced CO2 have a marking on it so that the algal bloom won’t ‘inhale’ it?

  17. 17
    ET says:

    mimus:

    One thing that climate scientists know is that human CO2 emissions are greater than the total amount added to the atmosphere.

    CO2 absorbs and emits in 3 different frequencies. Only two of those have any relevance to infrared and only one of those two is significant. 92% of the IR earth emits is invisible to CO2.

    GHG emission spectra– notice how little CO2 contributes.

  18. 18
    Seversky says:

    Groovamos @ 7

    So please tell us, there must have been proof for you to believe that human activity is the cause of climate change. You know something more substantial than a propaganda website

    I have no specialist knowledge in this field. I find the weight of evidence supports the contention that human activities are contributing to the current overall global warming trend. I cited just a few examples in my previous post.

    If you want to dismiss a NASA website as propaganda that’s up to you but we can all play conspiracy theory games. For example, we can look at how many denialists have fossil fuel industry connections or how much money the fossil fuel industry is pouring into the coffers of denialist advocacy groups and individuals. We can ask if the fossil fuel industries are more likely to be concerned with catastrophic climate changes that may be decades away or with their corporate bottom lines in the here and now. We can look at the similarities between climate change denialism that is in the interests of the fossil fuel industries and the previous health effects denialism by the tobacco industry.

    I can understand that some people resent being told what to do by what they see as remote, unaccountable scientific and/or government elites – especially if some of them are foreign. What I don’t understand is why they are not similarly outraged by the possibility of the heath and lives being put at risk by giant corporations who only care about what affects their profits.

  19. 19
    Mimus says:

    I mean… there’s no contradiction at all. Human emissions are greater than the extra added to the atmosphere because ~40% of them are absorbed by the ocean instead.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    LOL “One thing that climate scientists know”,,,

    Well one thing climate scientists certainly don’t know is how to model the climate accurately:

    Climate models are fudged, says climatologist – Video
    Anthony Watts / 4 days ago July 2, 2019
    Dr. Patrick Michaels, former Virginia State Climatologist has some strong comments about climate models during an interview with Mark Levin:
    “It is nowhere near as warm as it’s ‘supposed’ to be,” says climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels. “The computer models are making systematic, dramatic errors.”
    There are 32 different computer models used to predict the climate, all of them run by government entities. And all of those models, except for the Russian model, are predicting far, far too much warming. The Russian model pretty much matches reality.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/02/climate-models-are-fudged-says-climatologist-video/

  21. 21
    ET says:

    The UAH satellite-based temps of the global lower atmosphere show only about a 0.5F increase over some arbitrary level. The hottest years correlate with el ninos.

  22. 22
    PaV says:

    Mimus:

    I can’t decipher this statement: “Human emissions are greater than the extra added to the atmosphere because ~40% of them are absorbed by the ocean instead.” Can you elaborate?

  23. 23
    Brother Brian says:

    PaV@22, I think that Mimus is saying that we put more into the atmosphere than actually stays there because some of it gets absorbed by the ocean.

  24. 24
    ET says:

    Plant Moar Trees

    The restoration of trees remains among the most effective strategies for climate change mitigation.

    and

    Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

  25. 25
    PaV says:

    Brother Brian:

    I think they calculate the amount of anthropogenic CO2 using formulas involving fossil fuels, and not much more. If the ocean absorbs, then the effect of this CO2 is mitigated–which is what I argue for here. So, I’m still not sure what is meant; and so, not in a position to respond.

  26. 26
    Mimus says:

    It’s pretty simple. Year-on-year two thing happen

    (a) The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases
    (b) Humans release a certain amount of CO2 into the atmosphere from fossiled carbon

    I’m saying ‘b’, the amount we release, is considerably greated than ‘a’. That, as you link points out, is because the ocean absorbs a decent amount of our emissions, lowering the pH as it does so.

    So, if you have some hopeful scheme about undiscovered sinks soaking up our emissions you have to deal with the fact our emissions more than explain all of the increase in atmospheric CO2.

  27. 27
    ET says:

    mimus:

    So, if you have some hopeful scheme about undiscovered sinks soaking up our emissions you have to deal with the fact our emissions more than explain all of the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    CO2 is such a minor GHG that we would have to worry about the inability to breathe the air rather than any alleged warming it causes.

  28. 28
    Brother Brian says:

    PaV

    I think they calculate the amount of anthropogenic CO2 using formulas involving fossil fuels, and not much more.

    It’s actually quite simple.

    1) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.

    2) the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere attributed to fossil fuels is also increasing.

    3) therefore fossil fuels are largely responsible for the increased atmospheric CO2.

  29. 29
    ET says:

    1) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.

    And the earth is becoming greener because of it.

    2) the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere attributed to fossil fuels is also increasing.

    And the earth is becoming greener because of it.

    3) therefore fossil fuels are largely responsible for the increased atmospheric CO2.

    therefore fossil fuels are largely responsible for the increasing green

  30. 30
    asauber says:

    BB,

    Since you seem to believe anything and everything in the media about the climate crisis, I have few questions for you:

    1. Has every claim seen in the media related to the climate crisis over the last decade or so been absolutely true?

    2. Have you changed your lifestyle at all because of the climate crisis and do you think these changes have had any impact on the global climate?

    3. Do you have any climate crisis skeptics in your group of friends?

    Andrew

  31. 31
    john_a_designer says:

    This so-called debate over the climate really comes down to hard data vs. theoretical projections of future climatic trends based on faulty (garbage-in/ garbage-out) computer models. Here’s a graph that plots “real time” satellite and weather balloon data of actual global temperatures vs. the 102 of the U.N.’s IPCC CMIP-5 computer projection models.

    https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/michaels-102-ipcc-models-vs-reality.jpg

    Notice that the average of all the computer models show run away global warming while the real data does not.

    Has there been some warming? Yes. We’re still coming out of the last ice age. BTW that’s also why sea levels have continued to rise. However, if you look objectively at sea levels for the last 10,000 years it has slowed down dramatically. That means it’s not rising as dramatically as the “climatistas” want you to believe. Is the real data the basis for draconian changes in environmental policy and law? Hardly.

    Here is an article that goes along with the graph above:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/29/when-will-climate-scientists-say-they-were-wrong/

  32. 32
    john_a_designer says:

    Here’s a key question: Are the rising levels of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere really bad? The following article argues NO.

    In 2016 a paper was published by 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries that analysed satellite data and concluded that there had been a roughly 14% increase in green vegetation over 30 years. The study attributed 70% of this increase to the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The lead author on the study, Zaichun Zhu of Beijing University, says this is equivalent to adding a new continent of green vegetation twice the size of the mainland United States…

    There should have been no surprise about this news. Thousands of experiments have been conducted over many years in which levels of CO2 had been increased over crops or wild ecosystems and boosted their growth. The owners of commercial greenhouses usually pump CO2 into the air to speed up the growth of plants. CO2 is plant food…

    Yet this never gets mentioned. In their desperation to keep the fearmongering on track the activists who make a living off the climate change scare do their best to ignore this inconvenient truth…

    (Emphasis added.)

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/05/global-greening-is-happening-faster-than-climate-change-and-its-a-good-thing/

    It never gets mentioned because the true motivation behind man-caused-climate-change narrative is political not scientific.

    PS It should be obvious to anyone who has studied the science that CO2 is not only natural but necessary for the existence of life on earth.

  33. 33
    asauber says:

    Stole This Comment From Someone Else:

    “Treating hypothetical scenarios about the future as if they are real today is a clinical description of psychotic delusion. Lets not mince words. These people are mentally ill and could benefit from treatment.”

    Andrew

  34. 34
    john_a_designer says:

    The following is a graph which is the result of study carried out by a team of Australian researchers.

    https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/post-glacial_sea_level-incl-3-mm-yr-1-trend.png

    “Dr Katharine Grant, from the Australian National University (ANU), Canberra, who led the study, says: “The really fast rates of sea-level rise typically seem to have happened at the end of periods with exceptionally large ice sheets, when there was two or more times more ice on the Earth than today.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/26/study-finds-global-sea-levels-rose-up-to-5-meters-per-century-at-the-end-of-the-last-5-ice-ages/

    “So boys and girls what do we see when we look at this graph? When were the sea levels rising the fastest? Long ago just after the end of the last ice age or more recently after mankind began polluting the environment with ugly, sooty smelly carbon– C-O-2!” (The teacher, unfortunately, doesn’t tell her students the truth that CO2 is a tasteless, colorless and odorless naturally occurring gas but to be loyal her cause “to save the planet” she has to lie.)

    The point is that if you honestly and objectively look at the graph sea live rise since the beginning of the industrial revolution just a few hundred years ago you can see its been anything but catastrophic. Indeed, it has risen because the level has been rising for the last 20,000 years. The ice age was not caused by mankind. Its ending was not caused by mankind. Those are the FACTS, and you don’t need a Ph.D. to understand the facts.

Leave a Reply