ClimateGate busts things wide open

[Doodoo]

Now its Canada. Meddling in another countries business while you haven't cleaning up the backyard in the US

Now if you want to take a piece of history regarding climate change and air pollution You can look up the acid rain affair from when the US had loads of coal burning steel mills on the east coast and with the predominant winds going form their to the forest/lake areas of Canada/USA they poisoned hundreds of lakes to the point no fish could survive due to the lower ph levels of the water
So there was a situation, manmade that was identified and changed for the better Manmade Pollution creating a change of the climate and treated
"The science is clear." But it's not clear -- other than the fact that climate changes." It was clear and yes the climate changed for the worst and was fixed

From 1983 "The Canadian Government has argued in recent years that the breadth of acid-rain pollution demanded urgent action, but the Reagan Administration has maintained that there is insufficient evidence to tie the death of lakes to the flow of pollutants from industrial plants."

In summarizing work on the USA first in cleaning up before going to the neighbors to complain

[Lone Star]

.

Another Alarmist Prediction That Didn't Happen

Source: John Kerry, Obama's Secretary of State

Other than Algore, John Kerry is probably at least a close second in being WRONG about mmcc.

Kerry spent quite a bit of time as Obama's head of the State Department spreading the mmcc propaganda. He called for raising taxes, sacrificing liberty to his big government and believing him no matter what to help save the Earth.

Like Oc-Co Loco claims that migrants are migrating because of mmcc, Kerry made the claim that mmcc caused the civil war in Syria. Kerry also blamed mmcc on ISIS forming and the flood of Muslims into the EU.

When John "Lurch" Kerry was in the US Senate, he predicted in 2009 that mmcc would cause the Arctic to be completely melted by 2013. And he quoted SCIENCE on this prediction. Kerry lambasted a fellow senator for being wrong on his contrary view to mmcc.

Kerry:

I wish he were really up to state-of-the-art with respect to the science on global climate change.

You have sea ice, which is melting at a rate that the Arctic Ocean now increasingly is exposed. In five years, scientists predict we will have the first ice-free Arctic summer.

That exposes more ocean to sunlight. Ocean is dark. It consumes more of the heat from the sunlight, which then accelerates the rate of the melting and warming, rather than the ice sheet and the snow that used to reflect it back up into the atmosphere.

We are now almost a full 6 years PAST the summer of 2013, and science professor Kerry was not just wrong, but DAMN WRONG.

Another climate alarmist prediction that didn't happen. Thank God that the US Senate didn't tax Americans more for this foolishness.

[Udon Map]

When John "Lurch" Kerry was in the US Senate, he predicted in 2009 that mmcc would cause the Arctic to be completely melted by 2013. And he quoted SCIENCE on this prediction. Kerry lambasted a fellow senator for being wrong on his contrary view to mmcc.

Kerry:

I wish he were really up to state-of-the-art with respect to the science on global climate change.

You have sea ice, which is melting at a rate that the Arctic Ocean now increasingly is exposed. In five years, scientists predict we will have the first ice-free Arctic summer.

That exposes more ocean to sunlight. Ocean is dark. It consumes more of the heat from the sunlight, which then accelerates the rate of the melting and warming, rather than the ice sheet and the snow that used to reflect it back up into the atmosphere.

We are now almost a full 6 years PAST the summer of 2013, and science professor Kerry was not just wrong, but DAMN WRONG.

Well, assuming that the Kerry quote is accurate (you didn't provide a source), it wasn't quite right; but he had the right idea. It's pretty much undisputed (photographic evidence is widely available on the internet) that there's much less ice in the Arctic now than there was, say, 20 years ago. So while there is still ice, the reduction is startling when you look at comparison satellite photos of then and now.

[Lone Star]

Well, assuming that the Kerry quote is accurate (you didn't provide a source) ...

Comments made on the floor of the US Senate during debate are in the US Senate record.

https://www.senate.gov/

[Lone Star]

.

Electric Cars have more CO2 and ICE vehicles

Source: Journal of Industrial Technology

The bad news for believers continues to mount. There never seems to be any breakthrough news about how believers will slow, stop or reverse what they claim is mmcc. The news is always that there is one more issue with their belief system.

It turns out that because of the energy used to produce the electric car, including the production of lithium batteries, the electric car begins with at least 40,000 miles of CO2 than an ICE car. The life cycle of the electric car will likely not be long enough to offer any CO2 savings since it begins in a very big CO2 hole to start.

The CO2 problem doesn't end there. The electric car will need to travel at least 80,000 miles before it breaks even when you also consider the electricity used to power the car. Add the time required to recharge the electric car, and another CO2 problem emerges.

The batteries in the electric car become less efficient over time. Car makers have admitted that the 73-mile range of a new electric car will drop by almost 30% after just 5 years. This statistic makes it even more difficult to ever get to that 80,000 mile threshold to break even on CO2 emissions.

The time spent by governments to bribe consumers to buy the cars hasn't worked either. The cars are expensive, the travel range is silly and recharging is a time-consuming nightmare.

And on the issue of recharging ... unless you can recharge your electric car from pure solar power, all the user is doing is shifting emissions from one source to another.

Believers fix the damage cost to the planet at about $4.75 per ton of man-made CO2. If you manage to live long enough to live through all the recharging and drive your electric beast for 100,000 miles, your total cost of saving the planet is only a few pennies more than $40.00 USD.

It's an extremely poor return on investment for the owner of the beast and for the planet. What a waste.

There never seems to be any breakthrough news about how believers will -- specifically -- slow, stop or reverse (by any measurable amount) what they claim is mmcc.

[Lone Star]

.

Dr. Thomas Sowell:

Would you bet your paycheck on a weather forecast for tomorrow? If not, then why should this country bet billions on global warming predictions that have even less foundation?

Dr. Sowell makes a great point. Weather forecasting over only 24 hours away or even a week away is imperfect.

Data models from believers and their alarmist predictions have not only been wrong, but there have been too many occurrences of data being manipulated. And we're supposed to trust these people?

How can any sane, reasonable person allow themselves to be convinced to throw hard-earned assets at a claim when there have been no specifics provided as to how to solve the problem?

[Udon Map]

Would you bet your paycheck on a weather forecast for tomorrow? If not, then why should this country bet billions on global warming predictions that have even less foundation?

Poor and inapposite analogy. Bet your paycheck and you're wrong, and you lose it.

"Bet" billions on the assumption that there is human-caused global warming which is detrimental to the planet and human life, the downside is that we'll spend a ton of money cleaning up the air, making energy production more efficient, etc., but the reason for doing so is a fallacy, and the expenditure will not have been necessary. Are you saying that without proof of global warming, those things are totally valueless and a complete waste of money? No benefit at all?

[hairyharry]

I hadn't realised that Harvard was such a poor university. Nor had I realised that Margaret Thatcher was so naive. Indeed, I had no idea Donald Trump was such an expert.

Climate Change The Facts is available on You Tube. Strongly suggest people watch it.

[yartims]

Global warming will cost £54 trillion MORE than previously thought because melting permafrost in the Arctic is releasing greenhouse gases, scientists claim

New models challenge previous assumptions about effects from Arctic warming
Melting permafrost, decreasing ice and snow cover will have complex effects
Thawing permafrost will release more warming carbon into the atmosphere
Meanwhile reduced ice and snow cover will reflect less sunlight back into space
Effects will add £19.3 trillion to climate change costs even under best scenario

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... ought.html

[TJ]

Many of the prowarmist comments ignore the fact that the solution to the alleged warming threat has been proposed multiple times. Present technology is capable of undertaking, implementing and maintaining the cooling globally. The cost has been estimated to be in the billions (perhaps ten billion), not trillions.

The proposed solution is simply to spray or otherwise inject aerosols into the proper level of our atmosphere. The results will be much the same as historic cooling caused by volcanic action, the partial blocking of sun light. If the cooling is ever found to be too much it can be reversed by ending aerosol spreading as gravity will eventually pull aerosols back to earth.

[GT93]

I think 747man is more likely to be the next pope than the preceding post be correct.

[TJ]

FYI

"New study examines practicality of spraying aerosols into the atmosphere to combat climate change
https://newatlas.com/spraying-aerosols- ... nge/57379/

Combating the effects of climate change by spraying aerosols into the atmosphere is a contentious topic, with many rightfully pointing out the risk of unintended side effects of such large-scale climatic intervention. But with the heads of so many governments around the world still firmly stuck in the sand on the realities of climate change, the prospect of increasingly desperate times calling for increasingly desperate measures becomes more and more conceivable. But putting aside the issues of should we or shouldn't we, or the prospects for success or failure, would such an approach even be practically achievable? A new study says yes.

"While we don't make any judgement about the desirability of SAI, we do show that a hypothetical deployment program starting 15 years from now, while both highly uncertain and ambitious, would be technically possible strictly from an engineering perspective," says Wagner. "It would also be remarkably inexpensive, at an average of around US$2 to 2.5 billion per year over the first 15 years."

The researchers point out that these calculations only include development and direct operating costs, not indirect costs associated with any monitoring or measuring of the impacts of such a program. The development costs also include the design and manufacture or an entirely new aircraft, despite previous studies claiming that, with some modifications, existing aircraft could do the job.

"It would indeed take an entirely new plane design to do SAI under reasonable albeit entirely hypothetical parameters. No existing aircraft has the combination of altitude and payload capabilities required."

The proposed aircraft would be equivalent in weight to a large narrow body passenger aircraft, but would need roughly double the wing area, double the thrust, and four engines instead of two, to achieve sustained flight at 20 km, as opposed to the roughly 10 km most airliners generally fly at. To carry a heavy, dense mass of molten sulphur matter instead of the large volume of space and air required for passenger aircraft, Smith says the fuselage of the hypothetical SAI plane would also need to be stubby and narrow.

The study estimates total development costs of such an aircraft would be less than $2 billion for the airframe, with an additional $350 million required to modify existing low-bypass engines. The program would start with a fleet of eight aircraft in the first year, increasing to just under 100 within 15 years. In the first year, just over 4,000 missions would be flown, rising at a rate of 4,000 a year to just over 60,000 annually by the 15th year.

Despite showing such a program is technically possible using today's technologies, and at a cost that would be within the reach of numerous countries, Wagner and Smith say there is little chance that a rogue state could secretly carry out such a project.

"No global SAI program of the scale and nature discussed here could reasonably expect to maintain secrecy," says Smith. "Even our hypothesized year one deployment program entails 4,000 flights at unusually high altitudes, by airliner-sized aircraft in multiple flight corridors in both hemispheres. This is far too much aviation activity to remain undetected, and once detected, such a program could be deterred."

So, with the study apparently showing the economic and engineering feasibility of SAI, the question is not could we, but should we, and would it actually work?"

[TJ]

NASA Declares Carbon Dioxide Is Greening The Earth

In direct contradiction to the scare stories about carbon dioxide being relentlessly pushed by the climate change alarmists, a scientific study published in Nature Climate Change and highlighted by NASA reveals that rising carbon dioxide levels are having a tremendously positive impact on the re-greening of planet Earth over the last three decades, with some regions experiencing over a 50% increase in plant life.

The study, entitled, “Greening of the Earth and its drivers,” used satellite data to track and map the expansion of green plant growth across the globe from 1982 – 2015. Published in 2016, this study found that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide causes “fertilization” of plant life, resulting in a remarkable acceleration of increased “greening” across every Earth continent. As the study abstract explains: We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area… Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend…

In other words, the planet is getting greener, and we have rising CO2 levels to thank for it, since rising CO2 accounts for about 70% of the increase in planet-wide greening, according to scientists. The more CO2 we release into the atmosphere, the more nutrients are available for plants, and the more rapidly the Earth is re-greened.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3746333/posts

[Sateeb]

Source: Infowars/Alex "Juice Cartons Make you gay" Jones. Well that's me convinced.

[tinpeeba]

‘Global Greening’ sounds good. In the long run it’s terrible:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/scie ... ening.html

Earth is getting greener. Here’s why that’s a problem:
https://grist.org/climate-energy/earth- ... a-problem/

[papafarang]

‘Global Greening’ sounds good. In the long run it’s terrible:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/scie ... ening.html

Earth is getting greener. Here’s why that’s a problem:
https://grist.org/climate-energy/earth- ... a-problem/

"plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time,”
meanwhile plants like bindweed and other unwanted weeds take up Co2 and thrive to outgrow local naturalized plants that cannot compete. we are going to see some plants become a menace and other plants diminish. Then of course these plants all eventually die and release even more Co2. Idiots that go on about it was much higher in the past ignore the fact that when it was higher the conditions for human evolution were non existent. we are here due to the climate became favorable for us to thrive. Then of course it's down to the scary part , feeding 7 billion people . food security is the real issue

[tamada]

NASA Declares Carbon Dioxide Is Greening The Earth

In direct contradiction to the scare stories about carbon dioxide being relentlessly pushed by the climate change alarmists, a scientific study published in Nature Climate Change and highlighted by NASA reveals that rising carbon dioxide levels are having a tremendously positive impact on the re-greening of planet Earth over the last three decades, with some regions experiencing over a 50% increase in plant life.

The study, entitled, “Greening of the Earth and its drivers,” used satellite data to track and map the expansion of green plant growth across the globe from 1982 – 2015. Published in 2016, this study found that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide causes “fertilization” of plant life, resulting in a remarkable acceleration of increased “greening” across every Earth continent. As the study abstract explains: We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area… Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend…

In other words, the planet is getting greener, and we have rising CO2 levels to thank for it, since rising CO2 accounts for about 70% of the increase in planet-wide greening, according to scientists. The more CO2 we release into the atmosphere, the more nutrients are available for plants, and the more rapidly the Earth is re-greened.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3746333/posts

Having spent the best part of 6 months on covert ops in the Burmese rice paddy and jungle, apart from the two, seasonal rice plantings, there's bugger all evidence of increased greening there. I have never seen more sparsely covered mountains in my life and the loggers, illegal and 'legal' light fires all over the place to clear safe paths for dragging even more logs from even remoter parts of the jungle.

[papafarang]

Yes thinking algae blooms killing off lakes must be good because it's green, here's a whacky idea. As a lot of marine life will die off perhaps we should just pollute the seas more, turn them green too. . strange how denialists who say man cannot change the climate jump on a NASA report on how the Co2 WE have pumped into the atmosphere and try to make out WE have changed the climate for the better
So for all you "plants reap the benefits of Co2" realise this , the plants cannot benefit just on Co2, they also will need more NPK, they also need more sunlight, and to top it off more fresh water

[Laan Yaa Mo]

One Canadian scientist, Bill Nye, is really angry with people who dispute evidence that the Earth is heating up, This usually mild-mannered crusader has a new edge, and he is really riled up. But, is he right?

'You idiots ... The planet's on f--ing fire!' Bill Nye's message to leaders stalling on climate change
'Grow the f--k up. You're not children anymore. I didn't mind explaining photosynthesis to you when you were 12. But you're adults now

Bill Nye frolicked in a ball pit to explain how the planet’s populations compete for resources. He took a chain saw to a loaf of bread, comparing it to Earth’s crust, and he was nearly blown away in a wind tunnel while shouting “science!”

But he’s talking about global warming now — and he’s in no mood to mess around.

“By the end of this century, if emissions keep rising, the average temperature on Earth could go up another four to eight degrees,” Nye said, appearing on a segment of HBO’s “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver” on Sunday.

The famously zany scientist and host of the PBS series “Bill Nye the Science Guy” then aimed a blowtorch at a globe to illustrate his argument: “What I’m saying is, the planet’s on f–ing fire,” Nye said.

Gone was the Nye of the ’90s, the man whose show was a middle school substitute teacher’s secret weapon. This was the Science Guy, circa 2019, delivering a sermon squared directly at the legions of Gen Xers and Millennials who were weaned on Nye’s brand of wacky pedagogy.

And he had a message for his erstwhile pupils, especially those who eventually became members of Congress.

“Grow the f–k up,” he said, injecting some more language that wouldn’t fly in public broadcasting. “You’re not children anymore. I didn’t mind explaining photosynthesis to you when you were 12. But you’re adults now, and this is an actual crisis, got it?”

Nye took to Oliver’s show to teach his audience about global warming and its possible solutions — namely, the Green New Deal and carbon pricing (in his words, “when something costs more, people buy less of it. Safety glasses off. That’s it.”).

Nye appeared to endorse Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s, D-N.Y., trademark legislation, telling lawmakers they needed to do something and chiding those who have said the proposal is too expensive. As he spoke into the camera, the globe continued to burn.

“There are a lot of things we could do to put it out,” he said. “Are any of them free? No, of course not. Nothing’s free, you idiots.”

His harsh tone surprised some – one viewer wrote on Twitter that he “just heard Bill Nye swear and it’s blowing my mind.” Another observed, “Global warming is so bad that it now has Bill Nye the Science Guy cursing us out to fix it.”

Even Oliver, as his show ended, gasped, “I think we’ve all broken Bill Nye.”

But for Nye, the man whom The Washnigton Post once dubbed “half mad professor, half Mr. Rogers,” the role of climate crusader is not a new one. In recent years, he has talked with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., about the dangers of man-made climate change and has debated Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, who questioned whether those dangers really exist.

In April 2017, he took the stage at the March for Science in Washington and declared that “science is for all,” the best antidote to anti-vaxxers and climate deniers alike.

“Our lawmakers must know that science serves every one of us,” he said then. “Every citizen of every nation in society. Science must shape policy. Science is universal. Science brings out the best in us. With an informed, optimistic view of the future, together we can – dare I say it – save the world!”

That month, he also debuted a new TV series with an equally urgent title: “Bill Nye Saves the World.” And judging by his turn on Oliver’s show, he’s willing to go to great lengths to get his message out – even if it takes some fire and fury.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/you ... ate-change

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Nye is, of course, American and not Canadian.