Any model that doesn’t include the effects from the massive Hunga Tonga volcanic eruption in January 2022 is bogus. That eruption was the largest volcanic eruption in this century and spewed millions of tons of ash and water vapor. Such a huge amount of water vapor - which holds heat - leads to measurable warming in the atmosphere.
Yup. After that, it gets complicated. Some massive eruptions in history have lead to so much ash circulating, in the right amounts at the right altitudes for the right length of time, that the net effect was a few years of global cooling - a miniature ‘ice age’ because of too much of the sun’s warmth being blocked. Other times, the effect can be a bit of global warming. The exact calculations depend on the computer algorithm being used, plus the quality and quantity of the data inputted (‘garbage in, garbage out’). You could probably spend hours on the internet sifting through conclusions from models. But in any case, there was an EFFECT, and that should be considered in any climate-change paper.
Yes, ALL of the NOAA climate change predictions are based on COMPUTER MODELS and are subject to "GIGO" - "Garbage In Garbage Out".
NEVER forget in was the United Nations apparatchiks ( beginning in 1970) that conjured up the ENTIRE global COOLING, global WARMING, "Man-made"- and then just plain CLIMATE CHANGE that covers all the bases in the UN FRAUD -
which as WRITTEN in their own premise was NEVER about the environment and was POLITICAL from the get-go.
NO doubt that so-called "geo-engineering" has been afoot (globally) - which is by definition man-made, but by GOVERNMENTS....more precisely by the UN and collaborating nations to CREATE panic among ignorant humanity to herd them into the safety of ONE-WORLD Government (and) create a PERPETUAL CARBON TAX on every human being from birth to death (because of their carbon FOOTPRINT -
with some carbon footprints causing more "pollution" than others.
A truly EVIL scam to cause BILLIONS of dollars (or whatever form of money is in vogue) into the UN coffers to fund un-elected parasites.
The reality is, if there was NO carbon dioxide (CO-2), there would be NO animal life on planet earth, and NO OXYGEN, NO plants, grasses, flowers or trees. Earth is a CARBON BASED PLANET - and "We" are carbon based animals who breathe IN air (oxygen and nitrogen) and EXHALE CO-2 from Birth to Death. Further, humans expel 2.14 grahams of CO-2 per hour, 2.3 LB per day and 250 - 350 kilograms per year.
NOTE: to all "depopulation fanatics" you can all help mother earth by eliminating YOURSELVES!
Exactly. Their CO2 lowering plan is a recipe for world wide famine and starvation. For the globalists it seems they see this as more of a feature than a bug.
Ideally we would have more CO2, not less. As CO2 increases, plants will thrive and multiply in number hoovering up the extra CO2 and in turn providing us O2 breathers with more of the O2 we need. Win - win
I like to challenge the tree huggers to name one end of the world prediction since they started making them in the 70s that has come to pass. It's odd that they never seem to have an answer.
But, you know how those leftys tend to be: never in doubt, but rarely correct.
Venus’ surface is 100% rock without the modeling confounds of our oceans.
The surface has 100% cloud cover (thus is not subject to Richard Lindzen of MIT’s “Infared Iris” effects. Again, no Earth-like confounds.
The upper atmosphere zooms at 1000 mph. The modelers don’t Know why and can’t reproduce the Venusian atmospheric conditions.
If they can do simple, I have zero confidence they can do complex…. the Gubmint sure will pay for it.
Oh yeah, regarding volcanic discharges: the 40,000 mile mid-ocean ridges are volcanically active and are churning out stuff continuously- how to measure and model these contributions?
And the moral of the story is that ANY geoengineering attempt will produce unforeseen, and likely undesirable, effects! There are too many variables and too many unknowns to mathematically model, so the calculations will be off-target.
Very pleased this was the first comment. Ever since the initial speculation(s) about its effects (largest volcanic eruption since Krakatoa, 150 years ago), despite the record amount of water vapor and particulate/sulfur compounds, the literature has been strangely quiet, as if this was a non-event. The WaPo article this morning and this rehash mention the stratosphere is the dry layer above the clouds in question - well, the stratosphere just received an injection of an additional 10% water AND sulfur and particulates. Guess not that important /s
And this WaPo article is apparently being widely reprinted in different newspapers; it was in the local Minneapolis Star Tribune today. I scanned it to see if there was any mention of Hunga Tonga, rolled my eyes, and moved on. Whadya think. - a political AGENDA?
Bottom line is climate is the most complex thing on earth because it's everything on earth. Shaming humans that they are the cause is the most evil thing ever done. Be skeptical of everything that is portrayed as "settled science". Meanwhile it's still good to not destroy ecosystems and keep our air and water clean.
All I can say is, while growing up in Akron, Ohio (rubber Capitol) in the 79s, we had some deep snow winters, after tire manufacturing left the U.S., winters were less severe (from my recollection), so maybe we need a little more pollution 🤪
And right now in southeast PA we are having one of our longest cold spells in years with low temps in the teens for the foreseeable future. I’m not for air pollution but we are tired of the cold. And we are also in a drought. None of this makes any sense. I suspect WaPo knows they better get ahead of the narrative for some reason. After Covid I am forever cynical about media and government.
Yep. Very familiar with those stories. Weren’t we going through a cooling period in the late 1970s? We do have cyclical patterns, I think. Also, how about all of the deforestation? Doesn’t that have an impact as well?
Deforestation absolutely has an impact. Last time I was down in southern Florida, if there was a tree standing, they were taking it down to build some form of housing or shopping. Removing Green space is purely greed.
People need housing... but I hear what you are saying. It should be done without clearcutting the land and native plants should be used in landscaping and parks of preserved wild should be interspersed.
I was fortunate as a student in high school (graduated in 1961) to major in the sciences ( college prep- medical). I went on to college where I also majored in sciences (mostly human) for my registered nursing program. I’ve also been a lifelong student of the sciences. One thing about climate that always stood out was that climate would change. There are cycles that repeat themselves. All of this nonsense that has been drilled into our children’s heads and governments have designed policies for is just that, nonsense. Voicing my opinion to my grandchildren and others hasn’t won me much respect, but I haven’t changed my mind. It’s nice to hear that maybe we can get rid of some of this nonsense that is causing wasteful spending.
Why did we decide that natural carbon dioxide was a bad thing? Trees put out oxygen and we breath out CO2, the plants absorb much of this. It is a symbiotic relationship, self-regulating if you don’t strip all the nutrients and plant life from the soil. Acres of solar farms is a bio wasteland.
Circle of life and balance. If the circle is broken...If the teeter totter slips one way or other... Oxygen is actually poison in large quantities, CO2 at high levels can act as a simple asphyxiant. It's amazing how many non human, lesser living beings can regulate and enhance, whereas we critical thinking, problem solver beings continue to mess it up.
I want to be a part of the solution, not add to the problem.
The word is concerned, not worried. There is a difference. Excess oxygen was not my point. Concern was not for myself so much as young having benefit of healthy planet. Resilient, won't disagree. Incapable of going wrong....well.
Does humanity want to play Russian roulette with our planet, blithely thinking it will just keep on despite our abuse. Planet age 4.5 billion years, humans 300 thousand (give or take), Industrial Age since 1750. We are being ignorant or naive if we think we have had enough time to KNOW what we reap and/or sow.
I'll also repeat...natural causes can also account for climate change. I don't dispute that. Why would a reasoning person discount any/all possibilities. The question is degrees of cause. Which is the greater disrupter. For myself, I'd rather have an honest knowledge base than not. Where that is, I know not.
It is dangerously homocentric to believe humans can control the climate. For starters, there has undeniably been both global warming and global cooling prior to human influence. Next, the climate impact of human fossil fuel consumption cannot be reasonably compared on any scale to the climate impact of solar flares and volcanic eruptions. For those compelled to throw money at climate change it would be more productive to invest in preventing volcanic eruptions and equally futile. If you must change your climate, go to your thermostat.
Could it also be that ongoing ‘geo engineering’ puts seeds into the air that global winds stir into locations far away from the seeding source to cause heavy downpours of rain and thereby removing large amounts of moisture that is then missing at other locations? I just was puzzled by the recent unusually heavy downpours of rain in Europe and Saudi Arabia. Warming climate should put more moisture into the air, not less. Also, I don’t buy into the global warming debate, CO2 has very little to do with it, as ice cores and temperature reconstructions have shown.
I do not buy into this global warming dialogue either; I’m more concerned about the continuous weather modification/cloud seeding program in Colorado. I spent all afternoon reading one article after another, the pro/cons, the after effects using silver iodide- is it harmful to our atmosphere, humans, livestock, soil, water? One article indicated silver iodide is “considered a hazardous substance, a priority pollutant, & as a toxic pollutant”.
Silver iodide is listed “under the guidelines of the Clean Water Act”. This is my main concern, & I don’t believe cloud seeding is needed, & needs to be stopped- it seems to be more harmful vs. actually helping produce much (if any), rain or snow! God can take care of our weather as he always has! Leave well enough alone-
What has always impressed me about the Cherry picking aspect of the climate hysteria is how all the models fail to properly account for the role of solar phases in our climate which I understand is probably the major driver of our climate
I am a great believer that there are scientists and engineers that understand their fields so well that they can clearly show how a natural process works. The treeline in Canada is moving north and the reason for it could be several mechanisms including warmer temperatures, more sunlight to sustain longer photosynthesis, spectrum of light changes, more manure from animal life driven north, etc, etc. I don't pretend to have the answer however I know there are smart scientists who know and it may be a combination of factors. The presence of air pollution nuclei is definitely a driver of condensation however somehow I doubt its absence as China continues to build coal fired generating plants. I did not read the reports to see if the lowering of pollution is regional, ie if the US lowered pollution and the cloud cover only thinned in the US.
Mad Cow disease is a good example of where one lone scientist figured out the source of the problem when money grubbing scientists couldn't figure out the source of the disease.
Back around 1990’s when scientists were feverishly trying to find the source of Mad Cow Disease (Prion Disease) for years and they couldn’t come up with the answer. One scientist finally got in touch with Shirley Lindenbaum, a medical anthropologist with the City University of New York who was studying a tribe in Papua New Guinea. The tribe were having a problem with people suddenly going mad from “Kuru” disease as they called it. After much work in the early 1960’s she found the source of the problem. The men on the island lived separate from the women and children. When a woman wanted children she went to the men’s side of the island. The men hunted small animals for food while the women grew grains and vegetables. The only time the women got meat was when one of them died. They boiled up grandma so to speak.
Shirley discovered that the boiling process did not destroy the “prion” that then carried over into the eater. This was the clue to what was causing mad cow disease. Despite her notifying mad cow researchers of the possible link they ignored her for some time.
She is relatively uncredited in the history of Mad Cow disease.
My point is there are smart, ethical scientists out there who are not doing high profile work but often have the answers. Unfortunately they are often ignored and the sloppy high profile money grubbing scientists with their shoddy work get the ear of the government and wrong decisions are made. We need more dedicated ethical scientists like Shirley Lindenbaum.
You sound like you would be interested in the work of Dr Thomas Seyfried PhD who has built a very strong case that cancer is a metabolic disease, originating from dysfunctional mitochondria. Biochemically plausible (that is my background) but gaining traction very slowly as his treatment protocol does not create the gusher of income/profit that the standard modes of treatment do. Short video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjdAtauO2cA
I listened to the short video. I am not good with medical terminology so it wasn't something that I understood but I am impressed by what he has discovered.
Urban areas make up only 3 percent of the entire land area of the country but are home to more than 80 percent of the population. Conversely, 97 percent of the country’s land mass is rural but only 19.3 percent of the population lives there.
The Greenhouse Effect is caused primarily by Water vapor in the Troposphere and is the most powerful greenhouse gas.
The ocean plays a key role in this vital cycle of water. The ocean holds 97% of the total water on the planet; 78% of global precipitation occurs over the ocean, and it is the source of 86% of global evaporation.................
About 71 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered, and the oceans hold about 96.5 percent of all Earth's water.
Why? Releasing heat(IR) by evaporation by using water from the oceans, we call it weather and cooling.
In reality, the earth's greenhouse effect is a good thing. If not for the greenhouse effect, earth's average surface temperature would be -18°C (Celsius), or -40°F (Fahrenheit). Instead, our planet exists at a livable 15°C, or 59°F. We need more CO2, not less.
CO2 is actually a planet-saving nutrient that could multiply food production rates and feed the world more nutritious, healthy plants and ecosystem
It is called the "carbon cycle" and "water cycle" of nature: Plants are a good starting point when looking at the carbon cycle on Earth. Plants have a process called "carbon cycle" and photosynthesis that enables them to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and combine it with water. Using the energy of the Sun, plants make sugars and oxygen molecules. In return plants exhale oxygen which allows you to breathe. We and the ecosystems need more C02, not less.
The reason why the CO2 atmosphere theory can never work is that the Ocean-atmosphere interface controls the amount of CO2 in air – a warmer ocean (which holds 50x more CO2 than the atmosphere) emits CO2 and vice versa. This is very basic physics*.
Taking a cold can of CO2 is actually a planet-saving nutrient that could multiply food production rates and feed the world more nutritious, healthy plants and ecosystems.Prove it to yourself at home - soda, place it on the table, if you let it warm up it will give off CO2.
The sea is a 'buffer' solution of many salts so anything added has even less effect.
There are other reasons why CO2 warmest theory must fail: a) the surface cooling effect of plants b) Non equilibrium thermodynamics in the atmosphere - i.e. the assumptions of the ‘theory’ are nonsense. *Henry's Law.
Consider the carbon atom: without it, life as we know it wouldn’t exist. Together with hydrogen and oxygen, carbon is one of the literal building blocks of all life on Earth—including crops and the countless people who rely on them.
CO2 is a life-giving gas for plants, Commercial greenhouses are aware of this and commonly use CO2 generators(up to 1500ppm) to maximize production.
Several critical factors to keep in mind when pondering any big issue like "Climate Change":
The problem of groupthink; in this case, the academy, researchers, and many other professionals that at first glance might not seem involved: administrators, bureaucrats. In psychology this is called "cascade", it may have other similar names. In the worst case, all these people are cut from the same social, economic and intellectual cloth. They all went to the “right” universities. They know each other. They work in cloistered departments and see each other at specialist events geared to their industry. To over simply just a bit, they all think alike. They are, after all, the Elite who “know” that global warming is settled science and beyond dispute. Anyone who dares to challenge that dogma is viewed as a threat to their regime, their egos, their entire way of life. "Follow the money" explains much; entire careers and industries ride on the continuing trumpeting of (in this case) "Climate Change". At what point does the desire to get easy money trump impartial science?
There are numerous biases inherent in any such entity. For example, consider the dodgy usage of computer simulations. Despite all protestations to the contrary, the claims of impartiality and so forth, just how neutral are all those inputs of data into complex equations? How does one know that Programmer X hasn’t tweaked a formula, or data series, or section of code just enough to produce the “right” answer, you know, that everybody knows the Earth is warming, the seas are going to rise, and millions are going to die? This need not even be conscious intent; humans are influenced by unconscious/subconscious drives far more than they’d care to acknowledge.
These issues are difficult to quantify, yet they are hugely important in the operation, decision-making and opinions given by such institutions. They are extremely hard to defend against. And even when someone tries, there is institutional pushback against them.
It could just as easily be increased atmospheric water vapor caused by undersea thermal vents and undersea volcanic eruptions like Hunga Tonga. If the current accelerating geomagnetic excursion continues, we may have much more volcanic activity. The point is we just don’t know enough about our natural world to have conviction about future weather patterns. Conclusion? We are wasting tax payer dollars chasing solutions for problems we don’t understand.
So, the Federal unions are organizing against the Executive Branch. THIS is why I am against Public Sector Unions. It is the tool of Left (Socialists) who send their money to the DNC. It is a cancer that perpetuates itself.
There’s an undersea volcano that has exploded called something like the Honga Tunga Volcano. It is producing a lot of sea warming, which is affecting the weather a whole lot more than cow farts.
The climate has been changing for billions of years. Presently, we are in a 300-year warming period, which has nothing to do with human intervention. In the 1600s, there was a mini-ice age with global temperatures dropping and severe weather events. Long-term, we find that CO2 levels sometimes coincide with warming and sometimes it does not. The bottom line is that plants need CO2 to survive. More CO2 = more plants. In return, the plants produce oxygen for humans. When CO2 levels are high and it's warm, plants and humans flourish. It's a wonderful relationship. For more information about the invented Climate Crises, please check out my website: michaeljdorfman.com
Any model that doesn’t include the effects from the massive Hunga Tonga volcanic eruption in January 2022 is bogus. That eruption was the largest volcanic eruption in this century and spewed millions of tons of ash and water vapor. Such a huge amount of water vapor - which holds heat - leads to measurable warming in the atmosphere.
The eruption added an additional 10% extra water vapor into the atmosphere overnight.
Yup. After that, it gets complicated. Some massive eruptions in history have lead to so much ash circulating, in the right amounts at the right altitudes for the right length of time, that the net effect was a few years of global cooling - a miniature ‘ice age’ because of too much of the sun’s warmth being blocked. Other times, the effect can be a bit of global warming. The exact calculations depend on the computer algorithm being used, plus the quality and quantity of the data inputted (‘garbage in, garbage out’). You could probably spend hours on the internet sifting through conclusions from models. But in any case, there was an EFFECT, and that should be considered in any climate-change paper.
Yes, ALL of the NOAA climate change predictions are based on COMPUTER MODELS and are subject to "GIGO" - "Garbage In Garbage Out".
NEVER forget in was the United Nations apparatchiks ( beginning in 1970) that conjured up the ENTIRE global COOLING, global WARMING, "Man-made"- and then just plain CLIMATE CHANGE that covers all the bases in the UN FRAUD -
which as WRITTEN in their own premise was NEVER about the environment and was POLITICAL from the get-go.
NO doubt that so-called "geo-engineering" has been afoot (globally) - which is by definition man-made, but by GOVERNMENTS....more precisely by the UN and collaborating nations to CREATE panic among ignorant humanity to herd them into the safety of ONE-WORLD Government (and) create a PERPETUAL CARBON TAX on every human being from birth to death (because of their carbon FOOTPRINT -
with some carbon footprints causing more "pollution" than others.
A truly EVIL scam to cause BILLIONS of dollars (or whatever form of money is in vogue) into the UN coffers to fund un-elected parasites.
The reality is, if there was NO carbon dioxide (CO-2), there would be NO animal life on planet earth, and NO OXYGEN, NO plants, grasses, flowers or trees. Earth is a CARBON BASED PLANET - and "We" are carbon based animals who breathe IN air (oxygen and nitrogen) and EXHALE CO-2 from Birth to Death. Further, humans expel 2.14 grahams of CO-2 per hour, 2.3 LB per day and 250 - 350 kilograms per year.
NOTE: to all "depopulation fanatics" you can all help mother earth by eliminating YOURSELVES!
Exactly. Their CO2 lowering plan is a recipe for world wide famine and starvation. For the globalists it seems they see this as more of a feature than a bug.
Ideally we would have more CO2, not less. As CO2 increases, plants will thrive and multiply in number hoovering up the extra CO2 and in turn providing us O2 breathers with more of the O2 we need. Win - win
I like to challenge the tree huggers to name one end of the world prediction since they started making them in the 70s that has come to pass. It's odd that they never seem to have an answer.
But, you know how those leftys tend to be: never in doubt, but rarely correct.
From one 'old guy' to another, the liberal/progressive/Socialist/Communist mind-set is intractable. Hopeless and incurable.
Al Gore said there would not be polar ice by 2013. 🙄🤨
Any retractions on that lie? Nope!
Trouble is every lefty in the countryside immediately pee'd in their diaper and started shoveling money at the "problem".
Al Gore made a relatively large fortune.
TRUTH!!!
Venus’ surface is 100% rock without the modeling confounds of our oceans.
The surface has 100% cloud cover (thus is not subject to Richard Lindzen of MIT’s “Infared Iris” effects. Again, no Earth-like confounds.
The upper atmosphere zooms at 1000 mph. The modelers don’t Know why and can’t reproduce the Venusian atmospheric conditions.
If they can do simple, I have zero confidence they can do complex…. the Gubmint sure will pay for it.
Oh yeah, regarding volcanic discharges: the 40,000 mile mid-ocean ridges are volcanically active and are churning out stuff continuously- how to measure and model these contributions?
Bingo! Spot on! Correct!
And the moral of the story is that ANY geoengineering attempt will produce unforeseen, and likely undesirable, effects! There are too many variables and too many unknowns to mathematically model, so the calculations will be off-target.
Not to mention that ALL volcano eruptions emit CO-2...just as the California fires emit CO-2.
Very pleased this was the first comment. Ever since the initial speculation(s) about its effects (largest volcanic eruption since Krakatoa, 150 years ago), despite the record amount of water vapor and particulate/sulfur compounds, the literature has been strangely quiet, as if this was a non-event. The WaPo article this morning and this rehash mention the stratosphere is the dry layer above the clouds in question - well, the stratosphere just received an injection of an additional 10% water AND sulfur and particulates. Guess not that important /s
And this WaPo article is apparently being widely reprinted in different newspapers; it was in the local Minneapolis Star Tribune today. I scanned it to see if there was any mention of Hunga Tonga, rolled my eyes, and moved on. Whadya think. - a political AGENDA?
Ha ha.... You'll be waiting a long time to get anything from the Red Star that doesn't support the lefty narrative.
For an extensive review of many more ways climate change alarmists are wrong, including Hunga Tonga, you might be interested in a post on The Menelaus Gambit: https://ernestdlieberman.substack.com/p/climate-change-alarmists-ignore-how
Thanks - that’s a good summation of a bunch of valid points! I have now subscribed.
Indeed. And what did we hear about it?
crickets!
I caught it in one of my newz feeds (prolly AppleNewz) and similarly read through looking for mention of Hunga Ha’apai - and wasn’t surprised.
The oceans heated to fast to come from atmosphere so it's believed to be come from exothermic core, warming from below. Interesting theory ECDO here: https://theethicalskeptic.com/2024/05/12/exothermic-core-mantle-decoupling-dzhanibekov-oscillation-ecdo-hypothesis/
Bottom line is climate is the most complex thing on earth because it's everything on earth. Shaming humans that they are the cause is the most evil thing ever done. Be skeptical of everything that is portrayed as "settled science". Meanwhile it's still good to not destroy ecosystems and keep our air and water clean.
All I can say is, while growing up in Akron, Ohio (rubber Capitol) in the 79s, we had some deep snow winters, after tire manufacturing left the U.S., winters were less severe (from my recollection), so maybe we need a little more pollution 🤪
And right now in southeast PA we are having one of our longest cold spells in years with low temps in the teens for the foreseeable future. I’m not for air pollution but we are tired of the cold. And we are also in a drought. None of this makes any sense. I suspect WaPo knows they better get ahead of the narrative for some reason. After Covid I am forever cynical about media and government.
Yep. Very familiar with those stories. Weren’t we going through a cooling period in the late 1970s? We do have cyclical patterns, I think. Also, how about all of the deforestation? Doesn’t that have an impact as well?
Deforestation absolutely has an impact. Last time I was down in southern Florida, if there was a tree standing, they were taking it down to build some form of housing or shopping. Removing Green space is purely greed.
People need housing... but I hear what you are saying. It should be done without clearcutting the land and native plants should be used in landscaping and parks of preserved wild should be interspersed.
People need housing... but I hear what you are saying, it should be done without clear cutting and use native plants in your landscaping and parks.
I was fortunate as a student in high school (graduated in 1961) to major in the sciences ( college prep- medical). I went on to college where I also majored in sciences (mostly human) for my registered nursing program. I’ve also been a lifelong student of the sciences. One thing about climate that always stood out was that climate would change. There are cycles that repeat themselves. All of this nonsense that has been drilled into our children’s heads and governments have designed policies for is just that, nonsense. Voicing my opinion to my grandchildren and others hasn’t won me much respect, but I haven’t changed my mind. It’s nice to hear that maybe we can get rid of some of this nonsense that is causing wasteful spending.
Why did we decide that natural carbon dioxide was a bad thing? Trees put out oxygen and we breath out CO2, the plants absorb much of this. It is a symbiotic relationship, self-regulating if you don’t strip all the nutrients and plant life from the soil. Acres of solar farms is a bio wasteland.
Geo engineering???: The drive for money and power...without any thought to the end results...has put the entire world into jeopardy.
I think it may have caused an imbalance... I am not a scientist, so I cannot say what degree of impact this has caused.
LDT, “we” didn’t decide 😉; the “they” did🙃
True
Circle of life and balance. If the circle is broken...If the teeter totter slips one way or other... Oxygen is actually poison in large quantities, CO2 at high levels can act as a simple asphyxiant. It's amazing how many non human, lesser living beings can regulate and enhance, whereas we critical thinking, problem solver beings continue to mess it up.
I want to be a part of the solution, not add to the problem.
I'm not worried about having too much oxygen, are you?? Humans are very resilient. They have adapted in very cold regions, hot and arid regions.
The word is concerned, not worried. There is a difference. Excess oxygen was not my point. Concern was not for myself so much as young having benefit of healthy planet. Resilient, won't disagree. Incapable of going wrong....well.
Does humanity want to play Russian roulette with our planet, blithely thinking it will just keep on despite our abuse. Planet age 4.5 billion years, humans 300 thousand (give or take), Industrial Age since 1750. We are being ignorant or naive if we think we have had enough time to KNOW what we reap and/or sow.
I'll also repeat...natural causes can also account for climate change. I don't dispute that. Why would a reasoning person discount any/all possibilities. The question is degrees of cause. Which is the greater disrupter. For myself, I'd rather have an honest knowledge base than not. Where that is, I know not.
It is dangerously homocentric to believe humans can control the climate. For starters, there has undeniably been both global warming and global cooling prior to human influence. Next, the climate impact of human fossil fuel consumption cannot be reasonably compared on any scale to the climate impact of solar flares and volcanic eruptions. For those compelled to throw money at climate change it would be more productive to invest in preventing volcanic eruptions and equally futile. If you must change your climate, go to your thermostat.
Could it also be that ongoing ‘geo engineering’ puts seeds into the air that global winds stir into locations far away from the seeding source to cause heavy downpours of rain and thereby removing large amounts of moisture that is then missing at other locations? I just was puzzled by the recent unusually heavy downpours of rain in Europe and Saudi Arabia. Warming climate should put more moisture into the air, not less. Also, I don’t buy into the global warming debate, CO2 has very little to do with it, as ice cores and temperature reconstructions have shown.
Mankind's limited intelligence...messing with nature...leads to disaster.
Agreed. Stop geo engineering NOW!
I do not buy into this global warming dialogue either; I’m more concerned about the continuous weather modification/cloud seeding program in Colorado. I spent all afternoon reading one article after another, the pro/cons, the after effects using silver iodide- is it harmful to our atmosphere, humans, livestock, soil, water? One article indicated silver iodide is “considered a hazardous substance, a priority pollutant, & as a toxic pollutant”.
Silver iodide is listed “under the guidelines of the Clean Water Act”. This is my main concern, & I don’t believe cloud seeding is needed, & needs to be stopped- it seems to be more harmful vs. actually helping produce much (if any), rain or snow! God can take care of our weather as he always has! Leave well enough alone-
OMG! This is hilarious.
They don’t really know anything after all….
What has always impressed me about the Cherry picking aspect of the climate hysteria is how all the models fail to properly account for the role of solar phases in our climate which I understand is probably the major driver of our climate
I am a great believer that there are scientists and engineers that understand their fields so well that they can clearly show how a natural process works. The treeline in Canada is moving north and the reason for it could be several mechanisms including warmer temperatures, more sunlight to sustain longer photosynthesis, spectrum of light changes, more manure from animal life driven north, etc, etc. I don't pretend to have the answer however I know there are smart scientists who know and it may be a combination of factors. The presence of air pollution nuclei is definitely a driver of condensation however somehow I doubt its absence as China continues to build coal fired generating plants. I did not read the reports to see if the lowering of pollution is regional, ie if the US lowered pollution and the cloud cover only thinned in the US.
Mad Cow disease is a good example of where one lone scientist figured out the source of the problem when money grubbing scientists couldn't figure out the source of the disease.
Back around 1990’s when scientists were feverishly trying to find the source of Mad Cow Disease (Prion Disease) for years and they couldn’t come up with the answer. One scientist finally got in touch with Shirley Lindenbaum, a medical anthropologist with the City University of New York who was studying a tribe in Papua New Guinea. The tribe were having a problem with people suddenly going mad from “Kuru” disease as they called it. After much work in the early 1960’s she found the source of the problem. The men on the island lived separate from the women and children. When a woman wanted children she went to the men’s side of the island. The men hunted small animals for food while the women grew grains and vegetables. The only time the women got meat was when one of them died. They boiled up grandma so to speak.
Shirley discovered that the boiling process did not destroy the “prion” that then carried over into the eater. This was the clue to what was causing mad cow disease. Despite her notifying mad cow researchers of the possible link they ignored her for some time.
She is relatively uncredited in the history of Mad Cow disease.
My point is there are smart, ethical scientists out there who are not doing high profile work but often have the answers. Unfortunately they are often ignored and the sloppy high profile money grubbing scientists with their shoddy work get the ear of the government and wrong decisions are made. We need more dedicated ethical scientists like Shirley Lindenbaum.
You sound like you would be interested in the work of Dr Thomas Seyfried PhD who has built a very strong case that cancer is a metabolic disease, originating from dysfunctional mitochondria. Biochemically plausible (that is my background) but gaining traction very slowly as his treatment protocol does not create the gusher of income/profit that the standard modes of treatment do. Short video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjdAtauO2cA
and longer video https://www.crossfit.com/essentials/seyfried-2018-health-conference-video
I listened to the short video. I am not good with medical terminology so it wasn't something that I understood but I am impressed by what he has discovered.
There is no man-made climate change. Air Pollution is a different story. The Washington Post is controlled by the CIA.
NASA - What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate?
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/whats-the-difference-between-weather-and-climate/
https://www.noaa.gov/explainers/what-s-difference-between-climate-and-weather
Urban areas make up only 3 percent of the entire land area of the country but are home to more than 80 percent of the population. Conversely, 97 percent of the country’s land mass is rural but only 19.3 percent of the population lives there.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/08/rural-america.html
Half The World's Population Lives on 1% of Its Land
https://www.sciencealert.com/half-the-world-s-population-lives-on-1-of-its-land
The Greenhouse Effect is caused primarily by Water vapor in the Troposphere and is the most powerful greenhouse gas.
The ocean plays a key role in this vital cycle of water. The ocean holds 97% of the total water on the planet; 78% of global precipitation occurs over the ocean, and it is the source of 86% of global evaporation.................
About 71 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered, and the oceans hold about 96.5 percent of all Earth's water.
Why? Releasing heat(IR) by evaporation by using water from the oceans, we call it weather and cooling.
https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/Observatorium_Feat_5-8.htmhttps://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Waterhttps://pmm.nasa.gov/education/water-cycle
education/water-cycle
https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-water-cycle
Carbon Cycle:
In reality, the earth's greenhouse effect is a good thing. If not for the greenhouse effect, earth's average surface temperature would be -18°C (Celsius), or -40°F (Fahrenheit). Instead, our planet exists at a livable 15°C, or 59°F. We need more CO2, not less.
CO2 is actually a planet-saving nutrient that could multiply food production rates and feed the world more nutritious, healthy plants and ecosystem
It is called the "carbon cycle" and "water cycle" of nature: Plants are a good starting point when looking at the carbon cycle on Earth. Plants have a process called "carbon cycle" and photosynthesis that enables them to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and combine it with water. Using the energy of the Sun, plants make sugars and oxygen molecules. In return plants exhale oxygen which allows you to breathe. We and the ecosystems need more C02, not less.
The reason why the CO2 atmosphere theory can never work is that the Ocean-atmosphere interface controls the amount of CO2 in air – a warmer ocean (which holds 50x more CO2 than the atmosphere) emits CO2 and vice versa. This is very basic physics*.
Taking a cold can of CO2 is actually a planet-saving nutrient that could multiply food production rates and feed the world more nutritious, healthy plants and ecosystems.Prove it to yourself at home - soda, place it on the table, if you let it warm up it will give off CO2.
The sea is a 'buffer' solution of many salts so anything added has even less effect.
There are other reasons why CO2 warmest theory must fail: a) the surface cooling effect of plants b) Non equilibrium thermodynamics in the atmosphere - i.e. the assumptions of the ‘theory’ are nonsense. *Henry's Law.
https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate/carbon-cyclehttps://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle
Growth with CO2:
Consider the carbon atom: without it, life as we know it wouldn’t exist. Together with hydrogen and oxygen, carbon is one of the literal building blocks of all life on Earth—including crops and the countless people who rely on them.
CO2 is a life-giving gas for plants, Commercial greenhouses are aware of this and commonly use CO2 generators(up to 1500ppm) to maximize production.
Several critical factors to keep in mind when pondering any big issue like "Climate Change":
The problem of groupthink; in this case, the academy, researchers, and many other professionals that at first glance might not seem involved: administrators, bureaucrats. In psychology this is called "cascade", it may have other similar names. In the worst case, all these people are cut from the same social, economic and intellectual cloth. They all went to the “right” universities. They know each other. They work in cloistered departments and see each other at specialist events geared to their industry. To over simply just a bit, they all think alike. They are, after all, the Elite who “know” that global warming is settled science and beyond dispute. Anyone who dares to challenge that dogma is viewed as a threat to their regime, their egos, their entire way of life. "Follow the money" explains much; entire careers and industries ride on the continuing trumpeting of (in this case) "Climate Change". At what point does the desire to get easy money trump impartial science?
There are numerous biases inherent in any such entity. For example, consider the dodgy usage of computer simulations. Despite all protestations to the contrary, the claims of impartiality and so forth, just how neutral are all those inputs of data into complex equations? How does one know that Programmer X hasn’t tweaked a formula, or data series, or section of code just enough to produce the “right” answer, you know, that everybody knows the Earth is warming, the seas are going to rise, and millions are going to die? This need not even be conscious intent; humans are influenced by unconscious/subconscious drives far more than they’d care to acknowledge.
These issues are difficult to quantify, yet they are hugely important in the operation, decision-making and opinions given by such institutions. They are extremely hard to defend against. And even when someone tries, there is institutional pushback against them.
It could just as easily be increased atmospheric water vapor caused by undersea thermal vents and undersea volcanic eruptions like Hunga Tonga. If the current accelerating geomagnetic excursion continues, we may have much more volcanic activity. The point is we just don’t know enough about our natural world to have conviction about future weather patterns. Conclusion? We are wasting tax payer dollars chasing solutions for problems we don’t understand.
So, the Federal unions are organizing against the Executive Branch. THIS is why I am against Public Sector Unions. It is the tool of Left (Socialists) who send their money to the DNC. It is a cancer that perpetuates itself.
There’s an undersea volcano that has exploded called something like the Honga Tunga Volcano. It is producing a lot of sea warming, which is affecting the weather a whole lot more than cow farts.
The climate has been changing for billions of years. Presently, we are in a 300-year warming period, which has nothing to do with human intervention. In the 1600s, there was a mini-ice age with global temperatures dropping and severe weather events. Long-term, we find that CO2 levels sometimes coincide with warming and sometimes it does not. The bottom line is that plants need CO2 to survive. More CO2 = more plants. In return, the plants produce oxygen for humans. When CO2 levels are high and it's warm, plants and humans flourish. It's a wonderful relationship. For more information about the invented Climate Crises, please check out my website: michaeljdorfman.com