http://www.huffingtonpost...government_b_4805748.html

- watsonnostaw

nice hoax

http://www.pressherald.co...ople-plants-species-rely/

The Belief That CO2 Can Regulate Climate Is “Sheer Absurdity” Says Prominent German Meteorologist
The Belief That CO2 Can Regulate Climate Is “Sheer Absurdity” Says Prominent German Meteorologist

By P Gosselin on 9. May 2012

Physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls was interviewed by Bettina Hahne-Waldscheck of the Swiss magazine “factum“.I’ve translated and summarized the interview, paraphrasing for brevity.

factum: You’ve been criticising the theory of man-made global warming for years. How did you become skeptical?

Puls: Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it. The CO2-climate hysteria in Germany is propagated by people who are in it for lots of money, attention and power.

factum: Is there really climate change?

Puls: Climate change is normal. There have always been phases of climate warming, many that even far exceeded the extent we see today. But there hasn’t been any warming since 1998. In fact the IPCC suppliers of data even show a slight cooling.

factum: The IPCC is projecting 0.2°C warming per decade, i.e. 2 to 4°C by the year 2100. What’s your view?

Puls: These are speculative model projections, so-called scenarios – and not prognoses. Because of climate’s high complexity, reliable prognoses just aren’t possible. Nature does what it wants, and not what the models present as prophesy. The entire CO2-debate is nonsense. Even if CO2 were doubled, the temperature would rise only 1°C. The remainder of the IPCC’s assumed warming is based purely on speculative amplification mechanisms. Even though CO2 has risen, there has been no warming in 13 years.

factum: How does sea level rise look?

Puls: Sea level rise has slowed down. Moreover, it has dropped a half centimeter over the last 2 years. It’s important to remember that mean sea level is a calculated magnitude, and not a measured one. There are a great number of factors that influence sea level, e.g. tectonic processes, continental shifting, wind currents, passats, volcanoes. Climate change is only one of ten factors.

factum: What have we measured at the North Sea?

Puls: In the last 400 years, sea level at the North Sea coast has risen about 1.40 meters. That’s about 35 centimeters per century. In the last 100 years, the North Sea has risen only 25 centimeters.

factum: Does the sea level rise have anything to do with the melting North Pole?

Puls: That’s a misleading conclusion. Even if the entire North Pole melted, there would be no sea level rise because of the principles of buoyancy.

factum: Is the melting of the glaciers in the Alps caused by global warming?

Puls: There are many factors at play. As one climbs a mountain, the temperature drops about 0.65°C per 100 meters. Over the last 100 years it has gotten about 0.75°C warmer and so the temperature boundary has shifted up about 100 meters. But observations tell us that also ice 1000 meters up and higher has melted. Clearly there are other reasons for this, namely soot and dust. But soot and dust do not only have anthropogenic origins; they are also caused by nature via volcanoes, dust storms and wildfires. Advancing and retreating of glaciers have always taken place throughout the Earth’s history. Glaciology studies clearly show that glaciers over the last 10,0000 years were smaller on average than today.

factum: In your view, melting Antarctic sea ice and the fracture of a huge iceberg 3 years ago are nothing to worry about?

Puls: To the contrary, the Antarctic ice cap has grown both in area and volume over the last 30 years, and temperature has declined. This 30-year trend is clear to see. The Amundsen Scott Station of the USA shows that temperature has been declining there since 1957. 90% of the Earth’s ice is stored in Antarctica, which is one and half times larger than Europe.

factum: Then why do we always read it is getting warmer down there?

Puls: Here they are only talking about the West Antarctic peninsula, which is where the big chunk of ice broke off in 2008 – from the Wilkins-Shelf. This area is hardly 1% of the entire area of Antarctica, but it is exposed to Southern Hemisphere west wind drift and some of the strongest storms on the planet.

factum: What causes such massive chunks of ice to break off?

Puls: There are lots of factors, among them the intensity of the west wind fluctuations. These west winds have intensified over the last 20 years as part of natural ocean and atmospheric cycles, and so it has gotten warmer on the west coast of the Antarctic peninsula. A second factor are the larger waves associated with the stronger storms. The waves are more powerful and so they break off more ice. All these causes are meteorological and physical, and have nothing to do with a climate catastrophe.

factum: Then such ice breaks had to have occurred in the past too?

Puls: This has been going on for thousands of years, also in the 1970s, back when all the talk was about “global cooling”. Back then there were breaks with ice chunks hundreds of square kilometres in area. People were even discussing the possibilities of towing these huge ice chunks to dry countries like South Africa or Namibia in order to use them as a drinking water supply.

factum: What about all the media photos of polar bears losing their ice?

Puls: That is one of the worst myths used for generating climate hysteria. Polar bears don’t eat ice, they eat seals. Polar bears go hungry if we shoot their food supply of seals. The polar bear population has increased with moderately rising temperatures, from 5000 50 years ago to 25,000 today.

factum: But it is true that unlike Antarctica, the Arctic is melting?

Puls: It has been melting for 30 years. That also happened twice already in the last 150 years. The low point was reached in 2007 and the ice has since begun to recover. There have always been phases of Arctic melting. Between 900 and 1300 Greenland was green on the edges and the Vikings settled there.

factum: And what do you say about the alleged expanding deserts?

Puls: That doesn”t exist. For example the Sahara is shrinking and has lost in the north an area as large as Germany over the last 20 years. The same is true in the South Sahara. The famine that struck Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia was mainly caused by the leasing of large swaths of land to large international corporations so that they could grow crops for biofuels for Europe, and by war. But it is much easier for prosperous Europe to blame the world’s political failures on a fictional climate catastrophe instead.

factum: So we don’t need to do anything against climate change?

Puls: There’s nothing we can do to stop it. Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob. Many confuse environmental protection with climate protection. it’s impossible to protect the climate, but we can protect the environment and our drinking water. On the debate concerning alternative energies, which is sensible, it is often driven by the irrational climate debate. One has nothing to do with the other.
- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2...ist/#sthash.XC8Qohts.dpuf

http://www.pressherald.co...ople-plants-species-rely/


wow

Canadian government hinders scientists from talking about climate change

http://www.pressherald.co...s-talking-climate-change/

Cancel the Paris Climate Summit
By Patrick J. Michaels
This article appeared in the Real Clear Policy on October 28, 2015.

At the end of November, representatives from the nations that signed the U.N.’s 1992 climate treaty will meet — for the 21st time — to implement the treaty’s stated goal of “prevent[ing] dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

There’s no need to meet. Nature and capitalism have already conspired to accomplish this.

Since the treaty was signed and adopted, U.N. climate czars have determined that a greenhouse-gas-induced warming of 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is the threshold at which climate change becomes dangerous. They also ruled that we’ve already raised the temperature 0.6 degrees Celsius since the mid-19th century.

That’s highly debatable, but let’s stipulate it. We can therefore accrue only 1.4 degrees Celsius more warming before we cross that threshold.

The U.N. estimates various amounts of total warming for what they call Representative Concentration Pathways of greenhouse gases, based upon what they used to call “storylines for economic development.” The highest pathway assumes that humanity will basically continue the same fuel mix of today through exponential economic growth. If the world were on that path, the U.N. says, total warming by 2100 would be about 4.5 degrees Celsius, far into their putative danger zone. A whopping 3.9 degrees Celsius of that will be in the remainder of this century, because of the 0.6 degrees Celsius we’ve already experienced.

(2100 is a nice but arbitrary endpoint. Energy-wise, no one has a clue what the world will look like then, so it’s useless to speculate beyond.)

But we clearly won’t be on this pathway. Cheap natural gas is ubiquitous in worldwide shale formations, and where markets have been allowed to act — darn those capitalists — it is rapidly displacing coal for electrical generation, the world’s biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions. It produces roughly half as much carbon dioxide per watt of electricity generated as coal.

That means we’re probably close to the U.N.’s next pathway, which entails a total of 2.8 degrees Celsius, or 2.2 degrees Celsius between now and 2100. But even this estimate is unrealistic.

All of the U.N.’s calculations are based upon an assumption about how sensitive surface temperatures are to atmospheric carbon dioxide — specifically, an estimate that doubling CO2 levels would increase surface temperatures by 3.2 degrees Celsius, which is almost certainly far too high. The U.N. itself admits that the true value could be anywhere from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius, and in the last five years, 20 separate experiments have been published in the scientific literature detailing an average sensitivity of 2.0 degrees. This is toward the low end of the U.N.’s range and almost 40 percent below 3.2 degrees, the number the calculations are based upon.

There’s very good reason to believe 2.0 degrees is closer to the truth, as atmospheric temperatures, measured both by satellites and weather balloons, show no significant warming in the last 21 years. When this year’s temperatures are finally in (which will no doubt be reported before the end of the year as fuel for the Paris hype), surface temperatures are likely to show a marginally significant warming in the past two decades, thanks in large part to the currently raging El Niño.

Consequently, the U.N.’s estimate of 2.2 degrees of warming between in this century has to get knocked down by a bit less than 40 percent. Add the resultant warming of 1.4 degrees Celsius to the 0.6 degrees Celsius the U.N. says has already happened, and the total warming to 2100 works out to a cool 2.0 degrees Celsius, or precisely the goal of the 1992 treaty.

Nature, by refusing to warm in the fashion assumed in the U.N.’s calculations, and capitalism, in the form of free markets selling shale-derived natural gas, have already done for us what the U.N. says we must do.

The decades-long climate kerfuffle is therefore over. The U.N. should cancel its Paris meeting.

*drives f-750 to Tim Horton's*

*drives f-750 to Tim Horton's*
- dt99999

please stop and pick me up 1000 lbs of freon and 10 cases of aqua net hairspray. ty.

*drives f-750 to Tim Horton's*
- dt99999

What about the role of CO2 and the UN conclusions that we are looking at a warming of up to 5 degrees over the next century? Now we are in the realm of agenda-driven science, rather than real science. The atmosphere is certainly a critical part of understanding the nature of our planet’s climate, and CO2 is part of the atmosphere. A very small part. It amounts to about 0.039 percent of the atmosphere. At sea level, out of a thousand molecules of dry air, about 780 are nitrogen and 210 are oxygen, and the remaining 10 are divided among 3.9 molecules of CO2 and trace amounts of other gases. The most important so-called greenhouse gas is water vapour, which accounts for about 97 percent of the greenhouse effect. The atmosphere is not a greenhouse, by the way; greenhouses are heated by trapped air rather than by radiation, but it is a term that has stuck. CO2 thus has a very small impact. And because that impact is geometric, its impact diminishes with greater concentration. Most of its effect is already present.

The case for CO2 as the driver of climate change is a theoretical one and depends on assumptions about forcings, feedbacks, and sensitivity. Do scientists have any evidence to back up claims about CO2’s long-term, catastrophic effect? The simple answer is no. They have models – increasingly sophisticated models but ones that are still quite crude and far from capturing physical reality. They still cannot model, for example, the role of clouds, probably the single most important factor in determining weather patterns. The greatest believers in CO2-driven climate change are climate modelers whose computers and programs gobble up huge amounts of money and who have learned that scary stories lead to ever more funding. At our expense. Governments have to date poured some $100 billion into climate change science and we have only scratched the surface of the issue.

And we should not forget that CO2 is critical to life on earth. It is the basis of plant life which in turn nurtures all other life. The increase in CO2 over the course of the 20th century is one of the underlying causes of the green revolution that has made it possible to feed the 6.5 billion people alive today.

read it all @ http://www.justottawa.com...e-by-michael-hart-article

What about the role of CO2 and the UN conclusions that we are looking at a warming of up to 5 degrees over the next century? Now we are in the realm of agenda-driven science, rather than real science. The atmosphere is certainly a critical part of understanding the nature of our planet’s climate, and CO2 is part of the atmosphere. A very small part. It amounts to about 0.039 percent of the atmosphere. At sea level, out of a thousand molecules of dry air, about 780 are nitrogen and 210 are oxygen, and the remaining 10 are divided among 3.9 molecules of CO2 and trace amounts of other gases. The most important so-called greenhouse gas is water vapour, which accounts for about 97 percent of the greenhouse effect. The atmosphere is not a greenhouse, by the way; greenhouses are heated by trapped air rather than by radiation, but it is a term that has stuck. CO2 thus has a very small impact. And because that impact is geometric, its impact diminishes with greater concentration. Most of its effect is already present.

The case for CO2 as the driver of climate change is a theoretical one and depends on assumptions about forcings, feedbacks, and sensitivity. Do scientists have any evidence to back up claims about CO2’s long-term, catastrophic effect? The simple answer is no. They have models – increasingly sophisticated models but ones that are still quite crude and far from capturing physical reality. They still cannot model, for example, the role of clouds, probably the single most important factor in determining weather patterns. The greatest believers in CO2-driven climate change are climate modelers whose computers and programs gobble up huge amounts of money and who have learned that scary stories lead to ever more funding. At our expense. Governments have to date poured some $100 billion into climate change science and we have only scratched the surface of the issue.

And we should not forget that CO2 is critical to life on earth. It is the basis of plant life which in turn nurtures all other life. The increase in CO2 over the course of the 20th century is one of the underlying causes of the green revolution that has made it possible to feed the 6.5 billion people alive today.

read it all @ http://www.justottawa.com...e-by-michael-hart-article
- D0PPELGANGER

OK lets build you a 99% CO2 air biodome that you can live in

Its not like your brain needs the oxygen anyways

OK lets build you a 99% CO2 air biodome that you can live in

Its not like your brain needs the oxygen anyways
- twiztedmike

lol

Germany’s Wind Power Disaster: the Perfect Lesson on How to Simultaneously Wreck an Economy & the Environment

http://stopthesethings.co...-economy-the-environment/

can you imagine being related to this person?

holy smokes what a fantastic bore.

can you imagine being related to this person?

holy smokes what a fantastic bore.
- kicksave856

probably but he's got his pals in the augello thread that keep him company once in a while. can't be all bad.

probably but he's got his pals in the augello thread that keep him company once in a while. can't be all bad.
- dt99999

lol

can you imagine being related to this person?

holy smokes what a fantastic bore.
- kicksave856

*hands out newspaper articles at family gatherings*

*hands out newspaper articles at family gatherings*
- BingoLady

lol

*hands out newspaper articles at family gatherings*
- BingoLady

Organic CO2 is the future

- D0PPELGANGER

what are farts considered?