Climate-gate

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Photizo, Nov 29, 2009.

  1. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-seek-international-authority-climate-geoengineering-155225716.html

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/ener...eatens-more-americans-than-terrorism-20150210

    I think the greatest threat is the thinking that launches ham fisted attempts to head off what they think they are perceiving as a threat posed by what they think is a threat in the first place. It's this same thinking that then adds to that goofy mix the dismissing/diminishing of the very real threat posed by islamic terrorism. Then there are the sheeple before whom this insanity is all being played out and by whom the feckless gain ever increasing stature while simultaneously being lined up by those same feckless (by the sheeple's happy consent) for more frequent/intensive shearing.

    He can't arrive soon enough.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    Please stop cramming God down everyones throats, Photizo.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,871
    How do you know that?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,601
    No one is dismissing or diminishing the threat posed by Islamic terrorism. However, to the scaremonger's dismay, terrorism is not the only threat posed to Americans - nor even the biggest one, by several orders of magnitude.
     
  8. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,459
    This from a 2010 senate hearing:
    more at:
    http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...Store_id=7db3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,601
    Climate myth #7 -
    ===========
    Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
    “[T]he 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. […] emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.” (Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun)
    ===========

    Reality -

    =============
    Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.
    =============

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm
     
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,459
    Is it that you think "skepticalscience.com" is unbiased, or apolitical?
     
  12. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Here is the end of the NYT article:
    Hell, I have a Ph.D. in physic, more reliant to AGW, and will sell my honor for only half of what Soon has collected.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 22, 2015
  13. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/21/week-in-review-44/#more-17835

    Climate Wars

    The paper published by Monckton et al. Why models run hot is creating quite a stir. Matt Briggs writes about the bizarre reaction by climate reporters [link] advertised by this tweet: Proof That Climate Reporters Are Uniformly Ignorant And Can’t Differentiate Science & Politics, and responds to a critique by Kevin Trenberth [link].


    From above link (embedded in text):
    Not one reporter asked about the paper Why Models Run Hot, a legitimate scientific question.

    According to the authors, no funding was received from anyone and there is No Conflict of Interest to be declared. And as one can see from the nytimes article, there is no allegation of the current paper being funded by anyone, hence their references to Since 2008 or In the last decade Soon has received funding from.... No relevance to the current paper.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    BTW, the Ice Caves on the S. Shore of Lake Superior will be open next weekend so if your in Northern Wisconsin.
     
  14. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Only among AGW deniers. It is really old crap and I too have long been critical of the IPPC's predictions. I also agree newspaper reports don't get it all correct when reporting good science, etc.
    What fault can you find with the facts below that lead to probable conclusion that most warm blooded mammals, man included may be near or already extinct before 2100?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    More carbon in the probable future flux of CH4 than in all the coal that ever existed. Methane "clouds" even a km in diameter are now bubbling up* in the Arctic Ocean as part of the Gulf Steam (salty water, more dense than low salt Artic Ocean water despite being warmer) is now flowing into the Arctic Ocean along the bottom, decomposing the methane hydrates there. CH4 is destroyed by reaction with the OH- radical and already removing the OH- radical faster than it can be generated by high up harsh UV.

    So the half life of CH4 in air, now 12.6 years, is increasing by 0.3 years per year now. Already 1 kg of CH4 does more global warming than 100 kg of CO2 does in first decade after their simultaneous release. CO2 is already near saturation as an IR blocker (100 fold increase in CO2 concentration in air would only add slightly more ACW.); but CH4 is far from IR saturation limit. It is the:
    (1) increasing CH4 release rate;
    (2) the essentially unlimited supply of releasable CH4; and
    (3) the growing half-life of CH4 that makes CH4 the route to man's extinction in less than 100 years.

    To "buy" a decade or two more time before extinction, he could switch from gasoline to sugar cane based alcohol, which is slightly cheaper per mile driven, slightly CO2 negative, slightly more powerful in same IC engine, and cleaner burning so lower repair bills. Growing area for all the world's cars needing liquid fuel is LESS than the abandoned pasture land. Many low skill jobs would be created, moving marginal workers in to the cash economy using part of their salaries to buy products made in advanced economies. It is a win/win switch for all except "big oil."

    * Theory said that could not happen as the terminal vertical speed of the tiny CH4 bubbles was so low that they would completely dissolve before reaching the surface. Neglected was the fact they lower the density of the water column above their releasing source, and the buoyant water column is lifting them to the surface before they can dissolve. Theory can not argue with facts; These bubble columns are being photographed and posted in internet videos. Links have been given in my old posts.

    Here I why the older theory is wrong. Deep CH4 come to the surface:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    At least 1000 times more than now in air is down there.

    BTW the recent record setting cold wave is confirming the GW prediction of stronger and more extreme polar vortex effects bringing very cold air deeper south. The circumpolar jet stream is driven by the thermal difference between mid latitudes and the poles. That difference is decreasing with polar regions warming several times faster, so that jet stream is losing west to east momentum and wanders more North / South than before AGW. Your large photo, showing Lake Erie ice, is more confirmation of AGW.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 23, 2015
  15. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    http://www.spiegel.de/international...-earlier-extinction-predictions-a-960569.html


    Billy You really Need to read more. Especially on subjects which contradict what you think is true. That alleged prediction (which was really a HINDCAST) has been discredited.

    http://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/14_february_2014?pg=29#pg29

    Methane... Seriously Billy you need to look for more info than that which conforms to your strongly held views.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/arctic-and-american-methane-in-context/

    More recently:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141113134856.htm

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/arctic-and-american-methane-in-context/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanotroph
     
  16. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I asked you to show some error in post 1710. Your reply is newspaper articles, obsolute IPPC errors (Some I have noted long ago as I too am critical of the IPPC) and you gave the irrelevant fact that there are CH4 eating bacteria that destroy less than 1% of the CH4 other bacteria produce and noted that the 50G ton methane bomb is not probable (and I agree, so I never mentioned it in post 1710 and will not defend your straw man) But no fact of post 1710 was even questioned, much less refuted.

    So as post 1710 notes: Man and all but the very tiny warm-blooded animals is riding the non-stop, fast accelerating, "extinction train" and will not live to see year 2100. I'll try to get to your newspaper links, but working backwards, I note:
    On (3) Yes there are living agents that can destroy CH4, but not nearly as much as other living agent produce CH4 from organic carbon, especially peat bogs no longer frozen.
    That is why GW melting frozen tundra, is increasing the CH4 to CO2 ratio these "living agents" are producing.

    On (2) This is an accurate article but makes this false statement:
    "Methane is a short-lived gas in the atmosphere, so to make it rise, the emission flux has to continually increase. "
    It is false as already the CH4 release rate is faster than the production rate of OH- radical. Why the half-life of CH4 is increasing at 0.3 year per year. I.e. even the present release rate of CH4 will increase and even accelerate the atmospheric concentration of CH4 as each molecule on average, stays more years in the air before being destroyed. - Obviously the current increasing rate of CH4 releases will only increase the CH4 air concentration faster still.

    On (1) I agree that currently CH4 release rate from tundra (their study in Alaska in 2012 only) is not contributing much to CH4 in the air, but as they note:
    "Vast amounts of carbon are stored in undecayed organic matter -- dead plants and animals -- in Arctic permafrost and peat. Scientists estimate that there is more than twice as much carbon locked in the frozen North as there is in the atmosphere today. The organic material won't decay and release its carbon as long as it stays frozen. But climate change has brought warmer and longer summers throughout the Arctic, and permafrost soils are thawing more and more. If large amounts of un-decayed matter were to defrost, decompose and release methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the impact on global temperatures would most likely be enormous."

    Also please note I am not one speaking about a quick 50Gton methane bomb - just the current increasing rate of CH4 release. Fortunately, the annual increase is growing more slowly now as the natural gas & oil fracking industries are doing a better job of slowing their release rate; however, every year more is released than the prior year and it being removed from the air more slowly (half-life increasing at 0.3 years per year.)

    You say: " That alleged prediction (which was really a HINDCAST) has been discredited." I don't believe that is true. Where and by whom, has the prediction of ever more polar vortex wander (Arctic air dipping deeper into the South more often) been "discredited." Surely not by anyone living in the current record braking cold that again this year coated the streets of Atlanta GA with ice and buried the NE of the US with deep snow.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 23, 2015
  17. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    Get back to me once you read the links (Picked the easiest to read/short pieces I could find for ease of use).
     
  18. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I've read them and a few hundred more. I'm still waiting for you to tell even one error in post 1710 - not give me more links to newspapers or irrelevant articles. For example your link: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanotroph" is such a tiny "sink" for CH4 that is in the air. Their activity may be why rice paddies supply about 25% of the man associated CH4 release instead of 26%. The fact that they exist, may some day be important if man tried to remove CH4 from the air, but not now. What they do is down in the uncertainty level. Here is a more detailed but less time extent of CH4 in air chart than the one shown in post 1710:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Above text was from memory - now I have searched again and find soil bacteria does remove about 5% of the CH4 removed from air - more than I remembered.
    Note to even get 5% one must assume that there are no other oxidation process active in the soil, except the Methanotroph bacteria.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 24, 2015
  19. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    I dont believe you have read the links I posted.
     
  20. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Why not? I quoted from some of them, and pointed out error in one. I'll admit I only skim newspaper articles but read pier reviewed papers.
    Again: What error is there in my post 1710? You are very non-responsive - I asked four times now.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Monckton is a long-exposed fraud, with several disparate scams to his credit - here's an attempt at a comprehensive list, and even this one is incomplete: https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

    sample quote, one paragraph from the middle of the list:
    The takehome is that Monckton has no training or expertise in any physical science.

    Monckton has flagrant conflicts of interest, including receiving funding from the Heartland Institute et al. Any author voluntarily associating themselves with Monckton is probably also a liar and scam artist.

    When I mentioned before that you were being played by these "sources" you keep quoting, it was an observation. It's not a subtle point, or matter of opinion. Monckton is a professional con man. Seriously.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2015
  22. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Thanks. I just knew it was trash, of interest only to ignorant climate change deniers, who don't know enough to recognize trash. Too bad smell does not come thur the internet - then even those ignorant deniers might get a clue.
     
  23. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519

Share This Page