Papers Past — Evening Post — 10 April 1924 — TO SAVE THE WORLD!
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
Recent Comments
- arn on The Clock Is Ticking
- dm on “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- D. Boss on The Clock Is Ticking
- William on The Clock Is Ticking
- arn on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- arn on The Clock Is Ticking
- Gordon Vigurs on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- Disillusioned on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- Disillusioned on “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Francis Barnett on “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
Well then we could do the opposite today and prevent the Gulf Stream reaching the Arctic causing a massive increase in ice – problem solved !
Do the simpler thing and drain the Atlantic.
🙂
one of my ideas but others have thought similar. wouldn’t be too hard to join alaska with russia. could also just dam up from the island in the middle to one side slowing the flow. actually would be a pain in the butt, wales wouldn’t like it, it’s better than doing nothing but there are better ways like PUMPING WATER FROM BELOW THE ICE TO ABOVE THE ICE WHERE IT WOULD FREEZE AND THICKEN THE ARCTIC ICE CAP LIKE THEY DO ICE ROAD TRUCKERS. sorry for shouting that out but nothing is getting done.
Why bother pumping water etc, when there is not a problem? Nature has in the past, and can now handle the tiny amounts of methane your are talking about.
Some basic facts about CO2 are unknown to most people and illustrate the discrepancies and differences between IPCC claims and what science knows.
Natural levels of Carbon dioxide (CO2) are less than 0.04% of the total atmosphere and 0.4% of the total GHG. It is not the most important greenhouse gas.
Water vapour is 95 percent of the GHG by volume. It is the most important greenhouse gas by far.
Methane (CH4) is the other natural GHG demonized by the IPCC.
It is only 0.000175 percent of atmospheric gases and 0.036 percent of GHG.
Hank Johnson disagrees, he says Greenland will capsize.
“Fox Channel”? I knew you were a paranoid, right-wing, Xtian Dominionist!
Anyone who is dumb enough to start their argument with the name of a news/entertainment network obviously drank deeply from the shallow well of progressive thought police and has his mind closed enough to not even be aware of what a tool he has become. My sympathy to his children.
Burrrp!
What conservatives understand about global warming is that the people who collect data, assuming they are unbiased (A stretch), have discovered small, but consistent upward trends in temperature data worldwide. The only serious questions we have about it are as follows:
1. Is this warming trend anthropomorphic (man made)?
2. What are other potential causes outside of man’s influence or control?
3. What is the net effect (on actual temperatures) of any institutional changes forced upon society by well meaning, albeit scientifically ignorant legislators?
4. Who will benefit from the financial consequences of legislation designed to “Save the Planet”?
Reasonable people who ask these kinds of questions about global warming to those who have drunk the kool-aid are usually met with derisive, dismissive comments and ad homenim attacks that do nothing to inform or reach any sort of understanding about the reasons for questioning the PC thought surrounding the topic.
Just a quick, well-meaning correction from a like-minded individual.
You meant anthropogenic rather than anthropomorphic (which means human-like).
From the context of your message I’m pretty sure it’s just a slip.
Indeed. I drank a little too much from a different well at last nights Christmas party.
thought i’d give some answers
1. the warming trend has been going on since the last ice age.
2. earth’s tilt, earth’s wobble, earth’s orbit, sun’s energy, volcano’s, …
3. pentigon’s #1 threat to world peace for about 10 years at least. 3 bad years in a row like last year and you’ll see people dying en mass, people dying are disruptive and this causes wars. some needy countries have nukes. oil companies have found large quantities of fresh water, this water for irrigation/drinking could also end starvation forever ending this problem.(crosses fingers)
biologically 50% of species are predicted to go extinct
lately every year there are 100’s of billions in damages that some contribute to global warming.
dead zones possibly from oxygen depleted water. heated ocean waters are said to contain less oxygen possibly creating these zones
oysters are having problems developing shells
next to go sometime are the krill (more net mass than any other organism on earth and basic part of oceans food chain)
(need i go on?)
4. everyone will profit from the problem being solved in the quality of their lives. hopefully those that come up with the ideas and those that implement them will profit a bit also. lately all i’ve gotten from coming up with ideas is being yelled at by everyone and treated like dirt as with most all climate scientists.
ooops, on #3 the net effect of any current legislation being considered would be minimal if any. real work needs to be done however to prevent what i listed and more.
what scares me is how much is still unknown on the matter and how the only real good thing i’ve seen, the ocean fertilization testing, was put down by almost everyone.
Wow! So much disinformation, I hardly know where to start.
First, 99% of all species have already gone extinct. Extinctions are the rule.
Second. Damages? How about record harvests and less human suffering.
Third. How exactly does one stop climate? Climates have always changed and always will, adaptation is the answer as it always has been.
Now go feed some hungry children and quit fretting over nature.
true we’ve lost 99% of all species. we do not need to loose 50% of current species.
we’ve had record harvests and record droughts, with the new water found in a few years we’ll be able to feed everyone void an asteroid or super volcano.
if we do nothing the $100 billion a year damages will increase on average which we should try to prevent.
climate has always changed and always will unless we decide to and work on changing this. there are many ways to change the climate including my own projectcharles which involves creating/controlling/capturing and dissipating hurricanes used to generate clouds to reflect the suns ray’s back into space. homeland security is working on dissipating hurricanes which would go well with my plan. there are many method’s of SRM putting stuff up to block the suns ray’s and methods to capture the heat, these are know so we are now responsible for the actions/inaction’s we take to either control climate or let it control us.
na, i’m gonna go eat a rib eye later i think
Charles, the extinction claims, like all other CAGW claims, are based upon models and not reality. Same with the claims of loss.
Tampering with natural processes is a very bad idea, geoengineering et al is a Pandora’s Box better left unopened.
Turn off the Xbox and go enjoy some fresh air.
I’m sorry Charlie. Only the best tuna gets to be Chicken of the Sea. Try for Chicken Little instead. You seem to have that, “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!” thing down.
So you advocate fixing a non-problem of global warming?
The 50% of species going extinct has been touted for nearly a century – where’s the proof.
Strange to think that most shelled sea life started when CO2 levels were much high than now, so natural selection means they will of course all die out now?
100?s of billions in damages that some contribute to global warming scamming by putting up expensive wind farms, solar panels, overtaxing fossil fuel, and all the other wasteful boondoogles that have been devised. Instead of running things the cheapest and most energy efficient way.
Quality of life would be improved greatly, and everyone better off, if entities like the UN were less power hungry, downsized, and become democratic. If governments, especially in the west, were to down-size and become more accountable, people could enjoy the wealth of their labor better.
And everyone keep in mind that natural disasters will happen, so get yourselves, and if needed your government, to prepared for these eventualities.
i think i listed a bunch of problems with global warming
no proof, just a guess on the number of species. it’s an educated guess though.
ya, that doesn’t make sense that all shelled life started out with higher co2 levels. would seem that it would make the ocean have more acid with mass jellyfish.
oh you know darn well the the oil companies are well subsidized. and the scams like with al gores corn ethanol are part of the government just like halliburton profited off the wars. there are bad people on all sides.
the u.n. is a useless organization but what’s the point, we’ve known that for decades and it’s just for show isn’t it? them and the failed ipcc have done nothing to prevent what’s going on utterly failing.
natural disasters will happen. floods used to happen more often then we controlled them with dams.
I’m sorry you don’t seem to get it there is no problem from ‘global warming’, whatever you take that to mean. Nature adapts to changes, so had we.
On the other hand the UN is a problem (IMO). Through their push of Agenda 21 via NGOs and eduction establishments they are actively undermining democracy everywhere. This action is to ensure that all nations will become subservient to the UN. Now you may think this is not a problem, I do.
You say that oil companies are well subsidized. Where are you facts and data, how does it compare to the $billions thrown away daily on wind farms, solar, ethanol plants, and all the rest of those green-hog-wash boondoogle projects that take tax-payers’ money and put it in the pockets of billionaires? Your fuels, your electricity, and you are overtaxed to maintain this greenwash charade.
Wake-up and smell the coffee. The problem is the socialist indoctrination that daily creeps into our lives. That is what is destroying so much. Not CO2, not ‘global warming, not ‘climate change’ but governments and their intent to rob you and me of hard won freedoms.
you state that there are no problems then inference the problems stating change and that we have to adapt to it. we could have adapted to flooding by reducing population but we built dams to increase food production. i listed many problems most to do with the ocean acidity levels being to high due to co2. we can adapt and do without diverse seafood but personally i like lobster with my steak if i can get it. i dislike the current record high’s/low’s/droughts and floods we’re having also.
the u.n. is a problem, so…., what can i do about it? they have totally failed at doing anything meaningful.
ya, billionaires on all sides are sticking it to everyone they can and stashing their ill won gains in off shore accounts. they should listen to the pope and spread the wealth a bit
do not think it’s the socialists. they just want to feed the hungry and house the homeless before pocketing ill won gains. it’s the corruption that comes with being in power. all this is ok to some extent but it’s gotten way out of hand.
governments should not curtail freedom.
“you state that there are no problems then inference the problems stating change and that we have to adapt to it.”
Correct. Climate changes – adapt or die. Your difficulty is?
Oceans have no problem with CO2 levels as they stand or projected to be. Ocean have major problems with all the junk humans dump into them, but even there nature will adapt.
Socialism is the major problem in the world. Interfering, masonic idiots. They ensure, have always ensured that people die needlessly. History is littered with the bastards.
Oil companies are not subsidized. Period. A subsidy is a grant of money. Noone is giving the oil companies money, they are taxed and not subsidized. Learn the difference and speak like an adult.
yes they are given billions but what does it matter if they are or not, it’s very very very small compared to what they make anyhow.
i am an adult and therefore i speak like an adult, just maybe not like you but we can understand each other and that’s the important part.
Who exactly gives the oil companies money, aside from customers? They receive zero funding from the government, in fact they pay billions in taxes and leases. Grow up.
you’re right on the oil companies now, i seem to remember them being paid while i was growing up though but oh well, they’re just getting billions taken off of taxes
studied global warming since the early 80’s.
here’s a posting for supposed non existent ocean acidity levels
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-26/climbing-co2-hurting-marine-life-from-oysters-to-coral.html
you might be right however, think we should just ignore all this and stick our heads in the sand?
I will repeat, the oysters are being adversary effected by REAL pollution. My head is in the science, not sure where you stuck yours.
Climates change, get used to it.
From your ‘source’…
“The researchers examined 167 previous studies about the effects of acidifying oceans on 153 species…”
Oceans are alkaline, and cannot acidify. These studies are model driven drivel. History proves that marine life thrives in higher concentrations of CO2.
Zzzzz…
burrp!
Charles Duemler says:
“you state that there are no problems then inference the problems stating change and that we have to adapt to it. we could have adapted to flooding by reducing population but we built dams to increase food production. i listed many problems most to do with the ocean acidity levels being to high due to co2. we can adapt and do without diverse seafood but personally i like lobster with my steak if i can get it. i dislike the current record high’s/low’s/droughts and floods we’re having also.”
Oceans are alkaline and cannot acidify. Drought/floods and high/lows are gibberish. Screw the socialist who wish to run the lives of others, put Libertarians in charge and free mankind.
+10
sorry, not a chemist, the ocean has changed where oysters are failing to create shells properly, was told this is due to high co2 levels. to combat this the oyster farmers are running the ocean water through moss or something before traveling on to the oysters.
droughts/floods and high/lows vary quite a bit and are no real proof of anything. maybe the thing to do would be to read up on the scientific papers on how co2 is a greenhouse gas and how mass amounts should effect us and act accordingly, but we wont, we’re only human.
as long as the libertarians aren’t corrupt they’d do a better job but my faith in any party getting in to power without corruption is pretty dim.
I was a climatology student three decades ago and have read virtually every paper on the subject since. The oysters are have issues due to REAL pollution, from runoff that enters the bays.
You have no clue what you are talking about, take eight years of Earth sciences courses, three decades of peer reviewed literature studies, and call me in the morning. 😆
Please allow me to point something out. At the top of this page is a clipping from the 1924. Even then so called ‘scientist’ were coming out with complete nonsense so as to fool the holders of the government coffers, or better still private philanthropist, fund then for as long as the could. CO2 is too high! The planet is overheating! We are endangering our children by…, is, and has always been the shouts of fraudsters and scam artist.
Have a look here to see how long the modern version has been going on
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1871-climate-superstition/
thanks, and yes, global warming has been going on since the last ice age, science shows we’re helping it out. with that said if you have a bunch of money and want to make more you might just want to scam a bunch out of the government and use one of the most controversial issues around. people are human, they will steal in the name of global warming, the iraq war, preventing terrorism, saving tsunami victims. there are over 1.5 million non-profits out there and i bet 9 out of 10 are corrupt. what’s your point?? you want to add apples and oranges and state that since people use fraud for illicit gains it changes science??
I’m sorry you got me there.
Gator he’s all yours I tried and failed.
Trying to get the indoctrinated to see that mankind is not screwing the world with CO2 is more that I do.
Charles Duemler like so many, has been lead to believe in a problem that is not there, and is now under the influence of forces better than I can counter.
Leftwing press has a lot to answer for, they’ve taken the spirit out of people.
Charles, please provide even ONE peer reviewed paper that reftutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes. You say science ‘shows’ man is influencing global climate, now prove it.
hey now,
was just playing video games.
there are many ice core data studies that show we’re in a warming phase and have been since the last ice age, go look 🙂
science shows that co2 is a greenhouse gas and that large amounts in the atmosphere should heat us up!
The amount of CO2 added since 1900, is the equivalent of 10 additional people in the Rose Bowl.
How many Hiroshimas is that?
Hey Tomomason! I have dealt with these zealots daily for years, and I can now do this in my sleep. What they do not understand is that they have taken all of this nonsense on faith, because they never question what they want to believe. While I have no issue with people of faith (the nonviolent), I know it is important to demonstrate to others and them, that what they believe is fact is merely conjecture. Once they exhaust themselves chasing the fool’s errands upon which I send them, they go away. And of course I make sure that whenever I send someone on a fool’s errand, that I pick a party that is indeed fully qualified. 😉
Exactly. They can’t seem to distinguish between theory and fact. Given an idea that has even a modicum of circumstantial evidence to back it up, they will go to the wall defending it if it agrees with any of their preconceived notions.
I’m hoping that the line about indoctrination gains some traction in his mind, maybe (one day) he’ll realize he’s been had.
Charles Duemler says:
“hey now, was just playing video games.”
That explains the source if your ‘genius.
“there are many ice core data studies that show we’re in a warming phase and have been since the last ice age, go look”
It’s called an ‘interglacial’ professor.
“science shows that co2 is a greenhouse gas and that large amounts in the atmosphere should heat us up!”
Is that what you call peer review? 😆
there are peer reviewed studies showing that we’re in a warming phase or “interglacial” that use ice core data.
if you’re looking for peer reviewed paper stating proof of man made causation of the current heat waves/record colds/floods/droughts and such you would be out of luck, sorry.
to back up my science statement i noted that science shows us that co2 is a greenhouse gas and that putting mass of it in our atmosphere should heat us up.
And I has not warmed for over 17 years now. That is what scientists call a ‘failed hypothesis’.
So glad you have finally found religion! 😆
‘it’ has not warmed. (iPhart)
PS – Do you believe everything you are told?
the ocean has warmed, think there’s a detailed ucsd ocean bouy study showing it, we’ve been having record heat/cold/droughts and floods just as i predicted when studying “white papers” back in 1990.
😆 Charles, you sound like a sleep deprived parrot!
The Argo buoys are not detecting any new heat. They have only been deployed for a few years, and the claimed warming from the alarmists is smaller than their ability to detect.
Charles you are scientifically illiterate. This is why you have been so easily duped (that and your willingness, or wanting to believe). You are simply taking the word of others without checking their work.
Here is what honest scientists have to say about the IPCC, and their ‘science’.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,”Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
[Of the IPCC panel] “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton
Former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate EPW committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,”Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center
“The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,…We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.” Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher
“The science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science. There is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe.” UK Botanist and ex-BBC broadcaster Dr. David Bellamy (who used to believe in man-made climate fears.)
Now go read the papers yourself, if you can, and stop being a useful idiot.
oh, i’m not a fan of the u.n. or the failed ippc. you know the scientists for the ippc lied to congress stating that the co2 level has stayed the same since the last ice age and before the “man made global warming” – what idiots. they also didn’t include greenland ice melt or methane coming out of the arctic. you know the scientists studying the arctic are in conflict with the scientists of the u.s. on methane coming out of the arctic sea bed? real insane that they’re questioning if methane is coming up or not when there was a 150 mile wide (or was it 150 km wide?? – seen both figures) plume of methane coming up this last summer. stupid stupid idiots.
if the ipcc cannot even seem to include known items like ice melt, methane coming out, …, why would anybody trust their studies 100%. still they do use incomplete facts compared to many who just state that because there’s bad science involved it makes it untrue, not very scientific.
still doesn’t counter the fact that co2 is a greenhouse gas and putting mass of it up in the atmosphere should heat us up, it’s like common sense.
one quick search came up with http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/LovelyDarkDeep/ that talked about how the mid ocean temperature is heating up. if you think the ocean isn’t heating up you’re probably using a study that’s using buoy’s that aren’t heating up but the ocean as a whole is.
Charles,
If one window shade absorbs 99.9% of light, will two window shades absorb 199.8% of light?
oh, that makes perfect sense to my nephew, maybe if you double the light it’d make more sense to him. no no no!
Charles, from your link…
“Launched in 1992, TOPEX/Poseidon measures changes in sea level, which responds to heat at any depth. By combining these data with modern general circulation models…”
GCM’s are crap. What did I tell you about all claims being based upon models?
“…scientists are seeing a difference between actual measurements and a long-held theory that the ocean warms primarily at the surface. Now, scientists say that waters midway between the surface and the floor are heating up the fastest.”
Who is measuring these deep ocean temps? This is all wishful thinking for those whose livelihood depends upon ‘missing heat’. Why is it that you will embrace pure conjecture, and reject actual observations? Have you read any of the papers upon which these claims are based?
true, they are crap, they’re the main discourse between the scientists studying the arctic and most u.s. scientists. the temperature of the surface of the ocean changes is subject to ice runoff, river temperature, heat from the sun, evaporation, hurricanes, as well as latent heat — changes up and down, not good for determining “global warming”.
the ocean does get its heat primarily at the surface and transfers the heat to the rest of the ocean and yes the middle is heating up the fastest as it should. you find a contradiction??
most people that talk up global warming get chastised, some fired, less grant money. personally i get a few handshakes and thank you’s but mostly just get yelled at and talked at by ill informed people who feel that we need to just live with nature or that it’s all a conspiracy because there’s a bunch of people involved who conspire to make money off it. i haven’t seen the money, where’s the money?? i could have made a good living in computers if i had ignored the problem and concentrated on myself instead.
ucsd has been doing mass but there’s others, china, europe, australia, …, who isn’t doing buoy research probably are those with no universities like maybe samalia but i wouldn’t be surprised if they had a few. do not know how many are doing middle ocean temps.
i do not embrace the failed u.n. or the failed ipcc. i started on this in the early ’80’s. i started out with the basics, worked on re-typing environmental papers, formatting, dtp, then read and studied up on it in detail with the white papers back in 1990.
You mean the scientists studying the Arctic who predicted ice-free in 2013?
it’s been loosing more and more mass every year and methane is coming up in plumes one found 150 miles wide. i’m surprised it hasn’t increased in mass at least once. sure it covers more area some years but the mass is going down, disturbing, we need to pump water from under the ice to over it to thicken the ice but nothing is being done
Charles, have you read the papers? All I am getting from you is the same old stale talking points which are based upon nothing. The oceans are warmed by the Sun and submarine vulcanism. CO2 has nothing to do with that.
I can see you read, but try reading the peer reviewed literature and please show me where anyone has ruled out the most obvious cause, natural variability. Everything you have offered is old news and pure conjecture. Honestly you are boring the crap out of me at this point.
yeah, they try to rule out natural variability for warming but they use it to explain cooling
ya, you try to tell me not to listen to the un or ipcc then you ask me to read after i agree, what are you trying to tell me?? that the ipcc scientists cherry pick what to put in reports and therefore cannot be trusted?? ( they know of methane release and of change is albedo due to ice coverage but didn’t put it in ) the u.n. has done nothing to compel nations to actually fix the problem having an agenda of their own no doubt. meanwhile we have 150 mile wide methane plumes coming out of the arctic. we’re screwed!!! both of those organizations suck balls!!! nothing that they have proposed to do would have made a difference
maybe it is damaging to the climate change arguments to those that do not study the facts. once you study them you can see the fools lie before congress explaining global warming showing that they haven’t studied it in detail. maybe a few of them do but none that were testifying before congress. they all agreed carbon levels stayed the same since the last ice age – bah!!
no i rely on my mind and try to get backup though it’s hard to find a good mind
Charles Duemler you sound horribly confused. Do you understand that the IPCC is part of the UN. They are the same organization!
Without the UN-IPCC (that is one organization the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) pushing the global climate scare the UN couldn’t launch it’s Carbon Credit scam that thieves money from every country in the world to keep the climate change rolling. These thieving bureaucrats cream off the top for themselves. It’s all done nice and legal with governments agreements but it’s all based on a lie – climate change is the lie.
That is the UN legally stealing $trillions from everyone – including you.
Dr Tim Ball, a climatologist, and was, amongst many other things, Past Chairman, Canadian Committee on Climatic Fluctuation and Man. He has worked with many in the UN-IPCC and has written many good books and papers on AGW/Climate change, his latest web-blog is very revealing about the UN-IPCC and it’s dealings with inconvenient truths.
Please read what he says, and understand that even if only half of what he says is accurate it’s still very damming again the UN-IPCC, AGW/Climate change, and it’s proponents. IMO he is probably 100% on the mark.
http://drtimball.com/2013/why-and-how-the-ipcc-demonized-co2-with-manufactured-information/
Why bother pumping water etc, when there is not a problem? Nature has in the past, and can now handle the tiny amounts of methane your are talking about.
Some basic facts about CO2 are unknown to most people and illustrate the discrepancies and differences between IPCC claims and what science knows.
Natural levels of Carbon dioxide (CO2) are less than 0.04% of the total atmosphere and 0.4% of the total GHG. It is not the most important greenhouse gas.
Water vapour is 95 percent of the GHG by volume. It is the most important greenhouse gas by far.
Methane (CH4) is the other natural GHG demonized by the IPCC.
It is only 0.000175 percent of atmospheric gases and 0.036 percent of GHG.
– See more at: http://drtimball.com/2013/why-and-how-the-ipcc-demonized-co2-with-manufactured-information
Charles Duemler says:
December 22, 2013 at 6:55 am
“ya, you try to tell me not to listen to the un or ipcc then you ask me to read after i agree, what are you trying to tell me??”
Charles, the IPCC does not do any research. The IPCC does not write scientific papers. I am asking if you have read the research, and it appears you have not. You are only reading opinions.
Houston we found the problem! From ‘projectcharles.org”…
“My mother was chair of the Sierra club down in San Diego for a year, has walls with all her awards on them for work done. Was well known as one of the top environmentalists down in San Diego. I was her personal secretary doing political and environmental stuff in the 80’s/early 90’s. I still help her with computer needs. She promissed to help with project but was a lie because she thought i was crazy and still does concerning the project…
I did have a skull fracture as a child, that probably had the most effect. My father being a nurologist probably experimented on me. Daily attacks from my brother kept me alert. I’ve had a luxurious life and was just bored. Talked to god and was scared into doing good?”
http://projectcharles.org/2236.html
yes, the ipcc and the carbon credit or tax deals will skim money and they wont stop the problem. back in 1995 some scientists agreed we needed to cut emissions to 5%, there mark was made because it was actually thought we could meet the mark.
wall street takes 30% to run the money system, so this makes money a scam??
i have read the “white papers” back in 1990
the methane coming out of the arctic is a problem
it is not a small amount of methane coming out, they found a plume 150 miles wide!
pumping water wouldn’t cost that much and is not a money maker and this would also prevent drilling and other resource gathering in the arctic possibly if we were to stop this coming disaster — this is why it isn’t being done
yes, i’ve had some past, am i right, am i wrong, personally i think i’m right and i did study heavily up on it. yes my skull was cracked, Einstein had been damaged somehow also. i’m still trying to find someone smart to help me out and it may be that you need to have your skull cracked at a young age to get smart ’cause all i find out there are stupid stupid stupid
quote by einstein goes something like – nothing is infinite, man stupidity or the universe and i’m not sure about the former
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Real Science wrote:
> gator69 commented: “Houston we found the problem! From ‘ > projectcharles.org”… “My mother was chair of the Sierra club down in > San Diego for a year, has walls with all her awards on them for work done. > Was well known as one of the top environmentalists down in San Diego” >
So you have NOT read the science. Got it.
have stated many times i read the “white papers” on global warming back in 1990. do you know what i mean by “white papers”??
do you disbelieve that they found a 150 mile wide plume of methane coming out of the arctic?
“IPC’s exclusive white papers are written to provide you the expertise on high and low touch trading communications solutions for the global financial trading community, including the top investment banks, hedge funds and investment managers in established and emerging markets. We have also partnered with key industry experts and analysts to provide additional comprehensive research.”
http://www.ipc.com/Media-Room/Resources/White-Papers.aspx
So you have NOT read the science, got it. You can stop now.
when scientists used to correspond to others on what they were doing. studies they were doing on anything they would call them “white papers”. i was studying the latest papers on global warming going back a few years back in 1990.
so i guess you do not know science way back when. i am kinda old though. have you studied global warming at all yourself?
So you have NOT read the science, got it. You can stop now.