We don't have enough refining capacity in this country for the oil we pump.
Cookin' da books, NOAA style
- Thread starter highup
- Start date
Help Support Flooring Forum:
Peer reviewed studies..no temperature spike
Borrowed from a scientist
"Consensus" is not science, but it is ideology and politics. Science is universal, observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. Climate Science is none of those.
Prove that the Earth's average global temperatures should be a constant 57.2°F instead of 67.6°F.
During the previous Inter-Glacial Period, average global temperatures were 10.4°F warmer than the present 57.2°F. If the Earth warms up another 10.4°F, the only scientific claim you can make is that this Inter-Glacial Period would be as warm as the previous Inter-Glacial Period.
The article fails to point out the contradictory evidence. If we apply Wien's Law (real science) we find that the temperature corresponding to 15 micrometers -- the primary wave-length at which CO2 absorbs Black Body Radiation to be -112°F. That can be demonstrated here:
T (Temperature) = 2,900 um-°K / 15 um = 193°K = -112°F = -80°C
So the claim is that something cool is causing the Earth to warm, which is completely absurd.
The article fails to point out that in reality, CO2 is a lagging indicator, meaning the Earth warms and then CO2 is liberated from the oceans and soils.
Graphs from NASA and the NOAA prove that:
I won't even get into the flawed models based on a Flat Earth (the Earth is a spheroid so no more than half of the Earth can receive the Sun's energy at any given time).
Warming is a natural part of Inter-Glacial Periods, which is why you have an Inter-Glacial Period, because it warms up.
"Consensus" is not science, but it is ideology and politics. Science is universal, observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. Climate Science is none of those.
Prove that the Earth's average global temperatures should be a constant 57.2°F instead of 67.6°F.
During the previous Inter-Glacial Period, average global temperatures were 10.4°F warmer than the present 57.2°F. If the Earth warms up another 10.4°F, the only scientific claim you can make is that this Inter-Glacial Period would be as warm as the previous Inter-Glacial Period.
The article fails to point out the contradictory evidence. If we apply Wien's Law (real science) we find that the temperature corresponding to 15 micrometers -- the primary wave-length at which CO2 absorbs Black Body Radiation to be -112°F. That can be demonstrated here:
T (Temperature) = 2,900 um-°K / 15 um = 193°K = -112°F = -80°C
So the claim is that something cool is causing the Earth to warm, which is completely absurd.
The article fails to point out that in reality, CO2 is a lagging indicator, meaning the Earth warms and then CO2 is liberated from the oceans and soils.
Graphs from NASA and the NOAA prove that:
I won't even get into the flawed models based on a Flat Earth (the Earth is a spheroid so no more than half of the Earth can receive the Sun's energy at any given time).
Warming is a natural part of Inter-Glacial Periods, which is why you have an Inter-Glacial Period, because it warms up.
and more
Oh, yes, the Science is "settled."
The consensus was that it was impossible for mountains to exist in Antarctica, since the glaciers would have eroded them away long ago. The Science was "settled" until disproved in 1958 by the US Geological Survey, who borrowed a US Army ground radar, setting it up atop a glacier to penetrate the ice...."Thar be mountains!"
Then the consensus was that it was impossible for there to be rivers or lakes under the ice sheet in Antarctica. The Science was "settled" until disproved in 1989 by space shuttle ground penetrating radar missions. There are ponds, lakes, rivers and streams below the glaciers.
And then the consensus was that it was impossible for life to exist in Antarctica. The Science was "settled" until disproved in 1994, when it was discovered that underneath the glaciers it's teeming with life.
The Science was settled on Continental Drift, too, before it was discovered that Plate Tectonics was more than just a theory.
I can go on and on and on about "settled Science" ending up in the trash-can.
I notice you were unable to refute anything, I said.
So what part of "Inter-Glacial Period" do you not understand.
What happened during the last Inter-Glacial Period? Let's see what the Science says:
Abstract. The last interglacial period (LIG, ∼ 129116 thousand years ago) provides the most recent case study of multimillennial polar warming above the preindustrial level and a response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to this warming, as well as a test bed for climate and ice sheet models. . . .The LIG surface temperature at the upstream NEEM deposition site without ice sheet altitude correction is estimated to be warmer by +8.5 ± 2.5 °C compared to the preindustrial period. This temperature estimate is consistent with the 7.5 ± 1.8 °C warming initially determined from NEEM water isotopes but at the upper end of the preindustrial period to LIG temperature difference of +5.2 ± 2.3 °C obtained at the NGRIP (North Greenland Ice Core Project) site by the same method.
[emphasis mine]
CP - Abstract - How warm was Greenland during the last interglacial period?
8.5°C corresponds to 15.3°F warmer.
7.5°C corresponds to 13.5°F warmer.
Note that the pre-industrial period is pegged at 13.8°C or 56.8°F, so add 56.8°F + 15.3°F = 72.1°F.
Prove that the Earth should not reach a temperature it previously reached in a prior Inter-Glacial Period.
Oh, yes, the Science is "settled."
The consensus was that it was impossible for mountains to exist in Antarctica, since the glaciers would have eroded them away long ago. The Science was "settled" until disproved in 1958 by the US Geological Survey, who borrowed a US Army ground radar, setting it up atop a glacier to penetrate the ice...."Thar be mountains!"
Then the consensus was that it was impossible for there to be rivers or lakes under the ice sheet in Antarctica. The Science was "settled" until disproved in 1989 by space shuttle ground penetrating radar missions. There are ponds, lakes, rivers and streams below the glaciers.
And then the consensus was that it was impossible for life to exist in Antarctica. The Science was "settled" until disproved in 1994, when it was discovered that underneath the glaciers it's teeming with life.
The Science was settled on Continental Drift, too, before it was discovered that Plate Tectonics was more than just a theory.
I can go on and on and on about "settled Science" ending up in the trash-can.
I notice you were unable to refute anything, I said.
So what part of "Inter-Glacial Period" do you not understand.
What happened during the last Inter-Glacial Period? Let's see what the Science says:
Abstract. The last interglacial period (LIG, ∼ 129116 thousand years ago) provides the most recent case study of multimillennial polar warming above the preindustrial level and a response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to this warming, as well as a test bed for climate and ice sheet models. . . .The LIG surface temperature at the upstream NEEM deposition site without ice sheet altitude correction is estimated to be warmer by +8.5 ± 2.5 °C compared to the preindustrial period. This temperature estimate is consistent with the 7.5 ± 1.8 °C warming initially determined from NEEM water isotopes but at the upper end of the preindustrial period to LIG temperature difference of +5.2 ± 2.3 °C obtained at the NGRIP (North Greenland Ice Core Project) site by the same method.
[emphasis mine]
CP - Abstract - How warm was Greenland during the last interglacial period?
8.5°C corresponds to 15.3°F warmer.
7.5°C corresponds to 13.5°F warmer.
Note that the pre-industrial period is pegged at 13.8°C or 56.8°F, so add 56.8°F + 15.3°F = 72.1°F.
Prove that the Earth should not reach a temperature it previously reached in a prior Inter-Glacial Period.
![MORE Luxury Vinyl Floor Cleaner for Vinyl Plank Flooring - Ready to Use, Daily Cleaning Formula for Tile, Vinyl Surfaces [Gallon / 128oz]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/413LZHZiqCL._SL500_.jpg)
Who is it Jon. I can Google ......... I don't do video on my Dixie cups.
Try this
https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/05/...alcolm-roberts-magically-turned-warmer-colder
I wonder if he really knows his stuff or is it a political spell listening to the video
Here's a couple of graphs Rusty.
One is quite shocking and one is boring. Which one would you want to publish to scare people if you wanted them to join your cult. The average is about the same, only the graphs differ.
One is quite shocking and one is boring. Which one would you want to publish to scare people if you wanted them to join your cult. The average is about the same, only the graphs differ.
Had a discussion with Bob Higgins on FB and his chemist buddy about this. The chemist said "CO2 is not a pollutant".
I said to who? Get a tank full of CO2 and breathe it all day and get back to me. LOL
Bob's always starting inflammatory discussions like High does.
I said to who? Get a tank full of CO2 and breathe it all day and get back to me. LOL
Bob's always starting inflammatory discussions like High does.
It's high, not High.............. I'm not a grandstander.Had a discussion with Bob Higgins on FB and his chemist buddy about this. The chemist said "CO2 is not a pollutant".
I said to who? Get a tank full of CO2 and breathe it all day and get back to me. LOL
Bob's always starting inflammatory discussions like High does.
I'm a tree, I breath deeply into that tank of CO2 and I am nourished and refreshed.
The only reason CO2 was designated as a pollutant is so it could be regulated and taxed.
Food for thought............ a tank of oxygen? oooh, I see another revenue target.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity
Last edited:
...but what if I identify myself as a tree?
Nick
In Remembrance
That would be alternative facts..
...but what if I identify myself as a tree?
I know. I am trans-species, I think I am a cat. I am trying to get Walmart to put litter boxes in the restrooms.
Nick
In Remembrance
Good luck with that one .
...........ummmm ....it's Walmart. He could do that himself and nobody would even notice.Good luck with that one .
...but what if I identify myself as a tree?
But I'm the head of the Oregon chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Deciduous People. You may have assumed I'm a conifer, but I'm not.That would be alternative facts..
Last edited:
News flash: Greenland ice will soon cover the earth!
Got your attention.
How come this has never been brought up. Greenland has lost ice on the lower edges, but what about the rest of the island?
http://www.longrangeweather.com/ArticleArchives/GreenlandIceSheet.htm
Got your attention.
How come this has never been brought up. Greenland has lost ice on the lower edges, but what about the rest of the island?
http://www.longrangeweather.com/ArticleArchives/GreenlandIceSheet.htm
Maybe the Kraken will reappear if the ice melts.
News flash: Greenland ice will soon cover the earth!
Got your attention.
How come this has never been brought up. Greenland has lost ice on the lower edges, but what about the rest of the island?
http://www.longrangeweather.com/ArticleArchives/GreenlandIceSheet.htm
The guy has an interesting graph.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
