Politics Climate Hysteria Debunked Yet Again ....

I was at 440 gigatons of natural emissions for 26 of humqan origin..Granted it´s a little more than 3%..

Yes but those 440 Gt are naturaly reabsorbed (mostly plant and planktonic emission). If the system was in a natural state it would be a zero sum (aside volcanic outbursts).
We just added an inflation of +5 to 9% (26 to 40 Gt dependind of estimates) every year.
I don't think it is neglictible anymore in term of increase. That' s also why we are going toward 380 to 400 ppm of CO2 while before industrial era it was around 300 ppm.
Again a not neglictible jump.
We are terraforming earth through that way.
Of course it is not the only way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CO2 is making plants grow faster. Basic school science. NASA says the planet has never been greener.
However it is a bit more complicated than that.
Plants have a limited capability to process CO2 so any excess is not used.
Above a certain level it even turns deleterious for them (like with too much O2 for us)
Plus stressed plants process it less well and with multiplications of heatwaves and floods, a bunch of forested or herbal areas are stressed.
Because of the heatwave in Europe this summer moutain pines in Alps and Vosges have either limited photosynthesis or are simply dying right now...
 
Winter-less northern countries will burn less fossil fuels to stay warm. As the south is too poor to have air conditioners due to EU regulations this can only be a positive outcome for stressed oil wells.

There will also be more mountain marmots with less pines to shade out their meadows. This is foreseeable.
 
Greenland will be green again just like the good old days.
Just for the record, Greenland was never "green" during human history. It was just a PR stunt of Erik the Red, a relative comparison with Iceland and a very limited warming of a very limited area (southern fjord areas).
 
Finally, at least here the news has started to realize its not the rain forest burning its farmland scrub fires.
Particularly weird here as that's how NZ was broken in out of bush.
 
CNN debated climate change
Hurricane claims
More intensity =false
More frequent =false
More reaching the US =false
But if you keep saying it loud enough, long enough and hysterically enough, it automatically becomes the truth dunnit!
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
17th April 2019
A marine scientist was unlawfully sacked by James Cook University (JCU) in north Queensland for criticising his colleagues' research on the impacts of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia has ruled.
Key points:
  • Judge Sal Vasta wrote in his judgment that the university had "not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom"
  • Dr Ridd told the ABC he was "very happy" with the judgment as it had vindicated everything he had done
  • In a statement, JCU Provost Professor Chris Cocklin disagreed with the judge and said the university was "considering its options"

Peter Ridd was dismissed by James Cook University (JCU) last year after being issued with a number of warnings for comments he made about a lead coral researcher and for telling Sky TV that organisations like the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) could "no longer be trusted".
Court documents said Dr Ridd described his colleague in an email as "not having any clue about the weather", and that he "will give the normal doom science about the Great Barrier Reef".
Dr Ridd said in another email that JCU, along with other universities, were "Orwellian in nature".
In his judgment, Judge Sal Vasta found Dr Ridd's termination was unlawful, as JCU's enterprise agreement protected his comments over and above the university's code of conduct.
"It is actually [Clause 14] that is the lens through which the behaviour of Professor Ridd must be viewed," Judge Vasta wrote.
"To use the vernacular, the University has 'played the man and not the ball'.
"Clause 14 means that it is the right of Professor Ridd to say what he has said in any manner that he likes, so long as he does not contravene the sanctions embedded in cl.14 — that is at the heart of intellectual freedom."
Judge Vasta wrote that the university had "not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom".
"In the search for truth, it is an unfortunate consequence that some people may feel denigrated, offended, hurt or upset.
"It may not always be possible to act collegiately when diametrically opposed views clash in the search for truth."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04...king-unlawful-federal-court-judgment/11021554
 
CNN debated climate change
Hurricane claims
More intensity =false
More frequent =false
More reaching the US =false
More frequent high intensity (4 and 5 levels) = true
13 level 5 between 2003 and 2018 (15y)
13 level 5 between 1955 and 2000 (45y)

22 between 1951-1975 (0.88/year)
24 level 4 between 1975 - 2000 (0.96/year)
24 level 4 between 2001 and 2018 (1.4/year)

That's simple physic : the more water is warm, the more energy has to be evacuated, the more hurricanes and storms are strong, it's easy to understand

Even with blinders..........
 
674d188f4745a5de14f52bbafb9488a2.png

PeriodNumber of recorded storms (Annual Average over Decade)
affecting United States
1850s17
1860s15
1870s17
1880s25
1890s19
1900–190918
1910s23
1920s16
1930s20
1940s26
1950s23
1960s17
1970s15
1980s22
1990s31
2000–200925
2010s19
 
674d188f4745a5de14f52bbafb9488a2.png


PeriodNumber of recorded storms (Annual Average over Decade)
affecting United States
1850s17
1860s15
1870s17
1880s25
1890s19
1900–190918
1910s23
1920s16
1930s20
1940s26
1950s23
1960s17
1970s15
1980s22
1990s31
2000–200925
2010s19
That doesn't contradict what i wrote
There is overally not more storms landing on US coasts (frequency is not modified)
But those landing are more often stronger than before (more often level 4 and 5 than they used to be)
Pile on that the increasing concentration of infrastructures and coastal populations and damages (and damages costs) are increasing
 
For perspective the Democrats painted a picture of weapons of mass destruction in the Caribbean. Its all over in ten years.

Will a 1 degree increase since 1850 have such an effect.
 
wettest 'summer' on record in last 100 years in UK - at least I have not had to water all the plants outside as much - every cloud
 
My ancestors sailed from Liverpool. A storm had destroyed their fleet of merchant ships nearly 200 years ago so they threw the dice again and I ended up here..
 
For perspective the Democrats painted a picture of weapons of mass destruction in the Caribbean. Its all over in ten years.

Will a 1 degree increase since 1850 have such an effect.
1 °C of temperature water change = 4.2 J by g (or ml) of water
If you have + 1 °C for the water of the Gulf of Mexico, you increase the temperature of 2,500 quadrillions liters (2,500 10e24 liters, 2,500 10e27 ml)
Roughly, it is an increase of 4 x 2,500 10e 27 = 10e31 J to allocate
To put thing in perspective, the energy fred by K-T impact was 10e24 J
10e30 J is also almost the same energy needed for the Earth to rotate for 1 minute

Of course in reality, it is not a 100% conversion (not 100% of the water has its temperature increase, not 100% of the supplementary heat is ventilated in the atmosphere, it is not eliminated all at once but pogressively, rain in hurricane is also absorbing some energy etc ....) but you get the perspective of energy emitting so yes, it could turn itself in WMD

1°C seems few for a single person perspective, it is not the same if it impacts quadrillions liters of water or air or soil.....
To have a comparison, 1 cm of distortion of walls in your house may not be very harmful, 1 cm at continental masses could lead to devastating earthquakes.....
 
The 1 degree is air temp since 1850, not the ocean. Its also spread over 170 years while ocean temp rose .1°C during the last century.
This does not qualify for the boiling of the oceans in a mathematical equation.

Apparently the US carbon emissions per capita is at 1960 levels well under 1990 base year.
 
Last edited:
The 1 degree is air temp since 1850, not the ocean. Its also spread over 170 years while ocean temp rose .1°C during the last century.
This does not qualify for the boiling of the oceans in a mathematical equation.

Bold part ? Whutt ?You seem to be missing a basic understanding of the issue here
It is not important if it spreads over 200, 500 or 5000 years. The important part is the end point temperature.
+1°C final degree remains +1°C degree
When your boil your water the final temperature doesn't change if you take 5 minutes or 1 hour

BTW the mean ocean temperature increase (all around the globe) is 0.55°C to 0.67°C, not 0.1°C
This is a mean increase, that doesn't mean that locally (in particular in locked seas with poor stream exchange) increase in not higher.
Gulf of Mexico has a higher increase (0.3/0.4°C/decade since 1980 so up to 1.2/1.6°C)
Same with Caribbean sea
So yes, it's plenty of supplementary energy to ventilate
 
Back
Top