Climate Change News collection

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s always been about the money, leaf’s protestations aside. Governments have always been creative when it comes to finding something to tax since time immemorial. Once upon a time, it was about the number of windows in a house. Or something odd like that. But there is always something.

So the sun can’t be taxed, but anyone who emits the “incorrect” amount of energy most certainly can and that is what is happening here, where man-made global warming is the excuse used to extract said taxes from the “offenders”, taxes which are to be redistributed to the “correct” people.

I always thought the Paris climate treaty was hypocritical in that it demanded nothing from the developing countries which were free to accept manufacturing facilities relocated from the developed countries. And they still want their pound of flesh in addition to those factories?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It doesn’t take a great scientific mind to say that ice melts when it gets warmer.
Click to expand...
True, but that’s not what they said. In fact if you think about it, they said the melting had significantly increased over the last eight years, but for most of this century global temperatures have not risen very much. Also, even if surface temperatures had risen that fact alone would not account for the additional melting.

Supporters of MMGW are fond of repeating that greenhouse warming is a known, established, scientific fact. There are, however, other known, established, scientific formulas that are quite precise in determining just how much heat is required to melt ice and to raise the temperature of water and ice, and what those formulas (taught in high school) show is that the amount of energy required to raise the ice temperature (in Greenland) to its melting point, and then melt it, is the same amount of energy required to raise that amount of water from 0 deg to its boiling point. Here is the graph depicting this (for Greenland): it takes as much heat to melt the surface ice as it would to raise the temperature of that water to the boiling point. Really? Someone actually thinks this scenario is credible?


This is what is implied by the formulas related to heat content and latent heat of a material:

We know that deep ocean water below the thermocline is very stable in temperature between 0-3 °C. 90% of the ocean water mass is below the thermocline. The thermocline and surface layer above contains the ocean water that responds to changes in atmospheric heat, whether that be from seasonal changes or climate changes. Therefore, if we constrain the 1.32×1025 J of heat energy to the upper 10% of the ocean mass, we calculate the temperature increase would be 25.6 °C, assuming equal heat distribution for simplicity of analysis. This increase would make the surface temperature of equatorial ocean water close to 55 °C, similar to a cup of hot coffee. Polar seas would be perfect for swimming at nearly 25 °C. According to NOAA, over the past 50 years, the average ocean surface temperature has increased approximately 0.25 °C.
 
I am well aware of the latent heat of fusion and how it compares with specific heat, and your graph is quite sloppy. The slope of the line from red point 3 to red point 4 is off by more than 7%. Do the math yourself. Specific heat of water is 4.186 j/g/degC. Latent heat is 334 j/g. That means 100 degrees of temperature rise in water takes 418.6 joules/gram. Careful interpolation of the right-most dotted line reads (to my eye) 723. Subtracting the starting X coordinate of point 3 (which is 334), gives 389. So they are saying it takes 389 joules/gram to raise water from 0 C to 100 C. But specific heat says it takes 418 joules/gram. That’s 7% more. Either point 4 should be at only 93 degrees, or it should be located around X=752, not X=723. Now, granted 7% is not a huge error, but it does give one pause that a graph used to make a point is that far off.

I realize that when you throw in the specific heat of ice and count the raising of ice from -25 to 0 C you do get approximately the same energy as the heating of water from 0 to 100. But what is the point? Is this supposed to prove that the amount of heat available from global warming could not have melted this much ice? If so, it doesn’t prove that. Is it to show that there are still some unknowns about exactly how much ice melts in Greenland? So what? The paper did the measurements by direct means. Unless you think there is a sudden appearance of geothermal energy under Greenland that was not there before, the obvious cause of melting ice is still a warming climate. What else could it be? (And I’m pretty sure they monitor of geological events, so they would know if a volcano is growing.)
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I realize that when you throw in the specific heat of ice and count the raising of ice from -25 to 0 C you do get approximately the same energy as the heating of water from 0 to 100. But what is the point? Is this supposed to prove that the amount of heat available from global warming could not have melted this much ice?
Click to expand...
I think it is a quick analysis (written before this study was published) to put melting scenarios in perspective and suggest that alarmist headlines (Greenland is Falling Apart) don’t hold up well under basic analysis.
The paper did the measurements by direct means.
Click to expand...
You ascribe to the paper much more precision than they themselves claim. This was a reconstruction, and while it might be a much better reconstruction than previous ones, it was not a direct measurement.

Finally, regional atmospheric climate models used to reconstruct SMB have improved in spatial resolution (5.5 km downscaled to 1 km instead of 11 km) to match, in size, the typical width of outlet glaciers, which improves the fidelity of reconstruction of ice melt at low elevation. We present the methodology; discuss the history of Greenland mass balance over the last 46 years until the most recent data, glacier by glacier, region by region, for the entire ice sheet; compare the estimates with prior work; and conclude on the recent and near-term contributions of the GIS to sea level rise.

The question raised by the article on heat content/specific heat is whether these reconstructions align with those basic physical principles.
 
www.bbc.com

Nature crisis: Humans 'threaten 1m species with extinction'

A compelling UN assessment shows the full picture of humanity's devastating impact on biodiversity and nature.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

This is a big story today, this study released. I hate hearing about this. I caught the oral version of this on the tv news. Sad. I’m not saying, it is all true. I’m reflecting on it.
 
Victoria33 said:
This is a big story today, this study released. I hate hearing about this. I caught the oral version of this on the tv news. Sad. I’m not saying, it is all true. I’m reflecting on it.
Click to expand...
With one hand the alarmists claim global warming will destroy the world, and with the other they drive policies that cause the problems they decry.

To feed, clothe and give energy to this burgeoning world, forests have been cleared at astonishing rates, especially in tropical areas.

Well, exactly what did they expect would happen when coal, oil, and natural gas are attacked? Are they really unaware that coal plants in both England and Germany have been replaced with power plants burning…wood?

Nature everywhere is declining at a speed never previously seen and our need for ever more food and energy are the main drivers.

I think this question the article provides a clue as to where their sentiments lie:

What would a world without humans be like?
 
wattsupwiththat.com

Lawn Care Tips From Eric Holthaus

Guest laugh by David Middleton Being that this is the time of year when I have to start spending entire weekends on yard work, I almost agree with Mr. Holthaus on this one… SCIENCEGet Rid of …
wattsupwiththat.com wattsupwiththat.com
 
Thanks for posting here Theo520.

It brings this necessary thread to the “top”.

.

1/2 . . . .

I can already see the criticism. Poor title! (“Proves”? “Strongly Suggests” may have been better.)

OK. I admit it. I have no problem with that criticism.

Now let’s deal with the content.

If you think the new site will be underwater any day now, it makes no sense to purchase (or rent or whatever) the new site and put a television studio on it.

(Since their are a lot of links to my copy and paste, I will put it in two posts)

Nolte: Move to Hudson Yards Proves CNN Knows Global Warming’s a Hoax​

JOHN NOLTE 7 May 2019 Breitbart News

If CNN believes Global Warming is a real and an imminent threat, why did the far-left network agree to move much of its broadcasting operations to a location … right on the water?​

Outside of the basement-rated outlet axing more than a hundred jobs on Monday, the big media news this week is CNN’s move to Hudson Yards, which sits right on the coast, right on the Hudson River.
Click to expand...
www.breitbart.com

Move to Hudson Yards Proves CNN Knows Global Warming's a Hoax

If CNN believes Global Warming is a real and an imminent threat, why did it moves its broadcasting operations to Hudson Yards?
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com
 
Last edited:
2/2 . . . .
In other words, CNN has moved to the water’s edge of Manhattan, the very same Manhattan that will be underwater as soon as 2015.

Oops, sorry, that was an old scientific prediction. Obviously, 2015 has passed without Manhattan flooding.

But Manhattan will be underwater as soon as 2018, which can only mean that–

Oh. Sorry again, that was another prediction our global warming scientific experts got wrong. But soon, very soon Manhattan will be underwater because the scientists CNN takes very, very seriously say so.

As recently as seven months ago, and without a hint of skepticism, CNN warned that if nothing is done by 2030, in 11 short years, “the planet will reach the crucial threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030, precipitating the risk of extreme drought, wildfires, floods and food shortages for hundreds of millions of people.” . . . .

. . . . Did CNN not read this very important and 100 percent factual, pro-science report that predicts flooding in New York during the 2020s, so as soon as next year?

What kind of monsters move their employees into that kind of danger? . . . .

. . . . No one who believes in Global Warming spends piles of money to move its operations into a danger zone. No one.

What’s more, CNN already had an inland headquarters. What could be safer than Atlanta?

But under CNN chief Jeff Zucker, CNN has been moving much of its broadcasting base out of Atlanta and into the danger zone of Manhattan and… Under Jeff Zucker CNN has ramped up its Global Warming propaganda . . . .
Click to expand...
www.breitbart.com

Move to Hudson Yards Proves CNN Knows Global Warming's a Hoax

If CNN believes Global Warming is a real and an imminent threat, why did it moves its broadcasting operations to Hudson Yards?
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com
 
Somebody at Breitbart didn’t do their homework. The Hudson Yards development is bounded by 11th Ave, West 30th Street, 10th Ave, and West 34th street. The street-level elevations along 11th Ave (the closest to the Hudson River) range from 28 feet to 31 feet. The street-level elevations along West 30th are around 39-40 feet. The street-level elevations along 10th Ave. are 36 to 40 feet. The lowest street-level elevations are along West 34th, which is 20 feet. The very worst of the sea level rise projections from global warming are 4.3 feet by the year 2100. That will not put the Hudson Yards development in any danger at all. So situating a studio in such an area that is likely to be safe for another 80 years is certainly no admission that the projections of global warming is a hoax!

Hudson Yards development is not at the “water’s edge.” It is full 1/5 of a mile from the waterfront, which itself is hardened against storm surges. There may be parts of New York that will under water soon, but not where CNN is building a studio.

If Breitbart has to go to such extremes to discredit global warming or CNN (not sure which they despise more) it seems that even their “good” arguments are quite weak.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle . . . .
Somebody at Breitbart didn’t do their homework.
Click to expand...
What didn’t they do their homework on Leaf?

You said . . .
The Hudson Yards development is bounded by 11th Ave, West 30th Street, 10th Ave, and West 34th street. The street-level elevations along 11th Ave (the closest to the Hudson River) range from 28 feet to 31 feet.
Click to expand...
Are you saying nobody from the global warming alarmist political limb has said New York City would be underwater by 2015?

.

We both know about the 2008 tv special where this whole ridiculous scenario of New York City being underwater was being played out. Complete with “scientists”.

It was propaganda. Conservatives even told you people that back then. (But you didn’t listen. - Not “you” personally Leaf.)

Don’t make me do the search again for it please.

Youtube’s constantly changing new algorithms just keep making it tougher and tougher for my searches to yield the results that I am looking for, and used to easily obtain.

And I need to spend more time than I want doing Google searches . . . to
find things that do NOT bring me to leftist political propaganda. (Which is probably what they wanted anyway.)

Admittedly Duckduckgo helps with searches (but it is not as sophisticated as Google yet).


The Google limb of Alphabet is of course, doing the same thing . . . Baking in an anti-conservative bias in their algorithms. At least that is MY opinion.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
LeafByNiggle . . . .
In case this thread is closed, I wanted to get this in first . . .
Click to expand...
Uh, it’s 2019. That is quite a straw man to say that there are scientists or even politicians who are claiming that. In fact that was never the prevailing view, although some misguided alarmists might have said that. Don’t bother searching for alarmist rantings. We both know they exist. And would still not prove it was the prevailing view - ever.
Click to expand...
 
LeafByNiggle . . .
Uh, it’s 2019. That is quite a straw man to say that there are scientists or even politicians who are claiming that.
Click to expand...
That’s OK Leaf. It was said back in 2008.

And it was linked to in the article.

.

LeafByNiggle . . . .
In fact that was never the prevailing view . . .
Click to expand...
This is a garbage phrase when your prophecies don’t come true (not “your” personally here Leaf).

There is NO “prevailing view”.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle . . .
And as I said, it was never the prevailing view, despite what the 2008 article says.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t an article.

It was a TV special.

The Breitbart article referred to that view.

And “that view” was propaganda wasn’t it?
 
Cathoholic said:
There is NO “prevailing view”.
Click to expand...
I am reminded of this passage from The Silver Chair:
Slowly and gravely the Witch repeated, “There is no sun.” And they all said nothing. She repeated, in a softer and deeper voice. “There is no sun.” After a pause, and after a struggle in their minds, all four of them said together. “You are right. There is no sun.”
Click to expand...
 
The ABC TV special (from back in 2008 and aired in 2009), Earth 2100.

To the people here.

Check it out and draw your own conclusions.

FLASHBACK: ABC’s ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015​

By Scott Whitlock | June 12, 2015

New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100 , a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015. . . .

. . . As one expert warns that in 2015 the sea level will rise quickly, a visual shows New York City being engulfed by water. The video montage includes another unidentified person predicting that “flames cover hundreds of miles.” . . .

. . . Chris Cuomo appeared frightened by this future world. He wondered, “I think we’re familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That’s seven years from now. Could it really be that bad?” . . .

. . . JAMES HANSEN (NASA/AL GORE SCIENCE ADVISOR): We can see what the prospects are and we can see that we could solve the problem but we’re not doing it.

[Graphic: Welcome to 2015]

PETER GLEICK (SCIENTIST/PACIFIC INSTITUTE): In 2015, we’ve still failed to address the climate problem.

JOHN HOLDREN (PROFESSOR/HARVARD UNIVERSITY): We’re going to see more floods, more droughts, more wildfires.

UNIDENTIFIED “REPORTER:” Flames cover hundreds of square miles. . . .

. . . HEIDI CULLEN (WEATHER CHANNEL/CLIMATE CHANGE EXPERT): There’s about one billion people who are malnourished. That number just continually grows. . . .
Click to expand...
www.newsbusters.org

FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015

New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. At least those were the wildly-inaccurate predictions made by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that...
www.newsbusters.org www.newsbusters.org
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle . . .
is not a prediction about what will happen, but what might happen.
Click to expand...
Another waste basket phrase that you can put into ANY global warming prophecy that does not come true.

You (not “you” personally) should have thought about that before
claiming the proverbial environmental rapture would occur then.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top