Author Topic: Environmental issues  (Read 240616 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11432
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #450 on: November 10, 2017, 09:58:31 AM »
Explained by fracking which allows natural gas to replace coal. 
I'm sure that's what they plan to discuss in Paris...



http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/11/on-global-warming-the-us-leads-the-way.php

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11432
    • View Profile
Environmental issues, 'mantle plume' melting Antarctic ice from below
« Reply #451 on: November 13, 2017, 07:25:11 AM »
Earth's environment is more complicated than we knew.  Or did we know that?

Plume (geology) a rising column of hot, low viscosity material (lava) within the earth's mantle, which is believed to be responsible for linear oceanic island chains and flood basalts

http://www.newsweek.com/antarctica-melting-below-mantle-plume-almost-hot-yellowstone-supervolcano-705086  11/8/17

NASA DISCOVERS MANTLE PLUME ALMOST AS HOT AS YELLOWSTONE SUPERVOLCANO THAT'S MELTING ANTARCTICA FROM BELOW

"data suggests mantle heat at this location comes from a rift—a fracture in the Earth’s crust where heat can rise up."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017JB014423/full

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9709
    • View Profile
Doug , yes but I don't see the connection
« Reply #452 on: November 13, 2017, 08:57:39 AM »
 :wink:

I am shocked a militant left wing rag like Newsweek even mentions the mantle plume as melting Antarctica ice.

I do notice they do not come come right out and make the OBVIOUS connection:

That it is very likely this  that is causing melting on the Western Antarctic glacier front and not *man made* climate change.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48046
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9709
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #454 on: November 20, 2017, 04:16:12 PM »
magma melting Greenland glacier ice

Wow - isn't this the same new theory as in Antarctica ?

kind of blows the whole *man made* climate change theory back down the throats of the libs doesn't it.

don't expect the very lucrative man made climate change industrial complex to admit this any time soon.

What say you EXXON?  time to buy ?   :wink:

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11432
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues, All 'Climate Change' risks in one graph
« Reply #455 on: November 27, 2017, 12:11:32 PM »
Not a whisker of truth in this but I post it to our thread for balance.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/9/14186328/risks-climate-change-graph


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11432
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues, A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm
« Reply #457 on: December 04, 2017, 09:57:08 AM »
A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm

A (balanced) must read if you would like to keep up on this issue.

https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Rupert%20Darwall%20-%20A%20Veneer%20of%20Certainty%20Stoking%20Climate%20Alarm.pdf

From the article:  Climate scientist, Dr. William Collins of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Speaking in 2014 at an American Physical Society climate workshop, Collins, who was a lead author of the chapter evaluating climate models in the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, talked of the challenges of dealing with several sources of uncertainty. “One of them is the huge uncertainties even in the historical forcings,” he said, referring to the natural and anthropogenic factors that affect the climate.2 Commenting on the “structural certainty” of climate models, he observed that there were “a number of processes in the climate system we just do not understand from basic physical principles. ... We understand a lot of the physics in its basic form. We don’t understand the emergent behavior that results from it.”

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11432
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues, Snow in the Sahara
« Reply #458 on: January 11, 2018, 12:59:22 PM »
Snow in the Sahara, hottest desert in the world,  just as I was calling for Trump to buy Siberia as a hedge against global warming.

"Sahara Desert covered in 15 inches of SNOW as freak weather blankets sand dunes
HEAVY snow has covered the Sahara Desert in a freak winter weather storm."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/901733/Sahara-Desert-snow-Ain-Sefra-Algeria-pictures-photos




NASA photo

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/01/09/it-snowed-in-the-sahara-desert-really/?utm_term=.c4b95eed6a5e

The cause, of course, is 'climate change' messing with the jetstream.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2018, 01:24:08 PM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16999
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #459 on: January 12, 2018, 05:31:02 PM »
Funny, they we're predicting the end of snow because of global warming.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9709
    • View Profile
Trump responsible for heat loss from Earth's interior
« Reply #461 on: January 23, 2018, 08:40:39 AM »
http://www.breitbart.com/news/heat-loss-form-earths-interior-responsible-for-sliding-ice-sheets/

I wonder heat loss off and on accounts for the ice ages - another theory is  it was from all the farting of the dinosaurs and  mega fauna .
I would not have wanted to be near a mammoth passing gas............that certainly would have contributed to global warming 30 k years ago

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48046
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #462 on: January 24, 2018, 10:27:17 PM »
That is very interesting!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48046
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: February 17, 2018, 07:22:59 AM by Crafty_Dog »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16999
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48046
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #465 on: February 17, 2018, 07:23:33 AM »
No, it was a matter of not contributing to the problem.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11432
    • View Profile
Re: Ten Rivers Generate Most of Plastic in Oceans
« Reply #466 on: February 19, 2018, 09:39:50 AM »
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4970214/95-plastic-oceans-comes-just-TEN-rivers.html

Bears repeating and exploring: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4970214/95-plastic-oceans-comes-just-TEN-rivers.html

95% of the plastic in the oceans comes from 10 rivers in Asia and Africa..  This is a BIG story.  Being told I was the problem even though I emit zero litter, I could not imagine how my plastic bags end up in the ocean.  Nor do I see how even a coastal neighborhood of San Francisco, where the median home costs $1.3 million, is letting their garbage blow out of their cans and into the sea.  But that's not where it's coming from, whether they ban plastic bags or don't.

Garbage pickup is like sanitary sewer systems and clean drinking water.  If you are in a very poor area, you don't have any.  So garbage sits, rots or gets blown or washed away. 

Poor people have poor ways, but isn't polluting the ocean against some kind of international law?  "Law of the Sea Treaty"?   :wink:

Knowing the source means this can be solved, and bag taxes and bans placed on clean, healthy, law abiding  people aren't the problem or the solution.

Maybe we can build 10 giant strainers instead of waiting for it all to drift into a new continent.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48046
    • View Profile
20 Science papers find climate driven by solar changes
« Reply #468 on: February 28, 2018, 05:48:53 PM »
Some here may remember that I have raised this possibility more than once.  To be precise I raised the possibility of sun spots variations being the missing link.


https://principia-scientific.org/20-new-science-papers-find-climate-driven-solar-changes/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48046
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11432
    • View Profile
Environmental issues - 1 add'l part CO2 per 10,000 per century
« Reply #470 on: April 05, 2018, 07:30:48 AM »
Paraphrasing Steve Goddard, adding one part of CO2 per 10,000 over the past century of fossil fuel use is like adding 3 people to Alamodome.  You might need one additional parking space.
https://www.minds.com/fs/v1/thumbnail/827058401674162176/xlarge
« Last Edit: April 05, 2018, 07:32:26 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11432
    • View Profile
Re: This definitely cuts against the sun spot hypothesis.
« Reply #471 on: April 06, 2018, 07:42:21 AM »
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sun-spots-and-climate-change/

Please explain your thinking.

Scientific American has set out in my view to be one of the most biased of the alarmist sites and I did not see anything persuasive at this link.  From what I read, some experts say yes; some experts say no.  No conclusion was drawn.  Did I miss something?

Conclusion from the article:  "Ironically, the only way to really find out if phenomena like sunspots and solar wind are playing a larger role in climate change than most scientists now believe would be to significantly reduce our carbon emissions. Only in the absence of that potential driver will researchers be able to tell for sure how much impact natural influences have on the Earth’s climate."

That's convenient.  Tell the other side to surrender and then we'll see who is right.

To the credit of Scientific American, they do have articles supporting nuclear energy, the only serious way besides fracking to reduce CO2 emissions:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-critical-to-u-s-climate-goals/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nuclear-power-can-stop-global-warming/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/report/nuclear-future/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-really-could-go-nuclear/

This is a common sense solution we could almost all agree on AND WE ARE NOT DOING IT.
---------------------------
The other biggest issue I see with global warming is something called "adjusted data".  No one publishes the real data and the largest component of warming is in the adjustments, more than CO2 and sun variations combined.  No serious, intelligent, curious reader of the subject even has full access to know how much and at what rate the earth is warming, much lees the relative contributions of the causes.

« Last Edit: April 07, 2018, 11:30:58 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11432
    • View Profile
Environmental issues: Possible Causes of the 'Little Ice Age'
« Reply #472 on: April 06, 2018, 08:06:37 AM »
Natural variations used to affect climate and temperatures.

Scientists have tentatively identified these possible causes of the Little Ice Age: orbital cycles, decreased solar activity, increased volcanic activity, altered ocean current flows, the inherent variability of global climate, and reforestation following decreases in the human population.

Jr, Alan D. Wanamaker; Butler, Paul G.; Scourse, James D.; Heinemeier, Jan; Eiríksson, Jón; Knudsen, Karen Luise; Richardson, Christopher A. (June 12, 2012). "Surface changes in the North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation during the last millennium". Nature Communications. 3: 899. Bibcode:2012NatCo...3E.899W. doi:10.1038/ncomms1901. PMC 3621426 Freely accessible. PMID 22692542.
Must be true, right out of wikipedia.  )  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
-------------------
It is interesting to see scientists look at natural variations that somehow ended at the end of the 'little ice age' which happens to correspond with the start of the industrial age.  Also interesting to see that CO2 started to noticeably increase long before automobiles and air conditioning, when human population and impact was a tiny fraction of what it is today.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48046
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48046
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48046
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48046
    • View Profile
WSJ: Fred Singer: The Sea is rising, but not because of Climate Change
« Reply #477 on: May 17, 2018, 11:00:26 AM »
The Sea Is Rising, but Not Because of Climate Change
There is nothing we can do about it, except to build dikes and sea walls a little bit higher.
Ice crevasses near the coast of West Antarctica.
Ice crevasses near the coast of West Antarctica. Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images
By Fred Singer
May 15, 2018 6:27 p.m. ET
696 COMMENTS

Of all known and imagined consequences of climate change, many people fear sea-level rise most. But efforts to determine what causes seas to rise are marred by poor data and disagreements about methodology. The noted oceanographer Walter Munk referred to sea-level rise as an “enigma”; it has also been called a riddle and a puzzle.

It is generally thought that sea-level rise accelerates mainly by thermal expansion of sea water, the so-called steric component. But by studying a very short time interval, it is possible to sidestep most of the complications, like “isostatic adjustment” of the shoreline (as continents rise after the overlying ice has melted) and “subsidence” of the shoreline (as ground water and minerals are extracted).

I chose to assess the sea-level trend from 1915-45, when a genuine, independently confirmed warming of approximately 0.5 degree Celsius occurred. I note particularly that sea-level rise is not affected by the warming; it continues at the same rate, 1.8 millimeters a year, according to a 1990 review by Andrew S. Trupin and John Wahr. I therefore conclude—contrary to the general wisdom—that the temperature of sea water has no direct effect on sea-level rise. That means neither does the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide.

This conclusion is worth highlighting: It shows that sea-level rise does not depend on the use of fossil fuels. The evidence should allay fear that the release of additional CO2 will increase sea-level rise.

But there is also good data showing sea levels are in fact rising at a constant rate. The trend has been measured by a network of tidal gauges, many of which have been collecting data for over a century.

The cause of the trend is a puzzle. Physics demands that water expand as its temperature increases. But to keep the rate of rise constant, as observed, expansion of sea water evidently must be offset by something else. What could that be? I conclude that it must be ice accumulation, through evaporation of ocean water, and subsequent precipitation turning into ice. Evidence suggests that accumulation of ice on the Antarctic continent has been offsetting the steric effect for at least several centuries.

It is difficult to explain why evaporation of seawater produces approximately 100% cancellation of expansion. My method of analysis considers two related physical phenomena: thermal expansion of water and evaporation of water molecules. But if evaporation offsets thermal expansion, the net effect is of course close to zero. What then is the real cause of sea-level rise of 1 to 2 millimeters a year?

Melting of glaciers and ice sheets adds water to the ocean and causes sea levels to rise. (Recall though that the melting of floating sea ice adds no water to the oceans, and hence does not affect the sea level.) After the rapid melting away of northern ice sheets, the slow melting of Antarctic ice at the periphery of the continent may be the main cause of current sea-level rise.

All this, because it is much warmer now than 12,000 years ago, at the end of the most recent glaciation. Yet there is little heat available in the Antarctic to support melting.

We can see melting happening right now at the Ross Ice Shelf of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Geologists have tracked Ross’s slow disappearance, and glaciologist Robert Bindschadler predicts the ice shelf will melt completely within about 7,000 years, gradually raising the sea level as it goes.

Of course, a lot can happen in 7,000 years. The onset of a new glaciation could cause the sea level to stop rising. It could even fall 400 feet, to the level at the last glaciation maximum 18,000 years ago.

Currently, sea-level rise does not seem to depend on ocean temperature, and certainly not on CO2. We can expect the sea to continue rising at about the present rate for the foreseeable future. By 2100 the seas will rise another 6 inches or so—a far cry from Al Gore’s alarming numbers. There is nothing we can do about rising sea levels in the meantime. We’d better build dikes and sea walls a little bit higher.

Mr. Singer is a professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. He founded the Science and Environmental Policy Project and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48046
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11432
    • View Profile
Environmental issues, WSJ: No significant warming in 18 years
« Reply #479 on: June 28, 2018, 06:43:06 AM »
Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?
James Hansen issued dire warnings in the summer of 1988. Today earth is only modestly warmer.

By Pat Michaels and  Ryan Maue
June 21, 2018 7:24 p.m. ET
1394 COMMENTS
James E. Hansen wiped sweat from his brow. Outside it was a record-high 98 degrees on June 23, 1988, as the NASA scientist testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during a prolonged heat wave, which he decided to cast as a climate event of cosmic significance. He expressed to the senators his “high degree of confidence” in “a cause-and-effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming.”

With that testimony and an accompanying paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Mr. Hansen lit the bonfire of the greenhouse vanities, igniting a world-wide debate that continues today about the energy structure of the entire planet. President Obama’s environmental policies were predicated on similar models of rapid, high-cost warming. But the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s predictions affords an opportunity to see how well his forecasts have done—and to reconsider environmental policy accordingly.

Mr. Hansen’s testimony described three possible scenarios for the future of carbon dioxide emissions. He called Scenario A “business as usual,” as it maintained the accelerating emissions growth typical of the 1970s and ’80s. This scenario predicted the earth would warm 1 degree Celsius by 2018. Scenario B set emissions lower, rising at the same rate today as in 1988. Mr. Hansen called this outcome the “most plausible,” and predicted it would lead to about 0.7 degree of warming by this year. He added a final projection, Scenario C, which he deemed highly unlikely: constant emissions beginning in 2000. In that forecast, temperatures would rise a few tenths of a degree before flatlining after 2000.

Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios—enough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C. Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.

James Hansen testifies before a Senate Transportation subcommittee in Washington, D.C., May 8, 1989.
James Hansen testifies before a Senate Transportation subcommittee in Washington, D.C., May 8, 1989. PHOTO: DENNIS COOK/ASSOCIATED PRESS
What about Mr. Hansen’s other claims? Outside the warming models, his only explicit claim in the testimony was that the late ’80s and ’90s would see “greater than average warming in the southeast U.S. and the Midwest.” No such spike has been measured in these regions.

As observed temperatures diverged over the years from his predictions, Mr. Hansen doubled down. In a 2007 case on auto emissions, he stated in his deposition that most of Greenland’s ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the course of 100 years. Subsequent research published in Nature magazine on the history of Greenland’s ice cap demonstrated this to be impossible. Much of Greenland’s surface melts every summer, meaning rapid melting might reasonably be expected to occur in a dramatically warming world. But not in the one we live in. The Nature study found only modest ice loss after 6,000 years of much warmer temperatures than human activity could ever sustain.

Several more of Mr. Hansen’s predictions can now be judged by history. Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature. Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage in the U.S.? Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such increase in damage, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. How about stronger tornadoes? The opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline. The list of what didn’t happen is long and tedious.

The problem with Mr. Hansen’s models—and the U.N.’s—is that they don’t consider more-precise measures of how aerosol emissions counter warming caused by greenhouse gases. Several newer climate models account for this trend and routinely project about half the warming predicted by U.N. models, placing their numbers much closer to observed temperatures. The most recent of these was published in April by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate, a reliably mainstream journal.

These corrected climate predictions raise a crucial question: Why should people world-wide pay drastic costs to cut emissions when the global temperature is acting as if those cuts have already been made?

On the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s galvanizing testimony, it’s time to acknowledge that the rapid warming he predicted isn’t happening. Climate researchers and policy makers should adopt the more modest forecasts that are consistent with observed temperatures.

That would be a lukewarm policy, consistent with a lukewarming planet.

Mr. Michaels is director and Mr. Maue an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science.

Appeared in the June 22, 2018, print edition as 'A Hot Summer on Capitol Hill.'



 

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9709
    • View Profile
recycling plastic backfires
« Reply #480 on: June 30, 2018, 07:24:55 AM »
most gets dumped not recycled. "  8 million tons of plastic per year end up dumped in the ocean. This is  ‘. . . the same as five fivegallon bags filled with mixed plastic on every foot of coastline around the world"


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/30/report-save-the-oceans-stop-recycling-plastic/
Best way is to "incinerate" the stuff, but doesn't that lead to air pollution................?

Can we blocked the rivers coming out of Africa and Asia ?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48046
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #481 on: June 30, 2018, 07:40:26 AM »
We can tax it while reducing other taxes in equal measure until other solutions become economically competitive.

For example, the same sort of cartons used for milk cold be used for water and other drink bottles.  One use plastic bags can be replaced by biodegradable bags. 

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16999
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #482 on: June 30, 2018, 09:07:57 AM »
We can tax it while reducing other taxes in equal measure until other solutions become economically competitive.

For example, the same sort of cartons used for milk cold be used for water and other drink bottles.  One use plastic bags can be replaced by biodegradable bags. 

https://vimeo.com/216389085

Unless you are reloading ammo or recycling aluminum can, recycling is bullsh*t!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48046
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #483 on: June 30, 2018, 10:54:23 AM »
Ummm , , , I didn't mention recycling in my post  , , ,

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48046
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16999
    • View Profile
Re: America before the EPA
« Reply #485 on: July 01, 2018, 04:32:31 PM »


https://www.popsci.com/america-before-epa-photos?CMPID=ene070118

I think after the Dept. of Ed, the EPA should be at the top of the list for dissolution.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11432
    • View Profile
Re: Uummm , , , anything to consider here?
« Reply #488 on: July 10, 2018, 08:40:11 AM »
Crafty posted:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/07/03/hot-planet-all-time-heat-records-have-been-set-all-over-the-world-in-last-week/?utm_term=.7a61e5edd8b0&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
[/quote]

G M: I consider that it is summer.
------------------------------

1. I am blocked out by the Washington Post paywall.  Anyone pls send login codes by private msg. )
2. This was written and published during a heat wave in Washington.  Like GM says, it's summer.  Is that climate or is that weather?
3. Whenever we see extreme heat in some places, we see cold in others.  Is this really the whole planet?  I don't trust them to find or report that.  It's not warmer than usual here.
4. Did they cover the science posted VERY recently here, no significant warming in 18 years and very little in 30 years against all alarmist predictions, or are they admittedly agenda driven?
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1118.msg111373#msg111373
What else is fact posted here or at Pathological Science that they never reported?
5. Did they cover latest ice-out date "ever" in MN ever, THIS YEAR?
6. Did they report coldest summer in MN LAST YEAR?
7. When the Great Lakes water levels were way down, never to recover and them recovered in a really short time, what was the ratio of coverage of the drought to the refilling?  I will answer that.  MSM coverage of the lake level recoveries was to simply stop reporting lake levels down.  A major story never written.  We covered it here and those were local papers only.
8. When and where were their correction articles about alarmist predictions already gone bad?
9. When I post anecdotal evidence of cold weather, snow and ice, I am mocking them, not proving global cooling.
10. Sounds like a media issue to me.

What changes have they done to their own behavior to demonstrate they believe their own drivel?  Have they shut off their own air conditioning?  Limited jet travel?  Biked to work - in January?  

The more we fund the proponents of banning fossil fuels, the more fossil fuels they consume.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2018, 08:52:18 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 9709
    • View Profile
Lead in the water in Flint was never dangerous!!!
« Reply #489 on: July 24, 2018, 06:46:11 PM »

I don't get it.  The whole lead in the water headlines were all a mistake?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/flint-michigan-water-no-lead-poisoning/

 :-o

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16999
    • View Profile
Re: Lead in the water in Flint was never dangerous!!!
« Reply #490 on: July 26, 2018, 04:40:07 PM »

I don't get it.  The whole lead in the water headlines were all a mistake?

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/flint-michigan-water-no-lead-poisoning/

 :-o

Unpossible! The professional journalists with credentials told us it was!

Must be some sort of Russian conspiracy!


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48046
    • View Profile
YES! Plastic Clean up of the Ocean
« Reply #491 on: August 31, 2018, 07:27:04 AM »
https://www.facebook.com/Upworthy/videos/966555456864427/?hc_ref=ARTmLqmECuU3DzlnorobeEg7D02jgxRUlENrXwMRrW52gSyx9--tqiC-du62UgUEP0k&__xts__[0]=68.ARAPkKbUzmVVGFzbKSXeXaXGbbUZfSVzK7gF4cwSHCSJAmB1_GmlpfFOIO_wqG1W_RlkmvsAx3sT6YJZ2j3V4nA4wUCx2k5MHBExQP-5VLbpbBP9Me_C7XqFMfrUNkRZMuU81L4HmjnAL-T2dA-m34GdIqiuIBfTGC1EMRsJaH0Imf58XH4APH0&__tn__=FC-R&fb_dtsg_ag=AdwjqEjCOqnNJVoGB7GNo5H9FpfSG1GWYSZml0jcgo_2BQ%3AAdzV3rbrB5PeO_0F27vrFKFAli7nOcWDepY__4EQrGlzfg

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 16999
    • View Profile
Re: YES! Plastic Clean up of the Ocean
« Reply #492 on: August 31, 2018, 12:48:41 PM »
https://www.facebook.com/Upworthy/videos/966555456864427/?hc_ref=ARTmLqmECuU3DzlnorobeEg7D02jgxRUlENrXwMRrW52gSyx9--tqiC-du62UgUEP0k&__xts__[0]=68.ARAPkKbUzmVVGFzbKSXeXaXGbbUZfSVzK7gF4cwSHCSJAmB1_GmlpfFOIO_wqG1W_RlkmvsAx3sT6YJZ2j3V4nA4wUCx2k5MHBExQP-5VLbpbBP9Me_C7XqFMfrUNkRZMuU81L4HmjnAL-T2dA-m34GdIqiuIBfTGC1EMRsJaH0Imf58XH4APH0&__tn__=FC-R&fb_dtsg_ag=AdwjqEjCOqnNJVoGB7GNo5H9FpfSG1GWYSZml0jcgo_2BQ%3AAdzV3rbrB5PeO_0F27vrFKFAli7nOcWDepY__4EQrGlzfg

 :roll:

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11432
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48046
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11432
    • View Profile
Re: The Chill of the Solar Minimum
« Reply #495 on: October 02, 2018, 07:35:23 AM »
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/

I thought that CO2 at 0 parts per thousand was determinative. Now they're telling us that other factors like the sun have some influence on Earth's temperature.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 48046
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11432
    • View Profile
Re: Environmental issues
« Reply #498 on: November 15, 2018, 06:50:00 AM »
If we didn't have a Pathological Science thread, where would you put this?     :wink:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/14/earth-death-spiral-radical-action-climate-breakdown

Meanwhile:
"Lack of sunspots could bring a 'Space Age record' for cold temperatures above Earth in a matter of months, NASA scientist warns"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6384457/Lack-sunspots-bring-Space-Age-record-cold-weather-NASA-scientist-warns.html

Or just our lying eyes:
http://www.startribune.com/those-in-minneapolis-homeless-camp-now-confront-the-cold/500332722/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11432
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Scientists discover error in major ocean warming study
« Reply #499 on: November 15, 2018, 07:14:42 AM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/climate-scientists-discover-error-in-major-ocean-warming-study/


“The findings of the . . . paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media,”

Nic Lewis, a mathematician and popular critic of the consensus on man-made climate change, quickly identified errors.  “... a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”

Author of the report:  “We’re grateful to have [the massive error] pointed out quickly..."

Sure you are.  Why didn't their own math catch it?  Why didn't their own peer reviewers catch it?

Alarmism always passes publication muster and anything that indicates the world is doing fine doesn't.  Over and over and over.  How does this happen? 

   - Pathological peers.  The peer review process in climate science is more diabolical than a communist politburo.  The climate email-gate scandal exposed it and this is one more indication that nothing has changed.

And where is this massive, earth changing error revealed?  In National Review, where only one side can see it.  As they joke in courtroom law, the jury will disregard the confession.  The English speaking world saw the headline, not the correction.

My opinion:  This is a political, not a scientific issue.  There is more human caused error than human caused warming.  Earth's environmental systems are alive and well.