What Part Of This Is Difficult To Understand?

Posted on November 7, 2015 by Tony Heller

2015-11-07-04-24-31The obsession with global warming will put the lights out all over Britain – Telegraph

Politicians who are pushing global warming, are traitors destroying our security. Period.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to What Part Of This Is Difficult To Understand?

  1. Morgan Wright says:
    November 7, 2015 at 1:00 pm

    They also are against life, since the carbon-starved atmosphere needs to at least double to become healthy for life again.

    Reply
    • Steve Case says:
      November 7, 2015 at 1:30 pm

      Remember Al Capp’s creation of “Students Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything!” (SWINE).” for his “Li’l Abner” comic strip. It still applies.

      Reply
      • Donna K. Becker says:
        November 7, 2015 at 4:29 pm

        Back in the 1960s, a group of us at the University of Oregon formed a group by the same name. Our goal was to promote political satire, most of it directed at the New Left. One of our annual SWINE Day parades was shown on television. What fun we’d have these days with the warming scam!

        Reply
  2. CheshireRed says:
    November 7, 2015 at 1:22 pm

    Charles Moore is a terribly posh gent, right out of old-school England and none the worse for that. He asks sensible questions that the newer, right-on Liberals wouldn’t even dream of, and on this occasion he is of course absolutely right.
    There’s some lively debates going on BTL too. šŸ™‚

    Reply
  3. gator69 says:
    November 7, 2015 at 2:18 pm

    A coal fired plant not far from me is shutting its doors for good. The company said it is no longer profitable for them to operate due to the overbearing regulations that have been put in place since Skeeter took office. Our electricity costs have more than doubled since I built my home 14 years ago, and yet it is not profitable for this plant to operate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYJS80MgYA

    Reply
    • Gail Combs says:
      November 7, 2015 at 2:44 pm

      Wait until they blow it up Gator like they did the one here in NC. Nothing like blowing up your bridges so you are completely SCREWED if the politicians had it all wrong.

      Given the problems with wind and solar are glaringly obvious from the problems in the EU, it is clear that our Congress Critters are not at all interested in what is best for this country and its citizens. What I find absolutely mind blowing is friends who STILL think Obama is the best thing since sliced bread and no amount of data will penetrate the brain washing.

      Reply
  4. scott allen says:
    November 7, 2015 at 3:50 pm

    I have yet to see the rational for using one (and only one) location for the measurement of CO2 gas for the whole world. The site, Mauna Loa, sits atop of an ACTIVE volcano. This volcano has seen continuous eruption since the site was first used. These eruptions are increasing thus leading to ever more CO2 being released.
    A careful look at the annual mean growth rate of CO2 corresponds very well with the increase (or decrease) in activity of the several of the off shoots of the wider Mauna Loa volcano chain. Yet we blindly accept this premise of increasing CO2, I am not saying that CO2 is not increasing but a few more permeant testing sites would make a better case for increased levels.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full

    The idea of use just one site to measure CO2 is as flawed as the temperature measurements are.

    Reply
    • gator69 says:
      November 7, 2015 at 3:56 pm

      And then there is this issue…

      http://www.john-daly.com/zjfig2.gif

      Reply
    • Peter Yates says:
      November 8, 2015 at 12:19 am

      It is a myth that there are problems with measuring CO2 levels at Mauna Loa.

      According to information supplied by the observatory ā€¦.
      ā€œEvery continuous atmospheric trace gas and aerosol measurement made at MLO can be monitored for a Mauna Loa volcanic emissions component.ā€
      http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/programs/esrl/volcanicco2/volcanicco2.html
      Q: Why is Mauna Loa Observatory such an ideal place to sample the atmosphere?
      A: The observatory is located on an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, away from major air pollution sources. MLO also protrudes through the strong marine temperature inversion layer present in the region. This inversion layer acts like a lid and keeps the lower local pollutants below the observatory.
      Q: Does Kilauea volcano affect the measurements?
      A: As mentioned above, the inversion layer keeps the vog below the observatory.
      http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/aboutus/faq.html

      Also, Mauna Loa is not the only place that measures atmospheric CO2 levels.
      This graph shows the readings from Global marine surface sites:
      http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global
      “The Global Monitoring Division of NOAA/Earth System Research Laboratory has measured carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for several decades at a globally distributed network of air sampling sites [Conway, 1994].”
      Compare that graph with the one for Mauna Loa *only ….
      http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

      Reply
      • scott allen says:
        November 8, 2015 at 3:40 pm

        Peter I am aware of the 2 whole additional site to monitor CO2 (they haven’t been in operation as long a Mauna Loa), but are you aware that they only closely match Hawaii WHEN the figures are adjusted. Added to the fact that these sites don’t match the elevation of Mauna Loa (that is a relevant item since CO2 is not distributed evenly thru out the atmosphere, and since NOAA claims they do match it makes the adjustment even more suspect).
        In addition the researchers at have tracked Mauna Loa (which again is only one of the five volcanos on the big island) eruptions and have ADJUSTED for its eruptions based on wind and temperature inversions and only consider this a factor based on time day and wind what the research fails to mention is that there are 4 other active craters that are on the same side of the mountain as the sampling station.
        As a part time resident of the BIG ISLAND I am surprise they have not move this station to Maui and its biggest mountain Haleakala.

        Reply
        • Gail Combs says:
          November 8, 2015 at 10:55 pm

          ā€œAt Mauna Loa we use the following data selection criteria:
          3. There is often a diurnal wind flow pattern on Mauna Loa ā€¦.. The upslope air may have CO2 that has been lowered by plants removing CO2 through photosynthesis at lower elevations on the island,ā€¦. Hours that are likely affected by local photosynthesis are indicated by a ā€œUā€ flag in the hourly data file, and by the blue color in Figure 2. The selection to minimize this potential non-background bias takes place as part of step 4. At night the flow is often downslope, bringing background air. However, that air is sometimes contaminated by CO2 emissions from the crater of Mauna Loa. As the air meanders down the slope that situation is characterized by high variability of the CO2 mole fractionā€¦..
          4. In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general ā€œoutlier rejectionā€ step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds. All hourly averages that are further than two standard deviations, calculated for every day, away from the fitted curve (ā€œoutliersā€) are rejected. This step is iterated until no more rejections occurā€¦..ā€

          If any data that is not within 2 standard deviations is rejected then of course you will never see a swing of 80 ppm, it has already been edited out of the final ā€œproductā€ You see more than 80 ppm variation in Harvard forest. From 320 ppm to around 420 ppm with a set of outliers to 500 ppm as Ernst Beck shows.

          An old comment by anna v @ WUWT on June 5, 2010 at 12:56 pm

          Hi Willis:
          I am amazed with the 1,2,3 ,4 statements you are quoting.
          Are they making a dress from a pattern? Talk about cherry picking data.
          particularly
          4. In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general ā€œoutlier rejectionā€ step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds. All hourly averages that are further than two standard deviations, calculated for every day, away from the fitted curve (ā€œoutliersā€) are rejected. This step is iterated until no more rejections occur.
          On the lines:ā€ you will obey me, or elseā€
          They have a preconceived notion of what the curve should be and they impose it, is my conclusion from this series.
          You say there are independent measurements. Once I had managed to find a link and publications for those measurements. The were all Keeling and another fellow,possibly the graduate student going through the loops. I do not call that independent.
          Here are the locations I find:
          http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2.html
          something like 14, and practically all the publications are Keeling et al
          There is a map too
          http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/research/atmospheric_co2.html
          Do you believe that these 14 or so stations are representative enough so that the measurements could produce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

          I found eons ago that all of the other stations were calibrated to Mauna Loa.

          And about that well mixed conjecture, here is what AIRS itself is saying:

          Significant Findings from AIRS Data
          1. ā€˜Carbon dioxide is not homogeneous in the mid-troposphere; previously it was thought to be well-mixed
          2. ā€˜The distribution of carbon dioxide in the mid-troposphere is strongly influenced by large-scale circulations such as the mid-latitude jet streams and by synoptic weather systems, most notably in the summer hemisphere
          3. ā€˜There are significant differences between simulated and observed CO2 abundance outside of the tropics, raising questions about the transport pathways between the lower and upper troposphere in current models
          4. ā€˜Zonal transport in the southern hemisphere shows the complexity of its carbon cycle and needs further study

          http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/

          ALso Dr Jeff Glassman:
          http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html#more

  5. bit chilly says:
    November 7, 2015 at 6:36 pm

    in the long run a few winters without readily available energy may be a good thing. those pushing and milking the cagw scam for all it is worth will be the same lot with plenty food and their own energy sources while the masses go without.

    in that situation i foresee many of the champagne socialists ending up as combustible fuel themselves ,along with their properties . the western developed world has had life too easy for too long now,that is why bullshit like cagw gains any traction, it fills a void in the lives of people that have life too easy and no real problems to focus their minds on. turn off the lights and the power and that will change very, very quickly.

    Reply
  6. gregole says:
    November 8, 2015 at 3:50 am

    How many power outages will it take before the sleeping public awakens?

    It seems to me there are four camps of people wrt climate-change / global warming.

    1) Alarmists and Luke-warmers. They already know it’s happening, it’s happening because of mankind, and the only difference between these two groups is in their perceived degree of effect. Since they (somehow) know a-priori that it is real, man-made and a problem, all this crowd does is collect factoids and sophistry to support what they already know. Personally, I consider them somewhere between irritating and useless.

    2) Technically qualified, informed, and unconvinced. Sometimes called “skeptics”. I actually hate that term. I am in this group and am hardly naturally skeptical – I’m a soft touch – especially for pretty girls. By the time I figure out I’m being lied to, it’s generally too late! We have studied the topic, and as far as technical topics it’s not all that hard to grasp the basics, and have concluded we have no idea what’s going on with the climate. There are ideas, and some are pretty good. The CO2 thing though just isn’t panning out. It has no explanatory power. I’d be watching ocean currents and solar effects; but face it – we don’t have the measurement systems in place to even know if it’s warming or cooling. So we rely on proxies like polar ice and weather. Neither one indicates much at all interesting is happening. Yawn.

    3) Liars and frauds. See “media” and “politicians”.

    4) The vast majority of people that do not care. Group 3) has been mining Group 4) for an amazingly long time without being caught, because Group 4) is asleep to this topic. How this can be is quite simple: we are wealthy. In western countries, we do not starve. From an existential point of view, we live easy lives. And the climate is wonderful right now. Compare today’s mild climate to the little ice age. Yikes. But when the power starts going off due to the insane policies pushed by 1) and 3); 4) may begin to behave in unpredictable ways.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *