Global Warming HOAX Unravels

a reply to: raymundoko

It's working too.

Oh and when did it start working ? Last senses I seen put climate change at the bottom of the list of things the public was concerned about .The only way it could have been lower on the list is if they would have included hang nails in the list .

a reply to: the2ofusr1


That sounds like a good thing. They are preparing, therefore they will probably prosper. That is why the family sold the wheat farm. None of us want to tackle the research and decisions that it will take, too old now.

a reply to: MOMof3

Did you not read the part about where the Medieval Warming Period which was 3 degrees warmer than today is considered the golden age? Where food and agriculture was prosperous and the earth was green?

I feel for you. You had to sell your homestead farm. That is absolutely devestating and heartbreaking. But Iceland is now growing a lot of its own food!

Be honest. Its not really climate change that drove you out. Its excessive regulation!

Tired of Control Freads

a reply to: the2ofusr1

That really seems to be the problem

The UN talks to the government. Government talk to lobby groups but only those groups who are approved by the UN may talk to the government. The government (meaning us) pays those groups to exist and to give the government the advise and information that the UN approves and the government pays for.

The all talk to each other but no one talks to the public or listens to us.

We have told them we think global warming is a hoax and we don't want to pay - are they listening? Of course not - we are not on the approved UN list.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I'm not devastated over it. We had lots of buyers that did not seem to care about no govment regs. Are you in my life that you can tell me what I see, feel, experience? We grew wheat. It is easy to grow, but you need rain at the right time. That ain't happening since about five years. Tired of thought police.

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: tanka418

Thank you. Why do you have an issue with the magnitudes involved?

The very, very, small values!

For instance...


Seawater pH is typically limited to a range between 7.5 and 8.4. However, there is no universally accepted reference pH-scale for seawater and the difference between measurements based on different reference scales may be up to 0.14 units.

-- en.wikipedia.org...

Every bit of the argument about pH levels ca be made relatively moot simply by carefully choosing which reference to use, or, I might make that look very serious, needing immediate attention...when the reality may be neither. The real issue here is: no accepted standard.

And again; the increase in CO2 levels has been characterized a "40% increase". Makes it sound dire, I mean; 40%! Except that is 40% of 0.0397% or about 0.015%. Meaning that the total CO2 in the atmosphere increased from 0.0397 to around 0.055%...not quite as dramatic is it?

This is beginning to look like a rather fuzzy application of "fuzzy logic", or perhaps more like a misapplication of logic. It is quite apparent that the proponents of global warming are relying on the "fuzz" to make their point...and it's not working for most thinking people.

a reply to: tanka418

Even a small change in co2 can cause warming. This can be confirmed with laboratory experiments. In fact, co2 warms the most as it increases on the low end since it is logarithmic. So moving from 200-400 PPM is a huge change, then from 400-600 is a moderate change, then the next change doesn't take place until 600-1000PPM. Even then the warming that would be created is very small in the grand scheme. Nowhere near enough to cause catastrophic climate change. The issue is how fast it is increasing. Even though it has increased faster in the past it hasn't happened while man has been around and living the way we live now. Even with a fast increase though it is relative. We have plenty of time to adapt to the coming changes even if we continue on our wasteful path. The best option is to adapt while we also change.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

The Medieval Warming Period was 3 or 4 degrees warmer than current temperatures.

Actually it was not. In 2006 Nature Geoscience published a study by 78 researchers from 60 scientific institutions from around the world. They analyzed records from ice cores, stalagmites, tree rings, corals, lake sediments, marine sediments and also historical documents from 511 location across all continents and they reconstructed global temperature changes over the past 2000 years.

Their result: current global temperatures are higher than any time in the last 1400 years.



Here is the link to their study: www.nature.com...



Regarding a tropical planet: yes there will be more vegetation in the northern latitudes and more plankton (as discussed already) but there will also be more violent weather: tropical storms, floods, droughts, probable coral extinction.... definitely a change in all ecosystems. I should also add more forest fires and rising sea levels due to melting glaciers. Is that great? You may think so but I disagree.

And yes, I am concerned about ocean's PH, about temperatures, about how fast it's all happening, because all these factors are linked.

a reply to: Agartha

The full paper is here:
Direct linked PDF

So that someone can read the whole thing.

a reply to: raymundoko

Raymundoko

No amount of scientific evidence is sufficient to assuage of the "concern's of people like Argartha.

Don't you that when people are "concerned" their "concerns" must be fully addressed in the fashion that they demand. No amount of contrary scientific evidence will do. They are "concerned" and therefore we must all spend billions of dollars to assuage their concerns.

When they are not "concerned", they are "offended" - which pretty much amounts to the same thing. When activists are "concerned" or "offended", the world must stop and pay attention or else.

Argartha was already provided with solid evidence that ocean acidivication was nothing more then alarmism. We no sooner go through the process and she pops right back with "concerns".

oops maybe this post will "offend" her.

Tired of control Freaks

originally posted by: raymundoko

The full paper is here:
Direct linked PDF

So that someone can read the whole thing.

Awesome! Thank you!

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

Raymundoko

No amount of scientific evidence is sufficient to assuage of the "concern's of people like Argartha.

Don't you that when people are "concerned" their "concerns" must be fully addressed in the fashion that they demand. No amount of contrary scientific evidence will do. They are "concerned" and therefore we must all spend billions of dollars to assuage their concerns.

When they are not "concerned", they are "offended" - which pretty much amounts to the same thing. When activists are "concerned" or "offended", the world must stop and pay attention or else.

Argartha was already provided with solid evidence that ocean acidivication was nothing more then alarmism. We no sooner go through the process and she pops right back with "concerns".

oops maybe this post will "offend" her.

Tired of control Freaks

LOL people like me?

What you label 'alarmist' I label differently, I have explained a million times why the term 'acidification' is used.

I am not offended by anything, where do you see me saying that???

I think you are offended that I have my own evidence which I trust and believe more than the one you provide....
You don't see me judging you and making a whole post about 'people' like you, I don't need to do that, I have plenty of scientific evidence to talk about in my posts.I am not here to analyze individuals, I am here to discuss science.

But LOL again! gosh, this last post of yours is making me laugh!!

a reply to: Agartha

Good - I am always please when someone who is part of the generation that is living the longest, healthist life span that the world has ever seen, who doesn't have to worry from day to day if there is going to be enough food around so they don't to go hungry, who is living in one of the most prosperous countries in the world-laughs instead of being concerned.

Does your stash of evidence include the range of ph of normal seawater or a methodology for analysing the pH of sea water or a record of how pH of sea water has varied in the past.

No?
well then I guess despite all of your first world advantages, you will just have to keep being "concerned" about ocean acidification and "alarmed" about what may happen to the oceans in the near future if you keep driving your car.

If it keeps you up at night and makes you happy - have at it, my friend.

I would prefer if the government would dedicate funds to cleaning up all the plastic and trash that is accumulating in the ocean but hey...we all have our priorities.

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: tanka418

Even a small change in co2 can cause warming. This can be confirmed with laboratory experiments. In fact, co2 warms the most as it increases on the low end since it is logarithmic. So moving from 200-400 PPM is a huge change, then from 400-600 is a moderate change, then the next change doesn't take place until 600-1000PPM. Even then the warming that would be created is very small in the grand scheme. Nowhere near enough to cause catastrophic climate change. The issue is how fast it is increasing. Even though it has increased faster in the past it hasn't happened while man has been around and living the way we live now. Even with a fast increase though it is relative. We have plenty of time to adapt to the coming changes even if we continue on our wasteful path. The best option is to adapt while we also change.

Yes I know...

Did you actually evaluate the data? That region of the curve is virtually linear and almost "flat"...so, logarithmic notwithstanding...a change of 40% of the CO2 level is very small, and, should have a small/minimal effect.

BTW, 40% of CO2 levels is about 150ppm,..in this case it is added to 0.397% giving us something on the order of 0.055% (atmospheric CO2 content) or about 550ppm.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks

I would prefer if the government would dedicate funds to cleaning up all the plastic and trash that is accumulating in the ocean but hey...we all have our priorities.

Re-read my previous posts and you'll see that this ^^ is exactly what I want. I want people to start taking the responsibility of cleaning up the planet. I want greener energy. I want less pollution of all types, including the extra CO2 we are sending to the atmosphere. You call me alarmist, I call myself eco-friendly.

a reply to: Agartha

the environmental movement has been hijacked by multinational finance cartels, they have you so occupied chasing down carbon ghosts, that genuine forms of pollution will be subordinate, they'll rake in the dough from the carbon tax & the oil companys will make bank pumping this highly dubious CO2 down their abandon oil wells.

a reply to: AttitudeProblem

That video "Message to the Environmental Movement" is one very very powerful message. Its the message I have been trying to get out for a very very long time.

I am not a person who is "interested" in the environment. I am not one of the "concerned" or "alarmed" citizens, who think they they know something when they really don't understand any of it. Having seen how the words "concerned" and "alarmed" have been mis-used to disguise ulterior motives first-hand, the amount of hatred I feel for those words is unbelievable.

I have spent 30 years of my life working hands-on with all sides of the issues and frankly, I am very proud of what I and my peers have accomplished and can point to solid environmental gains with issues that were either resolved or ameliorated. I was green when it still was only a colour and not a social/political movement.

Corbett says is 6 minutes what would take me days and even weeks to convey.

Bravo!

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: AttitudeProblem

I especially liked his call for transparency in the data, and source code...

Problem is; when referring to the source code, most people would not know what to do with it, almost nobody would be able to read it and make ay sense of it. Depending on the language used of course, but, I think we can rest assured that IF any of this source was ever released to the public it almost certainly wouldn't be in a language that would be easily understood.

As a career Computer Scientist / Software Architect I can almost assure everyone, the source will not be easy to understand.

IF I were in their position I would gladly give up the source, after it was translated into a language like C++ or perhaps some forgotten language like Fortran, neither of which are easy to grasp by a novice. The "C" language has perhaps the most flexibility in obfuscating the real processing. "C" is perhaps the most cryptic language extant (with some exceptions), and a "C" language statement can be so cryptic that only the original programmer, and the compiler can make any sense of it.

The data on the other hand, may be straight forward, presuming the dataset was designed by a Data Scientist, as differentiated from a "climate" scientist. It has been my experience that datasets designed by non-data types are poorly designed, use incorrect data types, and incorporate "convolutions" of data that are almost impossible to get through. Such "exceptions" in design are likely a fundamental component of the overall deception that is this whole climate mess.

So...be mindful of what you ask for...those who can actually understand the source code are few and far between...

a reply to: raymundoko

So, whenever everyone is done arguing semantics and co2 BS...there is a REAL planet issue known as a REALLY bad radiation leak in Japan... Apparently just getting worse by the day too.

If anyone is serious about "saving the planet", they would put this as a top priority...

No? Not a priority? Thought so...

a reply to: Sparkymedic

I know how you feel. We have been planting and sowing all our lives, several generations. But, the changes that we witness in the weather pattern, the animals, the fish, the soil, are discarded. I thought one of the first rules of science was observation.