Global Warming: still the ‘Greatest Scam in History’


petros
+2
#3001
The Extinction Crisis turned into a drug party.

By the looks of the partying, you'd never know there was an alleged crisis.
 
Twin_Moose
+1
#3002
May as well humans will be extinct in 10 years anyway
 
JLM
+1 / -1
#3003
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

May as well humans will be extinct in 10 years anyway


I'd give them 50!
 
Danbones
+3
#3004
Some pee-umans stink now


Manitoba storm brings 70+ cm for some, plane gets stuck at airport

Tens of thousands were without power Saturday evening and Manitoba Hydro crews said they have 'never seen anything like' the conditions in some rural areas.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca...travel-hassles

You know...that long underwear after a double shift in a snowsuit scent...
 
petros
+1
#3005
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Volume 182, January 2019, Pages 31-38
Has global warming already arrived?
Author links open overlay panelC.A.VarotsosM.N.Efstathiou
Show more
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2018.10.020
Get rights and content
Highlights

The global warming during 1978–2018 was not more enhanced at high latitudes near the surface.


The intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those in the troposphere.


The results obtained do not reveal the global warming occurrence.


Abstract
The enhancement of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to the increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gases is often considered as responsible for global warming (known as greenhouse hypothesis of global warming). In this context, the temperature field of global troposphere and lower stratosphere over the period 12/1978–07/2018 is explored using the recent Version 6 of the UAH MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature dataset. Our analysis did not show a consistent warming with gradual increase from low to high latitudes in both hemispheres, as it should be from the global warming theory. In addition, in the lower stratosphere the temperature cooling over both poles is lower than that over tropics and extratropics. To study further the thermal field variability we investigated the long-range correlations throughout the global lower troposphere-lower stratosphere region. The results show that the temperature field displays power-law behaviour that becomes stronger by going from the lower troposphere to the tropopause.This power-law behaviour suggests that the fluctuations in global tropospheric temperature at short intervals are positively correlated with those at longer intervals in a power-law manner. The latter, however, does not apply to global temperature in the lower stratosphere. This suggests that the investigated intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those of the troposphere, as is expected by the global warming theory.

PreviousNext
Keywords
TroposphereStratospherePower-lawSatellite observationsClimate components
1. Introduction
Over the last decades, the rise in surface air temperature in regions of our planet has led to a debate in the scientific community about the causes and impacts of this temperature rise, especially if it comes from anthropogenic activities or is of natural origin.

We must bear in mind that by definition the climate system is part of the wider global system. In particular, it is composed of five subsystems the atmosphere, the cryosphere, the hydrosphere, the biosphere and the lithosphere, which interact with each other with mostly non-linear processes in space and time (e.g., IPCC, 2014; Lovejoy and Varotsos, 2016). Therefore, a change in a parameter of a climatic subsystem (e.g., atmospheric temperature) does not predict a climate change, as all other parameters of the atmosphere but also of other subsystems (known and measurable or not) are not necessarily known and stable.

Also, by definition, the climate is a complicated (displaying many degrees of freedom) and a complex (non-linear, dynamical, sensitive) system (e.g. Lucarini, 2011). Therefore, it is a truism that climate has always been changing, and it will always be changing. Which sub-system dominates the climate change depends, for instance, on the time window, namely: For t < 10yrs the atmospheric degrees of freedom are active and the other sub-systems are frozen. For 100 < t < 1000yrs the ocean dominates, and for t > 5000yrs cryosphere dominates.

Several analyses have been made on the key issues of scientific understanding of contemporary global climate change (e.g. Christy et al., 2007). The focus of most of these analyses is to discuss the uncertainties associated with existing observation data and the results of numerical modelling. These emphasize the need to analyze the ability of current models to simulate real climate change. As mentioned above, real climate change results from the non-linear interactions between numerous components of the climatic system. In these should also be taken into consideration and possible contributions by external forcings e.g., cosmic factors, such as solar activity. Despite the projected exponential growth in computer power, these processes will not be adequately resolved in numerical climate models in the near future (Franzke et al., 2015). Stochastic methods for numerical climate prediction may allow for an adequate representation of uncertainties, the reduction of systematic biases and improved representation of long-term climate variability (e.g., Droegemeier, 2009). Some analyses show that current models are not able to simulate real climate. The main reason is that climate is a high-dimensional forced and dissipative complex system with chaotic dynamics that displays different physical and chemical properties of its various components and coupling mechanisms. Furthermore, the understanding of slow and rapid extreme climatic events and the assessment of processes behind the tipping points responsible for the multi-stability of the climatic system is not complete (Lenton et al., 2008; Varotsos, 2002, Varotsos, 2013, Varotsos and Cartalis, 1991).

Lucarini et al. (2014) discussed several ideas from the basic physics that came into the climate science. For example, the powerful formulation of hydrodynamics based on formalism introduced by Nambu (1973) helps elucidate the hidden properties of fluid flows, leading to a new generation of numerical climate models. Another example, is the effort to build tools for the assessment of energy budget and transport and to study irreversible processes (by evaluating entropy production) through classical non-equilibrium thermodynamics and based on the views of Prigogine (1961) and of Lorenz (1967). Finally, efforts were made to employ the non-equilibrium statistical mechanics formulation of climate dynamics to address the climatic response to perturbations, based on the work of Ruelle (1997).

One aspect of the climate system, which is a matter of great concern to the international scientific community but also to humanity, is the so-called global warming. This is one of the components of global climate change and interconnected to human activity.

This is today a major challenge for mankind, with public debates on whether global warming is happening, how much has happened in modern times, whether action should be taken to combat it and, if so, what should be that action. It is often associated with, for example, rising sea level and decline in the Arctic sea ice. The increase in extreme events is also considered as a result of global warming (e.g. OGorman, 2014) and may have a wide and varied impact on health, agriculture and economics (Schleussner et al., 2016; Carleton and Hsiang, 2016). However, the detection of climate change and quantification of the enhancement of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, both in observations and in climate models, is the main concern of the scientific community (Kondratyev and Varotsos, 1995).

The purpose of the present study is to explore the temporal variability of the temperature on a global, hemispheric and latitudinal belt basis for the regions: lower troposphere, middle troposhere, tropopause and lower stratosphere using the Version 6 of the UAH MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature data set and to address the question whether the so-called global warming has already arrived.
 
Cannuck
#3006
With global warming being such a scam, it's hard to believe Trumpites are proud of carbon capture and storage.
 
Cannuck
#3007
https://www.mylethbridgenow.com/5290...-medicine-hat/

“Premier Jason Kenney also commented on the Rattlesnake Ridge project, saying this exciting new energy project will add to Alberta’s impressive renewable energy network, and is a vote of confidence in our economy.”

Even Jason Kenney is leaving the idiotic Trumpites behind. It won’t be long before they hate him as well
 
Cliffy
-1
#3008
 
Walter
+1
#3009
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Prog shit.
 
Twin_Moose
+2
#3010
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

With global warming being such a scam, it's hard to believe Trumpites are proud of carbon capture and storage.

Everyone wants to cash in on the new environmental industry
 
MHz
#3011
There is nothing new about the 'pay to play' scam. This is just the latest version of how to make things as expensive as possible for the 'useless eaters'. Can't create physical wars without it being leaked all over the globe by people like Benjamin Freedman so now there is a bogus economic war that keeps us from getting the full benefits of all the money that is spent on R&D.
 
Cliffy
-1
#3012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb_8DJF6Hp0


How CO2 Could Be The Future Of Fuel | VICE on HBO

As climate deniers and their allies in industry and government thwart conservationists’ efforts, some scientists are working to develop a back-up plan: use technology to “geoengineer” the Earth's atmosphere and reduce the impacts of climate change.
 
darkbeaver
+3
#3013
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post





It,s curious to see that global warming sheep have no idea what controls the climate of this planet. They are oblivious to the suns climate dominance and the changing conductance of the space between this orb and that sun. For fukk sake will you please goggle GSM, Grand Solar Minimum and at least read a few pages of functioning climate change science. Mans control over the climate of this planet is zero and this planet neither knows we,re here nor cares. The solar physics are totally and positively beyond mankinds tinkering.
 
petros
+3
#3014
Cliff has spent 72 years avoiding reality, he's not going to deal with it now.
 
darkbeaver
#3015
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Cliff has spent 72 years avoiding reality, he's not going to deal with it now.


Then he will starve with the other global warming cultist and thus he will serve the crows and worms and his greatest contribution to this earth will have been realized.
 
darkbeaver
+1
#3016
CO2 Retains Heat For Only 0.0001 Seconds, Warming ‘Not Possible’

Published on October 21, 2019
Written by Kenneth Richard


Mainstream climate science claims CO2 molecules “slow down the rate of heat loss from the surface” as a blanket does.
And yet the rate at which a CO2 molecule retains or slows down heat loss is, at most, a negligible 0.0001 of a second.
A CO2 concentration of 300 ppm versus 400 ppm will, therefore, have no detectable impact.
SkepticalScience , a blog spearheaded by climate science “consensus” advocate John Cook , is widely considered the explanatory guidebook for the anthropogenic global warming movement.
The blog claims CO2 molecules, with a representation of four parts in 10,000 in the atmosphere (or 400 parts per million, or ppm), collectively function as a blanket does in slowing down the rate at which the human body cools.
The rate or time-lapse involved in this “slowing” of heat loss is problematic to the paradigm that says CO2 drives global warming, however.
Professor Nasif Nahle has mathematically assessed the rate at which heat is retained by CO2 molecules; his work was endorsed by the Faculty of Physics of the University of Nuevo Leon (Mexico).
Nahle found the “mean free path” for a quantum wave to pass through the atmosphere before colliding with a CO2 molecule is about 33 meters ( Nahle, 2011a ).
Such a wide chasm between molecular collisions would appear to undermine a visualization of CO2 functioning like a blanket does.
Even more saliently, Nahle determined that the rate at which CO2 molecules can retain heat at the surface may only last about 0.0001 of a second ( Nahle, 2011b ).
If heat-loss is slowed down at a rate of 0.0001 of a second by CO2 molecules, the atmospheric CO2 concentration – whether it’s 300 PPM or 400 PPM – effectively doesn’t matter. The time-lapse differential would be immaterial for either concentration.
Conseq
 
darkbeaver
+2
#3017

The first damaging fact to the theory: CO2 is actually a heavy gas. It is not ‘well mixed’ in the air as per the glib claim. Just check out the NASA image (above) showing widely varying carbon dioxide concentrations. Indeed, schoolchildren are shown just how heavy CO2 is by way of a simple school lab experiment. This heavy gas thus struggles to rise and soon falls back to earth due to its Specific Gravity (SG). Real scientists rely on the SG measure which gives standard air a value of 1.0 where the measured SG of CO2 is 1.5 (considerably heavier). Thus, in the real world the warming theory barely gets off the ground.

As shown in Carbon Dioxide Not a Well Mixed Gas and Can’t Cause Global Warming the same principle applies to heat transfer: the Specific Heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8 (thus CO2 heats and cools faster). Combining these properties allows for thermal mixing. Heavy CO2 warms faster and rises, as in a hot air balloon. It then rapidly cools and falls. Once it falls it loses any claimed climate impact.

principia-scientific.org...
 
Walter
#3018
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post


The first damaging fact to the theory: CO2 is actually a heavy gas. It is not ‘well mixed’ in the air as per the glib claim. Just check out the NASA image (above) showing widely varying carbon dioxide concentrations. Indeed, schoolchildren are shown just how heavy CO2 is by way of a simple school lab experiment. This heavy gas thus struggles to rise and soon falls back to earth due to its Specific Gravity (SG). Real scientists rely on the SG measure which gives standard air a value of 1.0 where the measured SG of CO2 is 1.5 (considerably heavier). Thus, in the real world the warming theory barely gets off the ground.

As shown in Carbon Dioxide Not a Well Mixed Gas and Can’t Cause Global Warming the same principle applies to heat transfer: the Specific Heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8 (thus CO2 heats and cools faster). Combining these properties allows for thermal mixing. Heavy CO2 warms faster and rises, as in a hot air balloon. It then rapidly cools and falls. Once it falls it loses any claimed climate impact.


principia-scientific.org...

Shh, you'll confuse the progs.
 
darkbeaver
+2
#3019
CO2 is our very best friend, those idiots screaming to have it eliminated should be monitored twenty four seven and restrained as soon as possible, on invented charges if necessary prior to state regulation. Drive the idiots from your village as soon as possible, they stand between you and your cabbages.
 
darkbeaver
+1
#3020
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Today's wild predictions about climate doom are likely to be just as true as yesteryear's. The major difference is today's Americans are far more gullible and more likely to spend trillions fighting global warming. And the only result is that we'll be much poorer and less free.
https://townhall.com/columnists/walt...tions-n2554294

So true.


The fight against global warming will be a total success certainly because it. the climate. is not warming. however climate change is occuring during this Grand Solar Minimum/GSM Crops will continue to diminish, eating babies is not out of the question, they,re not hard to catch, history is full of things to eat. A bit of history would indicate to even the slowest among us that humans will eat anything including thier future. This of course is the space age. It is always the space age. It has never not been the space age . When does space change? Every second it,s new. Evolution is way ahead of us humans, it has dragged us along this far it dosen,t have to do it forever. The list of organisms available to replace us is not as short as we have been led to believe.Clams for instance.
 
darkbeaver
+2
#3021
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb_8DJF6Hp0


How CO2 Could Be The Future Of Fuel | VICE on HBO

As climate deniers and their allies in industry and government thwart conservationists’ efforts, some scientists are working to develop a back-up plan: use technology to “geoengineer” the Earth's atmosphere and reduce the impacts of climate change.


At some point in time youimight want to consider the celestial physics, human geoingineering is out of the question sir. The fizzicks negate your suggestions, only a retard would imagine that humanity could control the solar systems intent, it will adjust as it needs to we humans are not it,s main concern, it hardly notices us as we affect it not at all. Our position in the food chain is not as you seem to imagine it. It is said that life flourished here on earth for millions of years without human input. Earth does not need us, as soon as we fukup something else waiting in the wings will fill the void created by our failure to adapt to reality. Our carbon production is much appreciated by this planets organisms, you Sir would deny the green things the bounty of co2. You do know we eat green things don,t you? There is no CO2 tragedy pending. You seem to want to starve green plants of CO2. What will you eat?
 
Twin_Moose
+1 / -1
#3022
What Earth might look like in 80 years if we're lucky — and if we're not
 
Walter
+1
#3023
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

What Earth might look like in 80 years if we're lucky — and if we're not

Utter crap.
 
MHz
#3024
That a sample of what happens when the current powers that be have been in control for 100's of years? Perhaps they are past their prime if everything they touch goes to shit.
 
petros
+1
#3025
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

CO2 Retains Heat For Only 0.0001 Seconds, Warming ‘Not Possible’
Published on October 21, 2019
Written by Kenneth Richard
Mainstream climate science claims CO2 molecules “slow down the rate of heat loss from the surface” as a blanket does.
And yet the rate at which a CO2 molecule retains or slows down heat loss is, at most, a negligible 0.0001 of a second.
A CO2 concentration of 300 ppm versus 400 ppm will, therefore, have no detectable impact.
SkepticalScience , a blog spearheaded by climate science “consensus” advocate John Cook , is widely considered the explanatory guidebook for the anthropogenic global warming movement.
The blog claims CO2 molecules, with a representation of four parts in 10,000 in the atmosphere (or 400 parts per million, or ppm), collectively function as a blanket does in slowing down the rate at which the human body cools.
The rate or time-lapse involved in this “slowing” of heat loss is problematic to the paradigm that says CO2 drives global warming, however.
Professor Nasif Nahle has mathematically assessed the rate at which heat is retained by CO2 molecules; his work was endorsed by the Faculty of Physics of the University of Nuevo Leon (Mexico).
Nahle found the “mean free path” for a quantum wave to pass through the atmosphere before colliding with a CO2 molecule is about 33 meters ( Nahle, 2011a ).
Such a wide chasm between molecular collisions would appear to undermine a visualization of CO2 functioning like a blanket does.
Even more saliently, Nahle determined that the rate at which CO2 molecules can retain heat at the surface may only last about 0.0001 of a second ( Nahle, 2011b ).
If heat-loss is slowed down at a rate of 0.0001 of a second by CO2 molecules, the atmospheric CO2 concentration – whether it’s 300 PPM or 400 PPM – effectively doesn’t matter. The time-lapse differential would be immaterial for either concentration.
Conseq

Another problem is CO2 is outside of the IR spectrum and incapable of trapping IR in the atmosphere.
 
petros
+3
#3026
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

What Earth might look like in 80 years if we're lucky — and if we're not

Holy f-ck! 100% pure bullshit. Not one of these claims are true.

Last year was the warmest year on record for the planet's oceans, and the fourth-warmest year ever in terms of surface temperature.
That warming trend has continued into 2019: July was the hottest month ever in Earth's history.
Scientists are also discovering that melting in Greenland and Antarctica is occurring much faster than they previously thought.
These changes could spell disaster for coastal economies in the form of sea-level rise and more frequent (and intense) natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires.
If greenhouse-gas emissions aren't curbed significantly worldwide - and soon - Earth might be almost unrecognizable by the year 2100.
 
JLM
+1 / -1
#3027
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Holy f-ck! 100% pure bullshit. Not one of these claims are true.

Last year was the warmest year on record for the planet's oceans, and the fourth-warmest year ever in terms of surface temperature.
That warming trend has continued into 2019: July was the hottest month ever in Earth's history.
Scientists are also discovering that melting in Greenland and Antarctica is occurring much faster than they previously thought.
These changes could spell disaster for coastal economies in the form of sea-level rise and more frequent (and intense) natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires.
If greenhouse-gas emissions aren't curbed significantly worldwide - and soon - Earth might be almost unrecognizable by the year 2100.


Yeah, I think a lot of shit to do with global warming is over blown! In some areas 2016 was supposedly the warmest year. The current year in this area has been colder than usual. I think where the main truth of the matter lies is with the polar regions.
 
MHz
+1
#3028
Is that based on an accurate record going back to 4,000BC on a global scale that matches the scale available today?? Paper astronuts and paper scientist belong in the same leaky boat.
 
petros
+5
#3029
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Yeah, I think a lot of shit to do with global warming is over blown! In some areas 2016 was supposedly the warmest year. The current year in this area has been colder than usual. I think where the main truth of the matter lies is with the polar regions.

There hasn't been any warming in 18 years and 10 months. During that time 25% of all emissions were created.

There is no warming to mitigate.
 
Walter
+4
#3030
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

There hasn't been any warming in 18 years and 10 months. During that time 25% of all emissions were created.
There is no warming to mitigate.

It’s all a sham.
 

Similar Threads

1749
60
Global Capitalism; Greatest Scam in History
by darkbeaver | Oct 19th, 2018
2910