BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please
Page 1 ... 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
Solar Power Storage System

The concept involves setting up 1,200 mw of solar power units that will be used to power a 1,000 mw pumped power storage plant. This method will allow storage of energy in the form of gravitational potential energy of water, pumped from a reservoir at a lower level to one at a higher elevation. The solar generation capacity at the location will be used to run pumps which send the water to the upper reservoir. During periods of high electrical demand or during night when solar power may not be available, the stored water is released through turbines to produce electric power. This system increases revenue by selling more electricity during periods of peak demand, when electricity prices are at the highest level.

http://articles.economictimes....gy-fund-manish-gupta



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering

http://realclimatescience.com/...noaa-data-tampering/




 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Pete’s Rule: when denial gets harder, deniers deny harder.

Like Bruce Willis, johnny just keeps coming back with newer instalments…
Deny Hard
Deny Harder
Deny Hard with a Vengeance
Live Free or Deny Hard
A Good Day to Deny Hard


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The ocean “acidification” narrative that claims humans are gradually lowering pH levels in sea water with their CO2 emissions may rest on presumptions, hypotheticals, and confirmation bias — not robust, observational scientific evidence.



http://notrickszone.com/2016/1...sthash.OBZplFc5.dpbs



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
From wei et al 2015

4.3
Implications for the ocean acidification rate

The gradual increase in atmospheric co2 since the industrial era has caused a definitive decrease in ocean surface water ph and a trend toward ocean acidification.

deny harder johnny


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels.

Never stop questioning the status quo.

Bill


91 Buick Roadmaster wagon, GM 6.2 diesel conversion (gone but not forgotten
89 GMC 6.2 (Just got rid of the last pieces)
84 Mercedes 300D (gone to the great autobahn in the sky)
94 Cadillac Fleetwood (Sold before I could convert it)
 
Location: Manotick, Ontario Canada | Registered: July 02, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Tens of Thousands Of Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax
http://yournewswire.com/tens-o...imate-change-a-hoax/
30,000 scientists have come forward confirming that man-made climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the elite in order to make money.

Climate change proponents remain undeterred in their mission, ignoring numerous recent scientific findings indicating that there has been no warming trend at all for nearly two decades.

Al Gore’s dire predictions of the melting of polar ice on a massive scale have proved to be completely false. In fact, in 2014 – a year that was touted as being “the hottest ever” in the Earth’s history – there were record amounts of ice reported in Antarctica, an increase in Arctic ice, and record snowfalls across the globe.

Debunking the “97 percent” lie

On top of those “inconvenient truths,” the White House’s assertion that 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is real has been completely debunked. Several independently-researched examinations of the literature used to support the “97 percent” statement found that the conclusions were cherry-picked and misleading.

More objective surveys have revealed that there is a far greater diversity of opinion among scientists than the global warming crowd would like for you to believe.

From the National Review:

“A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased.”

Other mainstream news sources besides the National Review have also been courageous enough to speak out against the global warming propaganda – even the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece in 2015 challenging the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) pseudoscience being promulgated by global warming proponents.

And, of course, there are the more than 31,000 American scientists (to date) who have signed a petition challenging the climate change narrative and 9,029 of them hold PhDs in their respective fields. But hey, Al Gore and his cronies have also ignored that inconvenient truth, as well.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Hi Mike,
More crapolla I see Smile


quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
Tens of Thousands Of Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax
http://yournewswire.com/tens-o...imate-change-a-hoax/
30,000 scientists have come forward confirming that man-made climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the elite in order to make money.
Tens of thousands you say!!
30,000 scientists!!! truely amazing- at first look.
Then you notice that this survey considered anyone with a BSc. or higher a Scientist.
Very few of these scientists were climate scientists.

But still, 30,000 is a lot of people- isn't it.
In fact, OISM signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S)

According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year.
32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.






 
Location: ลึก ประเทศอินเดีย | Registered: March 03, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The constancy of change and the new catastrophism: a personal reflection on crisis-driven science
by Nick Eyles and Andrew D. Miall – Department of Earth Sciences, University of Toronto
https://speakingofgeoscience.o...isis-driven-science/

In 2010, we published what is now a best-selling (and award-winning) book Canada Rocks-The Geologic Journey aimed at telling the dramatic story for a public audience of how Canada (and North America) has evolved over the last 4 billion years. It was a milestone in our professional and personal lives as we went on many field trips to fill in gaps in our own understanding and in the process stepped well beyond our own areas of expertise. We learned much about this fantastic country and its geology.

What is patently obvious from reviewing Canada’s ancient history is that scientists still do not have an adequate understanding of Earth’s complex systems on which to base sound economic and environmental policy. From the upper reaches of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans onwards to the deep interior of the planet our knowledge of complex earth systems is still rather rudimentary. Huge areas of our planet are inaccessible and are little known scientifically. There is still also much to learn from reading the rock record of how our planet functioned in the past.

In so many areas, we simply don’t know enough of how our planet functions.

And yet……

Scarcely a day goes past without some group declaring the next global environmental crisis; we seemingly stagger from one widely proclaimed crisis to another each one (so we are told) with the potential to severely curtail or extinguish civilization as we know it. It’s an all too familiar story often told by scientists who cross over into advocacy and often with the scarcely-hidden sub-text that they are the only ones with the messianic foresight to see the problem and create a solution. Much of our science is what we would call ‘crisis-driven’ where funding, politics and the media are all intertwined and inseparable generating a corrupting and highly corrosive influence on the scientific method and its students. If it doesn’t bleed it doesn’t lead is the new yardstick with which to measure the overall significance of research.

Charles Darwin ushered in a new era of thinking where change was expected and necessary. Our species as are all others, is the product of ongoing environmental change and adaption to varying conditions; the constancy of change. In the last 15 years or so however, we have seemingly reverted to a pre-Darwinian mode of a fixed ‘immutable Earth’ where any change beyond some sort of ‘norm’ is seen in some quarters as unnatural, threatening and due to our activities, usually with the proviso of needing ‘to act now to save the planet.’ Honest scientific discourse and debate is often rendered impossible in the face of the ‘new catastrophism.’

Trained as geologists in the knowledge of Earth’s immensely long and complex history we appreciate that environmental change is normal. For example, rivers and coastlines are not static. Those coasts, in particular, that consist of sandy strand-plains and barrier-lagoon systems are continually evolving as sand is moved by the waves and tides. Cyclonic storms (hurricanes), a normal component of the weather in many parts of the world, are particularly likely to cause severe erosion. When recent events such as Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy cause catastrophic damage, and spring storms cause massive flooding in Calgary or down the Mississippi valley, and droughts and wildfires affect large areas of the American SW these events are blamed on a supposed increase in the severity of extreme weather events brought about by climate change. In fact, they just reflect the working of statistical probability and long term climate cyclicity. Such events have happened in the past as part of ongoing changes in climate but affected fewer people. That the costs of weather and climate-related damage today are far greater is not because of an increased frequency of severe weather but the result of humans insisting on congregating and living in places that, while attractive, such as floodplains, mountain sides and beautiful coastlines, are especially vulnerable to natural disasters. Promises of a more ‘stable future’ if we can only prevent climate change are hopelessly misguided and raise unnatural expectations by being willfully ignorant of the natural workings of the planet. Climate change is the major issue for which more geological input dealing with the history of past climates would contribute to a deeper understanding of the nature of change and what we might expect in the future. The past climate record suggests in fact that for much of the Earth’s surface future cooling is the norm. Without natural climate change Canada would be buried under ice 3 km thick; that is it normal state for most of the last 2.5 million years with 100,000 years-long ice ages alternating with brief, short-lived interglacials such as the present which is close to its end.

It is self-evident to us that the public debate concerning environmental change largely lacks an understanding of natural variability. Since the last Ice Age ended, some 12,000 years ago, Earth has been through several periods lasting hundreds of years and possibly longer when it was either warmer or colder than at present. Several earth scientists have suggested that a study of natural variability over recent geologic time should be completed in order to provide a baseline against which anthropogenic change may be evaluated, but this important history has not been introduced fully into the public debate, and is a long way off. It has to be said that the natural variability of the last few thousand years or hundreds of years or tens of years has formed almost no part in the ongoing discussion of climate change which in some circles assumes that any change since 1940 is largely man-made. This opinion is uninformed by geologic science.

The way forward it strikes us is for more scientific honesty and less politics, less grandstanding. ‘We don’t know’ is an honourable credo for scientists. In this regard, we need more science to be directed to the environment, particularly toward better planning of the world’s communities to make them more resilient in the face of change. And it is an increasingly urban face that our planet presents. The many large supercities of the rapidly-approaching future world will be absolutely massive consumers of resources and producers of wastes; they will be the biggest determinants of our global environmental footprint; and it is surely there that much of our effort should be spent. Today, the rate of change of some parts of the world, especially in regard to urbanization and the ‘rush to the city’ is taxing our abilities simply to map and assess the environmental repercussions of transforming a natural environment to a built landscape. There is no simple technological fix either. Satellite and other monitoring data for example still has to be collected, interpreted, ground truthed, and acted on; steps available only to wealthier countries. In large areas of the planet the lack of human and financial resources, equality and personal freedoms and political choices trump any global environmental concerns and hobble international co-operation. To these people our obsession with saving the environment must ring hollow. The onus here is on the wealthiest nations with the largest scientific academies to put forward credible notions of how our planet is changing and to discuss the possible origins in an intellectual environment where data gaps are fully acknowledged free of catastrophic overtones.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The 10 Dumbest Things Ever Said About Global Warming
The most egregious myths, misconceptions and flat-out lies about the future of the planet


Dumb Climate denier thing number 1;
1. Carbon dioxide "literally cannot cause global warming."

People have tried to deny climate science in a lot of ways, but it's hard to beat a complete rejection of well-established atmospheric physics.
Joe Bastardi, a meteorologist appearing on Fox News, argued that CO2 "literally" cannot cause warming because it doesn't "mix well in the atmosphere" (it does).
He's also claimed that warming would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. (In fact, global warming has nothing to do with newly created energy, but with the atmosphere trapping energy that's already around.)

My goodness, our Mikey would fit right into this category!!






 
Location: ลึก ประเทศอินเดีย | Registered: March 03, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Scott Adams' Blog: The Illusion of Knowledge....
an interesting “take” on climate change debate…

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...llusion-of-knowledge

quote:
“I don’t know the underlying truth of climate science. But I do know a lot about persuasion. And I can say with complete confidence that if you are a non-scientist, and you have certainty about your opinion on climate science, you are hallucinating about the capacity of your own brain.”

"If I were the one experiencing confirmation bias in this situation, my perception would be that one side of the debate was solid and the other was rubbish, no matter what facts I observed. And I would also be under the illusion that my non-scientist brain can use its “common sense” to evaluate the credibility of experts in the field. Your brain doesn’t have that feature. What you do have is an illusion that makes you think your brain has that feature."


The non-scientist trolls that frequent this discussion are ample proof of that, and no doubt at least one of them will jump-up, roll-over, and prove it again.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The 10 Dumbest Things Ever Said About Global Warming
The most egregious myths, misconceptions and flat-out lies about the future of the planet

Dumb statement #2
2. "Snow skiing will be hurt – but water skiing will benefit."

In 1990, as the world was beginning to grapple with the devastating predictions of climate models, a Yale economist set out to determine how much was a reasonable amount to spend on combating the problem. Not that much, he concluded, since "Humans thrive in a wide variety of climate zones.
Cities are increasingly climate-proofed by technological changes like air-conditioning and shopping malls." Further, he argued, the hardest-hit sectors – like, say, agriculture – are relatively small parts of the economy anyway.
And economic growth in other sectors could compensate: "Snow skiing will be hurt – but water skiing will benefit." How reassuring!






 
Location: ลึก ประเทศอินเดีย | Registered: March 03, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
The Great Global Warming Swindle
https://youtu.be/D-m09lKtYT4



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The 10 Dumbest Things Ever Said About Global Warming
The most egregious myths, misconceptions and flat-out lies about the future of the planet

3. "We must demand that more coal be burned to save the Earth from global cooling."

The "global cooling" myth is another favorite of climate deniers, despite broad scientific consensus that the planet is in fact warming.
But it's got to be an especially appealing fiction when you're the CEO of a coal company – this statement is from a tweet by Don Blankenship, then the head of Massey Energy.


This one is right up Mikeys alley!
He is continually warning us that another ice age has started!!






 
Location: ลึก ประเทศอินเดีย | Registered: March 03, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:
The Great Global Warming Swindle
https://youtu.be/D-m09lKtYT4


Far better analysis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

Bill


91 Buick Roadmaster wagon, GM 6.2 diesel conversion (gone but not forgotten
89 GMC 6.2 (Just got rid of the last pieces)
84 Mercedes 300D (gone to the great autobahn in the sky)
94 Cadillac Fleetwood (Sold before I could convert it)
 
Location: Manotick, Ontario Canada | Registered: July 02, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The 10 Dumbest Things Ever Said About Global Warming
The most egregious myths, misconceptions and flat-out lies about the future of the planet

4. Climate change is impossible because "God's still up there."

In 2012, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) contended that acceptance of climate science was at odds with Christianity – never mind that many Christian leaders and institutions take climate change very seriously. "My point is, God's still up there," he told Voice of Christian Youth America. "The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."

A close runner-up in this category: In 2009, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Illinois) cited God's post-flood promise to Noah as evidence we shouldn't be worried. "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over," he declared. "Man will not destroy this Earth." Well, that must be nice to know.


Now this is really right up Mikeys alley!






 
Location: ลึก ประเทศอินเดีย | Registered: March 03, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
"Earth is the same temperature as 25 years ago. All temperature variations since then are artifacts of El Nino and volcanic eruptions.

Global warming is the biggest fraud in science history. The Earth is not warming."

http://realclimatescience.com/...arming-for-25-years/



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bill McD:
Far better analysis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4
Bill


"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." ... "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."
-- George Carlin



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Plants encouraged as CO2 levels reach 400 ppm

Dr. Tim Ball - writing on behalf of the plants.

All life on Earth exists because of CO2. It is essential to flora, which then produce oxygen essential to fauna. Gore and others claim current levels are the highest ever. Others modify that claim arguing it is the highest in 650,000 years. That figure is convenient because it sounds like a long time. The levels are based Antarctic ice core data, which are clearly created artificially low to achieve the slope necessary for the political agenda against post-industrial CO2.

The longer geologic record produced by Scotese and Bernier (Figure 1) shows that for most of Earth’s history the level was well above the current level. The only time when levels were commensurate with today was from 315 million years ago (mya) to 270 mya, yet for over half of that period temperature was similar to today.

Most plants, especially the complex vascular plants evolved in the last 300 million years. The average level of atmospheric CO2 over that period was approximately 1200 ppm.



https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...evels-reach-400-ppm/



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ Climate Data Fraud
http://principia-scientific.or...-climate-data-fraud/
by P Gosselin, notrickszone.com

Veteran award-winning journalist Günter Ederer reports of a shocking new global warming data fraud in NASA’s global temperature data series, as relied on by the UN and government climate scientists. NASA FRAUD The data has been carefully analysed by a respected data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert and is being made publicly available for independent verification.

Professor Ewert’s findings seem to show NASA has intentionally and systematically rigged the official government record of global temperatures to show recent global warming where none would exist without the upwards ‘revisions.’



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 177 178 179 180 181 182 183  
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014