Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
Torington, "As any sane person, I would expect that if you were shown evidence that your working understanding was wrong, you would modify your opinions. Though I don't know that anyone I converse with online is sane, I do assume. Maybe I'm an ass for that."

I have been shown evidence! I've been shown that my understanding is both 'working' and not working at all. I modify my opinions daily. Yesterday wine was bad, today it's good.

Am I insane? So like, let's go a little further here, just past the brink of this black and white evidence, this world of proof, and right to my chair and these talking fingers. "...any sane person...if you were shown..."

Them's fightin' words Sir!

How would you as a global cooling advocate continue if the Earth is a heat sucker?

I meant no disrespect Jim. That was the question my sane comment was leveled at. The satellite sits here on Earth, not that it should matter. There is plenty of information out there already to give you a decent look at the science, but it's not in the media rags. That's where editorial shapes news, and apparently opinion.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,823
73
48
I didn't say buy, perhaps that is what mislead you. I would have thought that:

was clear enough. I'm unaware of any case where one country spends $100 million on cutting edge technology and simply gives it away.
Ever heard of the CANDU reator.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
Of course, but they aren't free, except were used as foreign aid. Does France receive foreign Aid from the US, and would a climate satellite ever count as foreign aid? Power generation makes sense, but a climate observational satellite does not meet the definition of foreign aid.
 

jimshort19

Electoral Member
Nov 24, 2007
476
11
18
22
Zurich
According to Walter's graph of sea ice, the anolomy is in a trend towards the norm.

According to Torrington, by mind-reading, the CO2 pollution advocates have stymied more pertinent scientific inquiry, thereby cheating in this arguement.

If it was known that the satellite could deliver definitive evidence on the trend in question, there is moral error on the part of those stymiers, and grounds for a conspiracy theory.
 

SwitSof

Electoral Member
Currently. Why spend all the money building one from scratch when one sits ready to launch? It's unwanted apparently by NASA, you'd think that they might want to recoup some of the $100 million in tax payers money for the development of the satellite.

True.
However, if NASA is not willing to sell it to any other country (which actually does make it look dodgy for it just to let the satellite sitting in the box collecting dust!), there is no other choice besides to launch your own satellite, isn't there?
The EU member states certainly can bring together the fund for it, rather than say to have only France to bear the cost.
Then again the EU leaders were thinking about to sign the new treaty in Lisbon going there from their own state by their private jets, then fly individually with their own jet to Brussels after signing the treaty to attend the meeting in EC office! Looks like global warming is not on their mind!
 

jimshort19

Electoral Member
Nov 24, 2007
476
11
18
22
Zurich
SwitSof, "...there is no other choice besides to launch your own satellite, isn't there?
The EU member states certainly can bring together the fund for it..."

So, if they do not do so, is the coverup conspiracy then not international, if not global?
 

SwitSof

Electoral Member
So, if they do not do so, is the coverup conspiracy then not international, if not global?

Global conspiracy theory? Juicy!
Can be as simple as they don't care or are not freaking out yet.

The below is website of what is called Tara Expedition to measure the rate of ice meltdown up north. Interesting stuff.

An article written from the findings of this expedition, was saying that the GW caused by greenhouse gas emissions could upset the high northern latitudes and the scientists on board would like to measure to what extent the effect can be.
All the digital simulations of the future climate predict the complete disappearance of the sea ice during the Arctic summer.
It remains difficult to predict the pace of this transformation. As soon as 2030? Not before 2080? One thing is certain; the pack ice disappearance would cause a real upheaval.
Its disappearance would lead to important feedbacks on the climate. These could accelerate the melting of the Canadian and Siberian permafrost nd on longer time scale, of the Greenland icecap. Enough to raise the level of the oceans by 6 metres!

I put the URLs of the blog written by the documenter of this expedition written in French and the below website in French, on a thread in the French section of the forum for those who prefer to read in French.

http://www.taraexpeditions.org/en/s...e/the-great-planetary-collapse.php?id_page=57
The great planetary collapse


Up north, the pack ice is melting. Polar bears are threatened and the disappearance
of the ice in summer could modify climates and life styles in considerable
proportion.

Global warming ? “The American submarines were those who revealed to us the scope of the problem”. For Christian de Marliave, who has twenty years of experience in the poles and who is the scientific coordinator of the Tara Arctic project, as for the entire scientific community, it was a great surprise. Indeed, partially demobilized at the end of the cold war, the American Navy lent its nuclear submarines to the scientists to visit the pack ice from below.

Between 1995 and 1999, 100 000 nautical miles were thus covered and the sonar gave their verdict without appeal : the melt down is breath taking! “On satellite photos, we notice that the polar ice surface has diminished by an average
of 8 to 10% in the past thirty years. But the pack ice has reduced by 40% in thickness during the same period which is considerable” adds Christian de
Marliave.
Mathematical models produce converging evaluations. “The five extrapolations that were calculated all show about the same thing : there will be no more summer pack ice within the next twenty to fifty years” asserts Jean-Claude Gascard, research director at the oceanographic and climatology laboratory of the Pierre and Marie
Curie University in Paris and coordinator of the Damocles programme which is leading scientific studies from the Tara schooner.
The first species to suffer from this disappearance will undoubtedly be the polar
bear. “The bear hibernates in the winter and stores fat in the summer” continues Jean-Claude Gascard. “If there is no more summer pack ice he is sentenced to disappear”. Christian de Marliave adds “The bear feeds on seals that he catches when
they emerge from the ice. Without the pack ice, he is finished. He is a good swimmer but has no chance to catch up with a seal in open water”. Three cases of cannibalism have been witnessed among polar bears this year : a possible prelude of what is to
come with the increased scarcity of their food.

“Mathematical models are imperfect and the worse is not necessarily what is in store” moderates however Jean-Claude Gascard, “studies that we are carrying out on Tara’s board will enable us to improve these models”. Instead of submarines, the
Damocles researchers are going to install floats under the ice, which will drift 50 m deep in the heart of a 1 000 km diameter circle. Each one will be equipped with an inversed sonar and will measure the thickness of the pack ice for
the next two years.

However, the pack ice melt down will have nearly no effect on ocean levels. Greenland, on the other hand, is a fantastic fresh water reservoir. The ice that covers it is the outcome of thousands of years of precipitations. It is a
thick mass of maybe more than 3 km that is loosing more than a hundred billion tons of ice per year according to the satellite observations of the Grace2 programme. Not only because of the melt down but also because of the accelerating ice slide of glaciers in the sea, a kind of collateral damage due to the warming.

The Kangerdlugssuaq glacier hurtles down the Greenland coast at the mind boggling speed of 14 km per year. If all of Greenland began to melt, the average ocean levels would rise seven meters : London or New York would be
underwater not to mention Venice!
“It is a catastrophic scenario that is not going to take place soon… However, even if Greenland reduced its ice by only 10%, the sea level would rise by 70 cm. Which is already quite something” points out Jean-Claude Gascard. Moreover the
melting of this freshwater ice risks modifying the thermohaline (movement of the expanses of water according to temperature and salinity) and thus the “north Atlantic drift”.
This ocean current, stemming from the Gulf Stream, heats up Western Europe and
Scandinavia. It allows for human life with appreciable comfort conditions. But the
rerouting of the drift, its’ slowing down, or perhaps even its full stop would entail a drastic cooling off of the Scandinavian coasts and even
a possible glaciation.

A glaciation caused by global warming ? As paradoxical as it may appear, the scenario is not new. It already happened. Between 9 000 and 8 500 BC, in full post-glacier debacle, the melting of the North American glaciers had
made the drifts’ regimen drop. It resulted in a re-glaciation of the Scandinavian peninsulas during some 500 years.

1 : Steven C. Amstrup et al, Polar Biology, Online first, 27 April 2006
2 : Scott B. Luthcke et al, Science, 20 October 2006

Eric Biegala
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]The absorption peak depends on the spectral resolution which was 2/cm for this spectrometer. With a finer resolution, e.g. 0.5/cm, the peak would become higher and sharper, thus yielding a higher extinction coefficient. The R- (DeltaJ = +1) and the P- (DeltaJ = -1) can be clearly identified as well as the Q-branch (DeltaJ = +0) of the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band (15 µm or 667 cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]). The n[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] band (4.2 µm or 2349 cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]) which only has an R- and P-branch, was measured as well. The decadic extinction coefficients at the band maximum were evaluated as[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]e = 29.9 m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]/mol for n[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] and e = 20.2 m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]/mol for n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]To calculate the transmission in the total atmosphere, an average CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] content was taken (from the volume of the atmosphere and the mass) as c = 1.03[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-3[/SIZE] mol/m[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE]. Inserting the above molar extinction, the value for c and the homosphere layer thickness (h = 10[SIZE=-2]5[/SIZE] m) into Lambert-Beer's law, yielding a decadic extinction[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]E(n[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]) = 29.9 m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]/mol[SIZE=+1] * [/SIZE]1.03 [SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-3[/SIZE] mol/m[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE] 10[SIZE=-2]5[/SIZE] m = 3080[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]In the same way we find E(n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE]) = 2080. This means that the transmission T around the peak maxima, defined as 10[SIZE=-2]-E[/SIZE], amounts for 357 ppm to[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]T(n[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE]) = 10 [SIZE=-2]-3080[/SIZE] and T(n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE]) = 10 [SIZE=-2]-2080[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]These are extremely small transmission values which are making any greenhouse increment by CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] doubling absolutely impossible. Jack Barrett found similar results [SIZE=-1][2][/SIZE] using spectroscopic and kinetic considerations - tapping into a vasp nest and creating a still vivid discussion [SIZE=-1][7 - 10][/SIZE].
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
[/FONT]
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
[...]

NOAA wants it, France wants it, even Ukraine wants it. But instead it sits in a box at Goddard Space Flight Center.

[...]
Just out of curiosity, isn't that Hansen fellow in charge of Goddard? You know, the guy who's a warming alarmist with the computer models. Wouldn't you think he would jump at the chance to prove AGW?

I can't help wondering if perhaps he's the one keeping it in storage. Like he was afraid it would show what he didn't want it to reveal.

I also think if France really wanted it, they'd have replicated it and sent it up already. Being dependent on the US is one thing they refuse to be.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
[...]

Up north, the pack ice is melting. Polar bears are threatened and the disappearance
of the ice in summer could modify climates and life styles in considerable
proportion.
[...]
People keep saying that stuff, even though the massive reduction in ice this year has been shown to be primarily a matter of wind, not temperature. And the polar bear population is in the middle of a population explosion, 5 times the number that there were 50 years ago. For a species who's very existence is in question, they seem to be doing better than any other species I can think of except perhaps coyotes. Or Kangaroos. Or monkeys in central Asia.

Let's see, the seal population is enjoying rapid growth. The bears eat seals. Bears are also enjoying rapid growth. Hmmm.... if seals can't rest on ice, they'll have to rest on land, from which they can't escape nearly as fast or easily as they can from ice. Seems to me bears do better in warmer climate than in colder. And since they've already managed to survive the past 10,000 years during which the temperature was, for the most part, considerably warmer than now, and since they also manage to survive the last interglacial which was warmer than this one, I think they'll do just fine.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Ummm, bull sh|t. Where is the evidence for an oncoming ice age? [...]
It's in the ice core record. Before the current AGW delusion became so prominent, scientists used to issue a warning every year or so that we were on the cusp of a new ice age, overdue in fact. This isn't all that clear a graph, but check the temperature. The 0 line of the graph is our current temps. As you can see, the past 400,000 years of earths climate has been a few brief (10,000+- years) warm periods followed by about 100,000 years of cold, with ice age. This is a natural recurring pattern, thought to be caused by the change in the earths elliptical orbit, possibly due to planetary alignment gravitation pulling on the earth, plus axis wobble and more stuff I can't remember. There is every reason to believe that the pattern will repeat, and no reason to believe it won't. If it is repeating, we're at the end of an interglacial, and very soon, within the next 1000 years, likely less, the downward trend will start and be irreversible for 100,000 years.


 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
Just out of curiosity, isn't that Hansen fellow in charge of Goddard? You know, the guy who's a warming alarmist with the computer models. Wouldn't you think he would jump at the chance to prove AGW?

I can't help wondering if perhaps he's the one keeping it in storage. Like he was afraid it would show what he didn't want it to reveal.

I also think if France really wanted it, they'd have replicated it and sent it up already. Being dependent on the US is one thing they refuse to be.

He's head researcher for Goddard Institute for Space Studies, but not the one who sets NASA funding priorities.

Unlikely that Hansen would want to see it mothballed. The original idea actually belonged to Gore, he called the proposal Triana, the GOP congress called it Goresat. The politics for this go way back to before the 2000 election.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/triana_991013.html

The the NAS released their decision, giving it the green light.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=NI000246

Then the Columbia disaster in 2003 pushed all NASA schedules back, and finally in late 2006 the project was put on the shelf, where it has remained since. That is when the requests from foreign governments to launch the satellite came in, as well as the NOAA.

Here's the correspondence with the Whitehouse on the issue:
FOI request

Whitehouse response


From the .gov website, we can see that in fact there are indeed Executive Office of the President entities that are subject to FOI requests
http://www.ostp.gov/html/_foia.html#EOP Entities
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
149
63
It's in the ice core record. Before the current AGW delusion became so prominent, scientists used to issue a warning every year or so that we were on the cusp of a new ice age, overdue in fact. This isn't all that clear a graph, but check the temperature. The 0 line of the graph is our current temps. As you can see, the past 400,000 years of earths climate has been a few brief (10,000+- years) warm periods followed by about 100,000 years of cold, with ice age. This is a natural recurring pattern, thought to be caused by the change in the earths elliptical orbit, possibly due to planetary alignment gravitation pulling on the earth, plus axis wobble and more stuff I can't remember. There is every reason to believe that the pattern will repeat, and no reason to believe it won't. If it is repeating, we're at the end of an interglacial, and very soon, within the next 1000 years, likely less, the downward trend will start and be irreversible for 100,000 years.



I'm well aware of Milankovitch cycles and the periods of change inbetween.



You're describing what has happened in the past, that's not debatable, it's a matter of fact. I responded to the comment that we're on the brink of an ice age. Where is the evidence for that? Claiming that is as ludicrous as the small circles who said it was about to happen in the 1970's.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
[...]


You're describing what has happened in the past, that's not debatable, it's a matter of fact. I responded to the comment that we're on the brink of an ice age. Where is the evidence for that? Claiming that is as ludicrous as the small circles who said it was about to happen in the 1970's.
In the '70's it was much more than small circles who were predicting an anthropologically caused ice age, in fact the first earth day was greatly concerned with that imminent event, caused by burning of fossil fuels. That's not at all the same thing.

The evidence is the recurring pattern. Are you suggesting that the pattern will change? If so what would cause such a change? The scientists who've been warning us for years insist that it is coming, and there is nothing we can do except plan and adapt. I see no reason to believe they are wrong, though I would certainly wish they were.
 

jimshort19

Electoral Member
Nov 24, 2007
476
11
18
22
Zurich
SwitSof's expert, "But the pack ice has reduced by 40% in thickness during the same period which is considerable”

The article goes on to state that while the melting of the entire polar cap will have little effect on ocean water levels, 10% of the Greenland ice would be substantial.

What's with this ice? The polar caps has far less ice than Greenland? Obviously I am not even aware of where the deluge is to come from.

Now I'm off to find the f..... satellite that doessn't give a schit where the pollution or water or ice any other earthly is, just measures the energy balance, no politics included. I hear a knock at the door. A most omenous wrap. If I'm not back before the sharks take Toronto, keep your chin up and your jockstrap tight.
 

jimshort19

Electoral Member
Nov 24, 2007
476
11
18
22
Zurich
Apparently Tonington is right, and it's easy to verify.

The satellite is also known as the Trianna deep space observatory. The scientific objectives include measurements by NISTAR, a global thermometer of sorts, a gang of four radiometer, which "observed seasonal and interannual variability could be compared with simulated signals from climate models to assess the significance of any observed short or long-term fluctuations."

Notwithstanding this official overlay hogwash about using climate models as a baseline to interpret the satellite data, the satellite would vastly improve upon current attempts to measure the reflectivity of the planet, which measurements are presently so inaccurate as to be meaningless.

See: http://mitchellanderson.blogspot.com/2007/10/dscovr-debacle-part-4-why-wont-nasa.html

It's all true. The satellite, the cacellation with no stated reason but an excuse about 'conflicting priorities'. Isn't that a choice of words? The stonewalling of disclosure, the offers to lauch, all true. NASA built it. Stored it. Cancelled it, Refused to allow offer countries to launch it. Refused to release any information on why it was cancelled, and now they won’t let another US government agency have it either. The NOAA tried to get it to use to monitor solar flares.

So, we have a real conspiracy here, it's restricted to the United States, NASA is in it as an anti-science actor and the object can only be, ("conflicting priorities" at NASA having been dispelled by NOAA), to prevent observations that DSCOVER would make. But nobody got to the NOAA? I guess that would be pushing things.






 
Last edited:

dirtylinder

get dirty
Apr 24, 2007
301
6
18
vancouver island
just heard

I just watched a video by David Wilcox where through research they determined it is not global warming, it is Galaxy warming...Yes, he said the whole galaxy is warming up, therefore, it is not a global reason why we are heating up, although our galaxy does include our mother earth, it is impossible to stop because of it's magnitude..
PS I have not read all the posts, so, if I have repeated a point, I appologize..8O
 
Status
Not open for further replies.