Global warming: NOT! (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Sunday, October 14, 2012, 15:16 (4425 days ago)
Over 15 years of flat temperatures, following a similar period of rising temperatures. The Arctic is melting and the Antarctic is freezing more ice.-http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29E78OR9H
Global warming: NOT!
by David Turell , Friday, October 19, 2012, 01:16 (4420 days ago) @ David Turell
And 250 million years ago it was much, much warmer than now. Oceans at 40 degrees c.-http://phys.org/news/2012-10-tropical-collapse-lethal-extreme-temperatures.html
Global warming: follow the money
by David Turell , Sunday, October 06, 2013, 18:43 (4067 days ago) @ David Turell
As I have reported before,the IPCC is a money making machine for the third world. Here is a supporting opinion:-"When confronted with overwhelming "scientific evidence", one should keep in mind the basic question any criminal investigator learns to ask whenever being confronted with a puzzling case: who is benefitting? In the case of "climate change science", the answer is simple, since in the past decades a trillion-dollar-business has sprung up providing all sorts of equipment and services intended to lower what is dubbed our "CO2 footprint". Whole sectors such as solar and wind energy farms have grown like mushrooms promising to supply our nations with so-called clean and green energy. - "These sectors have one common mark distinguishing them from normal business activities. They do not provide us with a better or a cheaper product, one that we would want to buy, but rely on subsidies guaranteed by legal frameworks instead. During the past 20 years, they have grown from modest to big to supersized and now feature the proportions of a cuckoo hatchling in the nest of a tiny songbird. This powerful business sector has all the money and resources to pay for adequate services in the world of science. And modern science is by no means impartial. Scientific institutions are business units with a well-developed service orientation that will of course avoid anything that might displease their sponsors. The same applies of course for state-run agencies such as NASA or NOAA, who are supervised and alimented by political bodies packed with green-minded politicians. So forget about any claims of "pure" science, ignore colorful screenshots and simply sniff for the smell of money ... and you'll be on the right trail."- http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/05/crash-boom-bang/#more-95209
Global warming: is good
by David Turell , Friday, October 18, 2013, 15:24 (4056 days ago) @ David Turell
Until 2080 in the current trend:-http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/
Global warming: is good
by David Turell , Sunday, November 16, 2014, 14:57 (3661 days ago) @ David Turell
Another scientist who says the theories of overheating are wrong:-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDOf8Khiko
Global warming: way over-exaggerated
by David Turell , Thursday, January 29, 2015, 02:00 (3588 days ago) @ David Turell
The formulas used are in error and over exaggerate by large amounts:-http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly-nwletter-"The IPCC has long predicted that doubling the CO2 in the air might eventually warm the Earth by 3.3 °C. However, the new, simple model presented in the Science Bulletin predicts no more than 1 °C warming instead - and possibly much less. The model, developed over eight years, is so easy to use that a high-school math teacher or undergrad student can get credible results in minutes running it on a pocket scientific calculator.-"The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC's predictions. Among the errors of the complex climate models that the simple model exposes are the following --"The assumption that "temperature feedbacks" would double or triple direct manmade greenhouse warming is the largest error made by the complex climate models. Feedbacks may well reduce warming, not amplify it.-"The Bode system-gain equation models mutual amplification of feedbacks in electronic circuits, but, when complex models erroneously apply it to the climate on the IPCC's false assumption of strongly net-amplifying feedbacks, it greatly over-predicts global warming. They are using the wrong equation.-"Modellers have failed to cut their central estimate of global warming in line with a new, lower feedback estimate from the IPCC. They still predict 3.3 °C of warming per CO2 doubling, when on this ground alone they should only be predicting 2.2 °C - about half from direct warming and half from amplifying feedbacks.-"Though the complex models say there is 0.6 °C manmade warming "in the pipeline" even if we stop emitting greenhouse gases, the simple model - confirmed by almost two decades without any significant global warming - shows there is no committed but unrealized manmade warming still to come. There is no scientific justification for the IPCC's extreme RCP 8.5 global warming scenario that predicts up to 12 °C global warming as a result of our industrial emissions of greenhouse gases.-"Once errors like these are corrected, the most likely global warming in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration is not 3.3 °C but 1 °C or less. Even if all available fossil fuels were burned, less than 2.2 °C warming would result."- Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.htm...
Global warming: way over-exaggerated
by David Turell , Sunday, March 22, 2015, 01:10 (3536 days ago) @ David Turell
This worldwide hoax fostered by the UN is well-covered in this article:-http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic-"Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.-"At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.-"We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth's slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?-"IPCC Conflict of Interest:-"By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don't understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.-"The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled."-Fat chance! There is too much money involved.
Global warming: a previous very warm period
by David Turell , Saturday, August 31, 2019, 18:30 (1912 days ago) @ David Turell
The Earth was 2-3 degrees warmer than now, and sea levels were very high due to melted ice caps:
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-scientists-evidence-high-level-sea.html
"An international team of scientists, studying evidence preserved in speleothems in a coastal cave, illustrate that more than three million years ago—a time in which the Earth was two to three degrees Celsius warmer than the pre-industrial era—sea level was as much as 16 meters higher than the present day. Their findings represent significant implications for understanding and predicting the pace of current-day sea level rise amid a warming climate.
***
"The project focused on cave deposits known as phreatic overgrowths on speleothems. The deposits form in coastal caves at the interface between brackish water and cave air each time the ancient caves were flooded by rising sea levels. In Artà Cave, which is located within 100 meters of the coast, the water table is—and was in the past—coincident with sea level, says Professor Joan J. Fornós of Universitat de les Illes Balears.
"The scientists discovered, analyzed, and interpreted six of the geologic formations found at elevations of 22.5 to 32 meters above present sea level. Careful sampling and laboratory analyses of 70 samples resulted in ages ranging from 4.4 to 3.3 million years old BP (Before Present), indicating that the cave deposits formed during the Pliocene epoch. The ages were determined using uranium-lead radiometric dating in UNM's Radiogenic Isotope Laboratory.
***
"'Sea level changes at Artà Cave can be caused by the melting and growing of ice sheets or by uplift or subsidence of the island itself," said Columbia University Assistant Professor Jacky Austermann, a member of the research team. She used numerical and statistical models to carefully analyze how much uplift or subsidence might have happened since the Pliocene and subtracted this from the elevation of the formations they investigated.
"One key interval of particular interest during the Pliocene is the mid Piacenzian Warm Period—some 3.264 to 3.025 million years ago—when temperatures were 2 to 3º Celsius higher than pre-industrial levels. "The interval also marks the last time the Earth's atmospheric CO2 was as high as today, providing important clues about what the future holds in the face of current anthropogenic warming," Onac says.
"This study found that during this period, global mean sea level was as high as 16.2 meters (with an uncertainty range of 5.6 to 19.2 meters) above present. This means that even if atmospheric CO2 stabilizes around current levels, the global mean sea level would still likely rise at least that high, if not higher, the scientists concluded. In fact, it is likely to rise higher because of the increase in the volume of the oceans due to rising temperature.
"'Considering the present-day melt patterns, this extent of sea level rise would most likely be caused by a collapse of both Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets," Dumitru said."
Comment: It is of great interest that hominins were evolving during this period. They survived and we should survive this current warming .