Not clouds

[PotBelly Jim]

Jim, here's another thing for you to consider. Something unrelated yet corroborating with what's going on with the environment, the health of this planet.

It took all of human history from the dawn of the human age to 1800, for the human population to reach one billion.
124 years after that, to reach 2 billion.
33 years to reach 3 billion.
15 years to reach 4.
12 years to reach 5.
Another 12 years to reach 6.

And we are projected to reach 8 billion by 2024.

This coincides with the industrial revolution, and also with the spiking of the amount of carbon found, trapped in ice, in Antartica.

Do you not think that a difference of 7 billion people inhabiting this planet in the mere course of 200 years, has altered the ecosystem of this planet?

Yes that makes sense IMO. However, I have never really thought about it and have no way to quantify how many people are too many.

Regarding Antarctic ice cores and their CO2 levels: keep in mind that any ice core in the Antarctic is going to have much lower CO2 levels than say at the equator, or in the Greenland ice sheet. This is because CO2 tends to concentrate in much higher levels from around the equator to the extreme northern hemisphere. So an Antarctic ice core CO2 level of 300ppmv may actually indicate much higher concentrations of CO2 elsewhere in the atmosphere at the same time. If you wish to be as accurate as possible I would focus on northern hemisphere ice cores vice Antarctic. They don’t go back as far, but they go back far enough.

Impressive Jim.
And speaking of the IPCC, they happen to be in the news themselves today.....

"Saudi Arabia has successfully lobbied for a major climate change report to be scrubbed from international negotiations on limiting global temperature rise to 1.5C.
The Saudis led a loose coalition of oil-producing nations, including the US, Russia and Iran, that objected to the science behind the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The report emphasized the need to keep warming down to 1.5C as a matter of survival for many countries and called for drastic action to reach this goal, with the whole world needing to hit zero emissions by 2050.
However, as a result of the Saudi-led intervention, this landmark report was blocked from formal climate talks at Bonn this week. This will substantially weaken its influence on future policy.

The final UN report had just five watered-down paragraphs on IPCC findings, explaining that they were based on the “best science available” without including more concrete information on how countries should reduce emissions targets. "

https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...e-change-report-removed-un-bonn-a8979201.html

I’m not surprised. One of the best physics prof’s I ever had said that at some point, all this alarmism would settle down and politicians would move on to some other bugaboo. One might think that we are inevitably headed to destruction if that happens. I don’t. There’s too much potential to make money (patents, technologies etc.) and we’re going to see things coming online in the next 50 years that will make any concerns we have today seem rather ignorant and short-sighted…that’s the way it goes if you want a good laugh, look at all the dire predictions from the scientists on the first earth day...they will be doing the same thing to us 50 years from now.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[wrmickel1]

No offense, but you have listed a mere 71 individuals.

Dr. James Powell did an analysis of scholarly papers published in peer reviewed journals concerning climate change.

He analyzed 54,195 peer-reviewed literature concerning climate change, by an estimated 150,000 authors or scientists.

He found that 99.94% of these authors or scientists agreed that climate change was real.

The study can be found here:
The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters

Deducer

Nothing changed in millions of years, Period!

The only impact by people is garbage. Which could be burned and provide electricity.

Tell all your bought and paid for Science to take a Hike!

Babymick1

 

[somehiker]

Yes that makes sense IMO. However, I have never really thought about it and have no way to quantify how many people are too many.

Regarding Antarctic ice cores and their CO2 levels: keep in mind that any ice core in the Antarctic is going to have much lower CO2 levels than say at the equator, or in the Greenland ice sheet. This is because CO2 tends to concentrate in much higher levels from around the equator to the extreme northern hemisphere. So an Antarctic ice core CO2 level of 300ppmv may actually indicate much higher concentrations of CO2 elsewhere in the atmosphere at the same time. If you wish to be as accurate as possible I would focus on northern hemisphere ice cores vice Antarctic. They don’t go back as far, but they go back far enough.



I’m not surprised. One of the best physics prof’s I ever had said that at some point, all this alarmism would settle down and politicians would move on to some other bugaboo. One might think that we are inevitably headed to destruction if that happens. I don’t. There’s too much potential to make money (patents, technologies etc.) and we’re going to see things coming online in the next 50 years that will make any concerns we have today seem rather ignorant and short-sighted…that’s the way it goes if you want a good laugh, look at all the dire predictions from the scientists on the first earth day...they will be doing the same thing to us 50 years from now.

For those who weren't around, or too young to remember, here's an article about those scientific predictions made on the first earth day in 1970....... 18 spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year - AEI
Although I have been out of the loop for quite some time now, and I'm sure all of my former colleagues there are long retired, I would expect a few of them have had a chuckle over this as well, since this is where I was working in both the field and the lab in 1970 and 1971.
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/res...and-forests/great-lakes-forestry-centre/13459

 

[Oroblanco]

Something to consider.

Current estimate world population = 7.3 billion

Amount of CO2 gas exhaled by one human in one day = 500 liters

That is 3,650,000,000 liters of CO2 exhaled by humans per day.

It amounts to over 8 million tons (by mass) of CO2 being added to the atmosphere every single day. Now multiply that by 365 for a year to get an idea of the problem.

If you think that amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere daily is not having any effect, you are deluding yourself.

How is the fire progressing?

 

[somehiker]

Something to consider.

Current estimate world population = 7.3 billion

Amount of CO2 gas exhaled by one human in one day = 500 liters

That is 3,650,000,000 liters of CO2 exhaled by humans per day.

It amounts to over 8 million tons (by mass) of CO2 being added to the atmosphere every single day. Now multiply that by 365 for a year to get an idea of the problem.

If you think that amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere daily is not having any effect, you are deluding yourself.

How is the fire progressing?

That's a lot of plant food Roy. In fact, I've never seen my yard turn into a jungle at the rate it has these last few years.
It's nature's way of balancing it all out......CO2 vs O2
Overpopulation and the attendant resource depletion, has always been a contributing factor to environmental destruction in parts of the world, with birth rates at the top of that particular list of issues needing some form of action beyond what has already been done, but carbon taxes and/or the elimination of oil as an energy source isn't going to do it.
Maybe more of this...
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent...ilization-says-documentary-director-1.5118738 ... do you agree ?
In the western developed nations, I believe we are getting close to enacting similar laws.

 

[Mad Machinist]

https://www.iceagenow.info/mexico-hail-almost-7-ft-deep-stops-trailer-trucks-in-their-tracks-video/

If people understood just how cold the atmosphere has to be for something like this to happen, globull warming would be the least of their concerns.

 

[azdave35]

Not surprised. They haven't been in a war since 1979 and have put their money in all the right places. Since that time we've spent $14 trillion on being the "world's policeman" and getting pretty mired in the Middle East fighting in three countries, soon to be four. Doesn't leave much money for science and technology, does it?

the chinese also put a limit on how many kids they can have..2 is the limit if i remember right..we could use some of that here

 

[somehiker]

the chinese also put a limit on how many kids they can have..2 is the limit if i remember right..we could use some of that here

It'll never happen now Dave. Not with the changing voter demographics now underway.
For the Chinese, it was one child before, now two per couple.
A boy child was always considered more valuable, so infant girls were abandoned, left to die, even murdered back then. Never heard a peep from the feministas though. Same when ultrasound scans were used to give the yea or neh to abortions for the same reasons. And now, with the latest tech promising to allow a pregestational decision to be made, will they finally speak up ? Some might, but I'll bet if so, it will be mainly because of the nationality of the science team.

https://www.jpost.com/HEALTH-SCIENC...w-humans-to-choose-their-childrens-sex-594249

 

[azdave35]

It'll never happen now Dave. Not with the changing voter demographics now underway.

you may be correct on that

 

[wrmickel1]

Something to consider.

Current estimate world population = 7.3 billion

Amount of CO2 gas exhaled by one human in one day = 500 liters

That is 3,650,000,000 liters of CO2 exhaled by humans per day.

It amounts to over 8 million tons (by mass) of CO2 being added to the atmosphere every single day. Now multiply that by 365 for a year to get an idea of the problem.

If you think that amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere daily is not having any effect, you are deluding yourself.

How is the fire progressing?

Oro

Don’t leave out many other sources you got animal populations, active volcanos and fires and many more sources.
But you didn’t figure in one good lighting storm and rain converts to purification of the air. First Grade classes in the 60’s.

Common Sense is a way better approach, is there man made global warming, No.
Do we live under a forever expanding Star. Yes. It gets bigger everyday,
Common First Grade Sense tells everyone the plant would get hotter.

babymick1

 

[somehiker]

"How is the fire progressing?"

https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/6382/

80% contained

"Significant Events

Minimal Flanking Backing Creeping

Overnight precipitation and RH (relative humidity) recovery led to significant reduction in fire behavior. Minor isolated pockets within the interior of the fire continues to smolder, eliminating residual areas of unburned fuels. High temperatures with easterly winds continue to provide potential for fire spread."

 

[sdcfia]

Impressive Jim.
And speaking of the IPCC, they happen to be in the news themselves today.....

"Saudi Arabia has successfully lobbied for a major climate change report to be scrubbed from international negotiations on limiting global temperature rise to 1.5C.
The Saudis led a loose coalition of oil-producing nations, including the US, Russia and Iran, that objected to the science behind the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The report emphasized the need to keep warming down to 1.5C as a matter of survival for many countries and called for drastic action to reach this goal, with the whole world needing to hit zero emissions by 2050.
However, as a result of the Saudi-led intervention, this landmark report was blocked from formal climate talks at Bonn this week. This will substantially weaken its influence on future policy.

The final UN report had just five watered-down paragraphs on IPCC findings, explaining that they were based on the “best science available” without including more concrete information on how countries should reduce emissions targets. "

https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...e-change-report-removed-un-bonn-a8979201.html

Smoke and mirrors, media theater and general hysteria aside, remember this interesting article that wasn't on the 6:00 news? Things are seldom as they seem.

https://www.investors.com/politics/...mist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

 

[PotBelly Jim]

Smoke and mirrors, media theater and general hysteria aside, remember this interesting article that wasn't on the 6:00 news? Things are seldom as they seem.

https://www.investors.com/politics/...mist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

Great article. So good I want to quote from it in case people didn't see it:

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.
"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish -- because, as Edenhofer said, "in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

This is why we got out of the Paris Climate Accord. We all need to ask why our "media" wants us to believe this was good for us, wailed like Hitler was on the march again in the form of Trump, and never told us what the real goal was.

The "Ministry of Truth" at work...

 

[Mad Machinist]

Something to consider.

Current estimate world population = 7.3 billion

Amount of CO2 gas exhaled by one human in one day = 500 liters

That is 3,650,000,000 liters of CO2 exhaled by humans per day.

It amounts to over 8 million tons (by mass) of CO2 being added to the atmosphere every single day. Now multiply that by 365 for a year to get an idea of the problem.

If you think that amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere daily is not having any effect, you are deluding yourself.

How is the fire progressing?

If we are right, then the coming calamity will favor the strong , lucky, and well prepared.

With the estimated drop in food production around 40-50%, you can figure about the same mortality rate for the world's population from starvation. Figure in disease from malnutrition and the dead bodies all over and another 10-15% go bye bye. Throw in some revolutions from starving people and we could very well be looking at an extinction level event.

 

[somehiker]

Smoke and mirrors, media theater and general hysteria aside, remember this interesting article that wasn't on the 6:00 news? Things are seldom as they seem.

https://www.investors.com/politics/...mist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

There have been a few, and probably more slip ups.....remember Michael "hide the decline" Mann..... and outright defections among those who joined that circus when it first came to town. Mann of course was, if you recall, cleared of any fudgy fingered wrongdoing by several panels made up of his fellow travellers......it's not what he meant, you see .
So far though, I have avoided citing any source directly connected to "the enemies of socialism", Wall Street and the Oil Industry, in favor of information sites that will allow each of you to compare the numbers over time, and decide for yourselves.

 

[somehiker]

If we are right, then the coming calamity will favor the strong , lucky, and well prepared.

With the estimated drop in food production around 40-50%, you can figure about the same mortality rate for the world's population from starvation. Figure in disease from malnutrition and the dead bodies all over and another 10-15% go bye bye. Throw in some revolutions from starving people and we could very well be looking at an extinction level event.

What do you think might be the result of millions of farm workers from Mexico and Central American countries "migrating" to the US and Canada ? I expect it will hit those countries first, but will be blamed on AGW/Climate Change instead.
Unfettered by current laws, encouraged and even assisted in doing so by the same people who advocate "open borders" (applied only to N.America and EU of course), and with arable farmland and for the SW, even water becoming ever more scarce, what are we all headed toward?
Even when farmland and potential farmland does become available, as it frequently does when traditional "family farms" fail, it's quickly snapped up by Foreign Investor groups and Corporations. I suspect it won't be long, before we become wholly dependent on what factory farms produce, controlled and priced of course (like weed) by industry friendly politicos and gov't agencies.

 

[Oroblanco]

80% contained! Thanks Wayne!

 

[sdcfia]

What do you think might be the result of millions of farm workers from Mexico and Central American countries "migrating" to the US and Canada ? I expect it will hit those countries first, but will be blamed on AGW/Climate Change instead.
Unfettered by current laws, encouraged and even assisted in doing so by the same people who advocate "open borders" (applied only to N.America and EU of course), and with arable farmland and for the SW, even water becoming ever more scarce, what are we all headed toward?
Even when farmland and potential farmland does become available, as it frequently does when traditional "family farms" fail, it's quickly snapped up by Foreign Investor groups and Corporations. I suspect it won't be long, before we become wholly dependent on what factory farms produce, controlled and priced of course (like weed) by industry friendly politicos and gov't agencies.

There are alternative and independent media sources that are reporting on these things for those who want to examine content that may be contrary to the heavily funded narratives. This guy is one who has been encouraging folks for the past couple years to prepare for high food prices and other problems as the current sun cycle progresses into more unstable weather.

 

[Mad Machinist]

What do you think might be the result of millions of farm workers from Mexico and Central American countries "migrating" to the US and Canada ? I expect it will hit those countries first, but will be blamed on AGW/Climate Change instead.
Unfettered by current laws, encouraged and even assisted in doing so by the same people who advocate "open borders" (applied only to N.America and EU of course), and with arable farmland and for the SW, even water becoming ever more scarce, what are we all headed toward?
Even when farmland and potential farmland does become available, as it frequently does when traditional "family farms" fail, it's quickly snapped up by Foreign Investor groups and Corporations. I suspect it won't be long, before we become wholly dependent on what factory farms produce, controlled and priced of course (like weed) by industry friendly politicos and gov't agencies.

Believe it or not, most people could grow enough in a 32x60 high tunnel greenhouse. Heirloom seeds are still available and do not have the terminator gene in the so they will grow from saved seeds.

If we are right, then the northern hemisphere is going to get hit the worst. People will be leaving by the droves if they can. Cananda will become near inhabitable according to past records.

The desert southwest is going to become very wet. According to my research a warm Northern Atlantic causes the storm track to shift north and a cold North Atlantic makes the storm track shift south. The North Atlantic is showing signs of cooling now.

The tropical Pacific is so showing signs of cooling. The El Nino phenomenon is actually growing weaker due to lower sea surface temps and should soon shift to neutral or even La Nina conditions.

By all that I have seen, there should be a lag of a few years as water is one hell of a heat sink and it should be a little before it gives up enough heat to shift to a cold phase. But once it does, and if both the Pacific and the Atlantic shift into a cold phase, we are pretty much screwed. I don't know if even cheap fossil fuels will help most..

Gonna be rather short summers and long cold winters.

 

[deducer]

It's never hard to get someone to take part in a survey, sign a petition, or even to, as in the case of the many who have joined the AGW club, to publish something/anything to support what they have learned will govern their acceptance within the club and with that, their present and future income and status. In essence, their motives are actually no different than those who the left decry as being the spokesmen for or in the pocket of "Big Oil". Just how many of the associations on that list are advocating or lobbying for a shutdown of their own country's production of, or dependence on oil ? Have you a "list" for that as well ? And since, as I'm sure you must believe in the oft used mantra " the science is settled " as well, do you not agree that most of the funding that might be awarded to the "estimated 150,000 authors and scientists" for ongoing and future study of AGW, should be re-directed to other projects designed to mitigate the disasters they are convinced are coming. After all, a lot can be done with that money in the next fifty years or so that they claim is left for mankind.

Conspiracy.....no, not really as a plot hatched by a few muckety mucks sitting around a table in some boardroom....but more the result of how independents are so often viewed and treated by their so-called peers, who are merely marching in lockstep to the beat of the only band they are allowed to follow.


NOAA ? Since you mentioned it, they and NASA also publish temperature figures, charts and graphs online. It takes a bit of effort, since they usually lag a day or so behind the aviation metar reports, which you will have to save to a file in order to compare them later on with the NASA/NOAA numbers for any given day, but doing so may help you see why I have so little trust in these and most other IPCC signatory's conclusions and especially any "consensus" of 99.94%.

More examples for independent thinkers :

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/JAWF_Monitoring/Europe/temperature.shtml
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145249/heatwave-scorches-europe
Flight Utilities ? Metar/Taf Reader Online

What benefit is there in joining such a club?

What do you think is the intent behind shutting down our dependency on oil?

Speaking of funding or ringing the alarm on climate change, being pursued solely as a political agenda, you and the others on here might do well to remember that the current administration has yanked the plug on as many climate change research fundings as possible:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo.../trumps-budget-slashes-climate-change-funding
https://time.com/4703569/trump-budget-epa-climate-change/

and have even gone as far as placing muzzles on federal agencies from mentioning anything about global warming. So much that these agencies have developed alternate ways of continuing to speak out about global warming, including on twitter, some of which are:

@AltNatParkSer
@RogueNASA
@AltForestServ
@Alt_NASA @altUSEPA
@Alt_CDC
@AltHHS
@alt_fda
@Alt_NIH
@altusda
@ActualEPAFacts
@BadHombreNPS
@ungaggedEPA
@Alt_cdc


Despite the current administration's infringement on first amendment rights, scientists keep speaking out about global warming, even at risk of ostracism, losing their jobs, funding, et al.

Now, how is any of this political?