The great global warming swindle.

[akvanden]

4 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

You need to be an accredited investor first for private equity.  It's above your paygrade.  You need to start at the bottom.

Well if you’d just school me like you offered then maybe I could follow in your footsteps and be a clean energy investor like you someday too. 

[ArcticCrusher]

Nothing to see.  

I guess when you control the funding.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

[ArcticCrusher]

1 minute ago, akvanden said:

Well if you’d just school me like you offered then maybe I could follow in your footsteps and be a clean energy investor like you someday too. 

Stick to gic's.  Barb here is an expert.

[Highmark]

On 8/19/2022 at 4:36 PM, Plissken said:

From your 19 year old link:

Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more.

Obviously, we now know that trend didn’t occur.  I’ll keep an eye on solar cycle 25, be interesting to see if it surpasses 1960.  

Sun couldn't possibly have an impact.  Reality is we don't have significant climate change.  You do realize the "baseline" they use for "normal" temperatures was taken during a solar minimum period that was quite cold.  It was around the time when significant temp readings first started to get recorded.   We really don't know what the temps are supposed to be.   They can simply be set to achieve an agenda. 

Same link.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

[Plissken]

44 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Sun couldn't possibly have an impact.  Reality is we don't have significant climate change.  You do realize the "baseline" they use for "normal" temperatures was taken during a solar minimum period that was quite cold.  It was around the time when significant temp readings first started to get recorded.   We really don't know what the temps are supposed to be.   They can simply be set to achieve an agenda. 

Same link.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

Nobody is saying the sun is incapable of affecting things, just that the warming noted in the last 50 years can’t be attributed to a change in solar irradiance.  As far as small changes not being a big deal it’s worth noting that the difference between now and ice age global average temp is about 4 to 7 deg C cooler.  

Edited August 22, 2022 by Plissken

[Highmark]

5 minutes ago, Plissken said:

Nobody is saying the sun is incapable of affecting things, just that the warming noted in the last 50 years can’t be attributed to a change in solar irradiance.  As far as small changes not being a big deal it’s worth noting that the difference between now and ice age global average temp is about 7 deg C cooler.  

I'm not claiming its the only impact and again what is normal from where changes are measured is questionable.   

Changes in below and above the surface thermal activity warms the oceans, melts the ice caps all things that are unmeasurable by man.  There are even theories that some of the rainforest areas tree's are no longer absorbing more CO2 but expelling it.   Another natural reason why co2 levels are increasing slightly.

As AC stated CO2 is such a minor part of our atmosphere and man's contribution being very small to that should be significant in how we look at climate change.   

Do you not agree that what is used for a baseline being critical to the entire discussion?   Its possible we are not even as warm as the planet normally reaches between ice ages or shorter temp fluctuation cycles.

 

[Plissken]

23 minutes ago, Highmark said:

I'm not claiming its the only impact and again what is normal from where changes are measured is questionable.   

Changes in below and above the surface thermal activity warms the oceans, melts the ice caps all things that are unmeasurable by man.  There are even theories that some of the rainforest areas tree's are no longer absorbing more CO2 but expelling it.   Another natural reason why co2 levels are increasing slightly.

As AC stated CO2 is such a minor part of our atmosphere and man's contribution being very small to that should be significant in how we look at climate change.   

Do you not agree that what is used for a baseline being critical to the entire discussion?   Its possible we are not even as warm as the planet normally reaches between ice ages or shorter temp fluctuation cycles.

 

Our small contribution has increased our thermal retention by about 2 watts per meter which is enough for a 1 deg C gain.  I’m not sure why you’re hung up on the idea of an arbitrary baseline.  I’ll be generous though and let you pick any point in the past 2,000 years. 
 

 

[Highmark]

12 minutes ago, Plissken said:

Our small contribution has increased our thermal retention by about 2 watts per meter which is enough for a 1 deg C gain.  I’m not sure why you’re hung up on the idea of an arbitrary baseline.  I’ll be generous though and let you pick any point in the past 2,000 years. 
 

 

You think they have accurate records going back 2000 years?     You can't talk global climate and only take temp readings from Ice cores in the arctic but lets use that data going back much further.  

Also 2000 years is a blip in time when looking at climate.  How about we start with the highs between the ice ages as "normal."  I can assure you those temperatures are much more desirable than those during and ice age. 

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by Highmark

[irv]

15 minutes ago, Plissken said:

Our small contribution has increased our thermal retention by about 2 watts per meter which is enough for a 1 deg C gain.  I’m not sure why you’re hung up on the idea of an arbitrary baseline.  I’ll be generous though and let you pick any point in the past 2,000 years. 
 

 

The Michael Mann hockey stick. It was so concrete, truthful and factual that Michael Mann refused to show how he came to that conclusion in a court of law and the case was thrown out. 

[irv]

‘Obsessed with doom’: Greta Thunberg has ‘gone bust’

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by irv

[spin_dry]

First there’s articles about how the earths climate isn’t heating. Now articles that it is.  

[Steve753]

20 minutes ago, irv said:

‘Obsessed with doom’: Greta Thunberg has ‘gone bust’

 

She's gotten to old to be useful now.

[ArcticCrusher]

1 hour ago, Highmark said:

You think they have accurate records going back 2000 years?     You can't talk global climate and only take temp readings from Ice cores in the arctic but lets use that data going back much further.  

Also 2000 years is a blip in time when looking at climate.  How about we start with the highs between the ice ages as "normal."  I can assure you those temperatures are much more desirable than those during and ice age. 

 

There is no accurate way to know what the exact temps were say 2000 years ago, but they they can determine is that it was indeed warmer than now cause the tree lines were further north than today, northern ireland grew grapes and the tree circles were spaced further indicating warmer temps. 

You know real science.

[Plissken]

3 hours ago, irv said:

The Michael Mann hockey stick. It was so concrete, truthful and factual that Michael Mann refused to show how he came to that conclusion in a court of law and the case was thrown out. 

Ah, no….the judge ruled that no reasonable person would believe the defendant, therefore not libel.  https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/judge-finds-written-attack-on-climate-scientist-too-ludicrous-to-be-libel/

The data is available publicly:  http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/

In addition, he has presented his data in court: 

All’s fair in love, war and political campaigns,” Rand Simberg, the CEI blogger, wrote about Mann’s threat, on his personal website. In an editorial, National Review editor Rich Lowry mused about gaining access to Mann’s files if he sued and hiring a “dedicated reporter to comb through” the material and expose Mann’s “methods and maneuverings to the world.”

That investigative project has never materialized, even though Mann’s side has produced more than 1 million documents in the defamation suit he filed, now entering its ninth year. The material includes emails, correspondence, notes, drafts and discussions with co-authors—including all the background material for his seminal 1998 and 1999 papers charting this century’s dramatic temperature rise, the so-called “Hockey Stick” graph. 
 

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07022021/michael-mann-defamation-lawsuit-competitive-enterprise-institute-national-review/

Edited August 22, 2022 by Plissken

[Rigid1]

Curious, so what weather event and where would that event take place that would show the climate is not changing? What's the "normality" that you guys are wanting, I can't seem to find anything at all on it................

 

[Steve753]

1 hour ago, Rigid1 said:

Curious, so what weather event and where would that event take place that would show the climate is not changing? What's the "normality" that you guys are wanting, I can't seem to find anything at all on it................

 

Climate alarmists say the weather events are more intense.

[Rigid1]

18 minutes ago, Steve753 said:

Climate alarmists say the weather events are more intense.

Compared to when and where? What's the standard we are after here....

Edited August 22, 2022 by Rigid1

[Steve753]

8 minutes ago, Rigid1 said:

Compared to when and where? What's the standard we are after here....

They have no standard other than they just keep telling you it's getting worse and worse. They play on people's fears.

[snoughnut]

55 minutes ago, Steve753 said:

Climate alarmists say the weather events are more intense.

The only thing getting more intense is their lies.

27 minutes ago, Steve753 said:

They have no standard other than they just keep telling you it's getting worse and worse. They play on people's fears.

 fact 

[ArcticCrusher]

1 hour ago, Steve753 said:

Climate alarmists say the weather events are more intense.

That's why they want to inject iron in the oceans to release more carbon.  

 

[ArcticCrusher]

56 minutes ago, Steve753 said:

They have no standard other than they just keep telling you it's getting worse and worse. They play on people's fears.

Climate culters = covid culters

One and the same.

Edited August 23, 2022 by ArcticCrusher

[Steve753]

3 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

That's why they want to inject iron in the oceans to release more carbon.  

 

Actually it's the opposite way around.

[Steve753]

Since 1993, 12 small-scale ocean experiments have shown that iron additions do indeed draw carbon into the ocean

[ArcticCrusher]

1 minute ago, Steve753 said:

Actually it's the opposite way around.

It won't work regardless. 

[ArcticCrusher]

Just now, Steve753 said:

Since 1993, 12 small-scale ocean experiments have shown that iron additions do indeed draw carbon into the ocean

Co2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere.  You're being played.