Yesterday evening, I was invited onto TNT Radio’s Chris Smith Show in order to explain why COVID and Global Warming have more to do with behavioral modification than science followed by a discussion about Trump's skipping the upcoming debates, Tucker's departure from Fox and RFK jr.
The fact is, The truth is, there has been global warming recently – but it started around the time of the Revolutionary war, and today we are still BELOW the average of the past 3,000 years. And this is not just for Europe, Greenland and North America, yet another red herring that has recently been thrown out by the desperate global warmers. The universality of the Viking and Mediaeval climatic optimums is written about by Kegwin, who wrote in Science, 1996:274:1504-1508, https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.274.5292.1504 the mean surface temp of the Sargasso Sea (which lies roughly between the West Indies and the Azores), which was obtained by readings of isotope ratios in marine organism remains in sediment, shows we are, today, below the three thousand year average, and far below the Medieval Climatic Optimum, albeit far above the LIA. Civil Defense Perspectives, Mar. 2007, Vol. 23, #3, p. 1, notes that evidence for this climatic optimum has been found in all but 2 out of 103 locations where it was examined for, including Asia, Africa, South America and the western U.S. The graph of temperature in the Sargasso Sea tells you all you need to know (note: that big horizontal line running across the page is the 3,000 year average!), Interestingly, the warmer times coincided not only with the best harvests, but also the least amount of major storm activity.
And per Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, http://www.theenergyreport.com/pub/na/11079 and whose boat I have personally been on in Vancouver Harbour in the 1980s. “I am a skeptic on climate change. I know the climate is changing, and it always has been. I've studied this intensively over many years. I started what I call the Carbon Project here in British Columbia back in 1989 in order to bring everybody together to discuss this subject and figure out the facts behind it. Since then, I have watched as hysteria has grown, as if the whole world is going to come to an end and civilization is going to die because of humans causing this climate change. I don't buy that, and I certainly know we don't have any proof of it. I'm not denying that we might be playing some role, but the natural factors that have always caused climate change have not suddenly disappeared. I'm very skeptical of the alarmist nature of climate campaigning.”
As the late founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman (who has called AGW "a scam" ) who also was at KUSI.com noted about forcing, or runaway global warming phenomenon at http://www.kusi.com/story/14072205/global-warming noting “It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb any more heat than there is available to the other gases. This is against the laws of thermodynamics. All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions. That's why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume.• Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html.” As evidence, the article cites Venus and Mars, that have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%), yet have no runaway global warming, as well as noting that in the past the Earth has had CO2 concentrations hundreds of times higher, yet there were ice ages at the same time.
I'm only responding to your title. When humans cut down forests and expose the soil to the energy from the sun this produces more warming. And above 32F ice melts. I'm not sure how much more delusional you idiots can spin this as not being a universal truth, but am damn sure you will keep trying caught up in a mass formation to oppose a mass formation that uses this effect to impose tyranny.
Your reasoning that barren soil results in global warming suggests that inreasing plant growth by raising CO2 levels would be an efficatious way of combatting rising global average surface temperature.
No. There are many influences, varying variables. I hold an equal amount of disdain for anyone predicting a warming or cooling or stability, none of these morons know what will happen climate wise, nor know the influences in the future.
The fact is, The truth is, there has been global warming recently – but it started around the time of the Revolutionary war, and today we are still BELOW the average of the past 3,000 years. And this is not just for Europe, Greenland and North America, yet another red herring that has recently been thrown out by the desperate global warmers. The universality of the Viking and Mediaeval climatic optimums is written about by Kegwin, who wrote in Science, 1996:274:1504-1508, https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.274.5292.1504 the mean surface temp of the Sargasso Sea (which lies roughly between the West Indies and the Azores), which was obtained by readings of isotope ratios in marine organism remains in sediment, shows we are, today, below the three thousand year average, and far below the Medieval Climatic Optimum, albeit far above the LIA. Civil Defense Perspectives, Mar. 2007, Vol. 23, #3, p. 1, notes that evidence for this climatic optimum has been found in all but 2 out of 103 locations where it was examined for, including Asia, Africa, South America and the western U.S. The graph of temperature in the Sargasso Sea tells you all you need to know (note: that big horizontal line running across the page is the 3,000 year average!), Interestingly, the warmer times coincided not only with the best harvests, but also the least amount of major storm activity.
And per Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, http://www.theenergyreport.com/pub/na/11079 and whose boat I have personally been on in Vancouver Harbour in the 1980s. “I am a skeptic on climate change. I know the climate is changing, and it always has been. I've studied this intensively over many years. I started what I call the Carbon Project here in British Columbia back in 1989 in order to bring everybody together to discuss this subject and figure out the facts behind it. Since then, I have watched as hysteria has grown, as if the whole world is going to come to an end and civilization is going to die because of humans causing this climate change. I don't buy that, and I certainly know we don't have any proof of it. I'm not denying that we might be playing some role, but the natural factors that have always caused climate change have not suddenly disappeared. I'm very skeptical of the alarmist nature of climate campaigning.”
As the late founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman (who has called AGW "a scam" ) who also was at KUSI.com noted about forcing, or runaway global warming phenomenon at http://www.kusi.com/story/14072205/global-warming noting “It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb any more heat than there is available to the other gases. This is against the laws of thermodynamics. All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions. That's why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume.• Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html.” As evidence, the article cites Venus and Mars, that have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%), yet have no runaway global warming, as well as noting that in the past the Earth has had CO2 concentrations hundreds of times higher, yet there were ice ages at the same time.
Sorry, but you AGW warmers - too dense to have learned anything from Climategate, are the mass formationed... then then you double down on your mental instability by engaging in your typical enantiodromioa
I have ZERO time for the intellectually dishonest leftists pushing the AGW scam; this was all outed years ago in the ClimateGate revelations... only these types are too stupid to even know what that is.
You are jumping the string. Here is my comment: When humans cut down forests and expose the soil to the energy from the sun this produces more warming. And above 32F ice melts. Where in this do you come off on such a long boring diatribe ending with calling me out as a AGW?
Ok then. No big deal. I don't think science is about facts, matter-of-facts, there just aren't very many of discussed, like those I mentioned, certainly any scientific findings are about measurements, and measuring skews the findings.
The fact is, The truth is, there has been global warming recently – but it started around the time of the Revolutionary war, and today we are still BELOW the average of the past 3,000 years. And this is not just for Europe, Greenland and North America, yet another red herring that has recently been thrown out by the desperate global warmers. The universality of the Viking and Mediaeval climatic optimums is written about by Kegwin, who wrote in Science, 1996:274:1504-1508, https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.274.5292.1504 the mean surface temp of the Sargasso Sea (which lies roughly between the West Indies and the Azores), which was obtained by readings of isotope ratios in marine organism remains in sediment, shows we are, today, below the three thousand year average, and far below the Medieval Climatic Optimum, albeit far above the LIA. Civil Defense Perspectives, Mar. 2007, Vol. 23, #3, p. 1, notes that evidence for this climatic optimum has been found in all but 2 out of 103 locations where it was examined for, including Asia, Africa, South America and the western U.S. The graph of temperature in the Sargasso Sea tells you all you need to know (note: that big horizontal line running across the page is the 3,000 year average!), Interestingly, the warmer times coincided not only with the best harvests, but also the least amount of major storm activity.
Or let’s put it another way, from the Dansgaard & Johnson study, here on ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Average-near-surface-temperatures-of-the-northern-hemisphere-during-the-past-11000-years_fig5_313127868 - which shows the same thing.
Fact is, WE ARE BELOW THE 3000 year ave temp.
And per Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, http://www.theenergyreport.com/pub/na/11079 and whose boat I have personally been on in Vancouver Harbour in the 1980s. “I am a skeptic on climate change. I know the climate is changing, and it always has been. I've studied this intensively over many years. I started what I call the Carbon Project here in British Columbia back in 1989 in order to bring everybody together to discuss this subject and figure out the facts behind it. Since then, I have watched as hysteria has grown, as if the whole world is going to come to an end and civilization is going to die because of humans causing this climate change. I don't buy that, and I certainly know we don't have any proof of it. I'm not denying that we might be playing some role, but the natural factors that have always caused climate change have not suddenly disappeared. I'm very skeptical of the alarmist nature of climate campaigning.”
As the late founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman (who has called AGW "a scam" ) who also was at KUSI.com noted about forcing, or runaway global warming phenomenon at http://www.kusi.com/story/14072205/global-warming noting “It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb any more heat than there is available to the other gases. This is against the laws of thermodynamics. All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions. That's why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume.• Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html.” As evidence, the article cites Venus and Mars, that have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%), yet have no runaway global warming, as well as noting that in the past the Earth has had CO2 concentrations hundreds of times higher, yet there were ice ages at the same time.
I'm only responding to your title. When humans cut down forests and expose the soil to the energy from the sun this produces more warming. And above 32F ice melts. I'm not sure how much more delusional you idiots can spin this as not being a universal truth, but am damn sure you will keep trying caught up in a mass formation to oppose a mass formation that uses this effect to impose tyranny.
Your reasoning that barren soil results in global warming suggests that inreasing plant growth by raising CO2 levels would be an efficatious way of combatting rising global average surface temperature.
No. There are many influences, varying variables. I hold an equal amount of disdain for anyone predicting a warming or cooling or stability, none of these morons know what will happen climate wise, nor know the influences in the future.
I stand by my statement.
The fact is, The truth is, there has been global warming recently – but it started around the time of the Revolutionary war, and today we are still BELOW the average of the past 3,000 years. And this is not just for Europe, Greenland and North America, yet another red herring that has recently been thrown out by the desperate global warmers. The universality of the Viking and Mediaeval climatic optimums is written about by Kegwin, who wrote in Science, 1996:274:1504-1508, https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.274.5292.1504 the mean surface temp of the Sargasso Sea (which lies roughly between the West Indies and the Azores), which was obtained by readings of isotope ratios in marine organism remains in sediment, shows we are, today, below the three thousand year average, and far below the Medieval Climatic Optimum, albeit far above the LIA. Civil Defense Perspectives, Mar. 2007, Vol. 23, #3, p. 1, notes that evidence for this climatic optimum has been found in all but 2 out of 103 locations where it was examined for, including Asia, Africa, South America and the western U.S. The graph of temperature in the Sargasso Sea tells you all you need to know (note: that big horizontal line running across the page is the 3,000 year average!), Interestingly, the warmer times coincided not only with the best harvests, but also the least amount of major storm activity.
Or let’s put it another way, from the Dansgaard & Johnson study, here on ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Average-near-surface-temperatures-of-the-northern-hemisphere-during-the-past-11000-years_fig5_313127868 - which shows the same thing.
Fact is, WE ARE BELOW THE 3000 year ave temp.
And per Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, http://www.theenergyreport.com/pub/na/11079 and whose boat I have personally been on in Vancouver Harbour in the 1980s. “I am a skeptic on climate change. I know the climate is changing, and it always has been. I've studied this intensively over many years. I started what I call the Carbon Project here in British Columbia back in 1989 in order to bring everybody together to discuss this subject and figure out the facts behind it. Since then, I have watched as hysteria has grown, as if the whole world is going to come to an end and civilization is going to die because of humans causing this climate change. I don't buy that, and I certainly know we don't have any proof of it. I'm not denying that we might be playing some role, but the natural factors that have always caused climate change have not suddenly disappeared. I'm very skeptical of the alarmist nature of climate campaigning.”
As the late founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman (who has called AGW "a scam" ) who also was at KUSI.com noted about forcing, or runaway global warming phenomenon at http://www.kusi.com/story/14072205/global-warming noting “It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb any more heat than there is available to the other gases. This is against the laws of thermodynamics. All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions. That's why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume.• Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html.” As evidence, the article cites Venus and Mars, that have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%), yet have no runaway global warming, as well as noting that in the past the Earth has had CO2 concentrations hundreds of times higher, yet there were ice ages at the same time.
Sorry, but you AGW warmers - too dense to have learned anything from Climategate, are the mass formationed... then then you double down on your mental instability by engaging in your typical enantiodromioa
I have ZERO time for the intellectually dishonest leftists pushing the AGW scam; this was all outed years ago in the ClimateGate revelations... only these types are too stupid to even know what that is.
Anyone resorting to childish name calling has nothing else to offer intellectually.
You are jumping the string. Here is my comment: When humans cut down forests and expose the soil to the energy from the sun this produces more warming. And above 32F ice melts. Where in this do you come off on such a long boring diatribe ending with calling me out as a AGW?
Sorry you find science facts boring. But if you are not an AGW person, that it good, and I appreciate your clarification.
Ok then. No big deal. I don't think science is about facts, matter-of-facts, there just aren't very many of discussed, like those I mentioned, certainly any scientific findings are about measurements, and measuring skews the findings.