Please share far and wide!

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Shoud We "Fight Carbon" Or Is That Just Part of the NWO Wealth Transfer Scam and Power Grab

Seems like every publication
with "science" in it's name is pretty much the exact opposite.

Ocean pH is not acidic, it is basic, which is the opposite of acidic.   It has also been less basic (more towards acid) in the past.  

Magazines are now being used as Propaganda tools.  NOAA is one of the worst, they even jiggered the temperature data at Obamas request to make a "stronger case" for the Paris-site climate conference.

The shell damage corresponds so precisely to where chemical changes have hit the marine world hardest — specific coastal hot spots in Washington and Oregon, where water wells up from the deep on windy days — that NOAA scientists said they could clearly pinpoint the cause: atmospheric CO2.
 http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2014/apr/30/pteropod-shells-dissolving/





This pimp job from Scientific America
 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-carbon-dioxide-makes-u/

 It starts out with a Statement, and then describes how a senior scientist at NOAA is going to prove why the premise is true.   In fact, they do nothing to prove the premise, but instead trot out all the scary ramification and buzz words. 

If carbon dioxide makes up only a minute portion of the atmosphere, how can global warming be traced to it? And how can such a tiny amount of change produce such large effects?



And the love to use the term "forcing"
The long-lived greenhouse gases, however, can be considered an external forcing clearly influenced by human action.
 And they love to use the term "clearly" when it is anything but clear.

And as part of the spin, they even had to invent a brand new "Epoch".    Then to give credibility to this newly defined era, they assume its existance by describing how some are naming it.

 Some are calling this new epoch the anthropocene and it is all thanks to our increasing the relatively small amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by burning the vast stores of carbon trapped inside of the fossil fuels that power our modern lives.
And then this evil Carbon is not just an invisible gas, it actually becomes a "blanket".

But the planets surface will be warmer, because a larger fraction of that infrared will be blocked by the blanket of greenhouse gases.  (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide).    
 The the rabid warmistas come out in the comments and add more stupidity....
Case in point. Despite low solar activity (high solar flares cause warming) Queensland and Australia in general recording higher temperatures for the month of March. 
 
 But then the "climate deniers" chime in
The global warming effect of carbon dioxide is constant with time and essentially independent of the density of carbon dioxide. This is because CO2 is an efficient absorber of infrared in the two spectral bands for this gas. It absorbs approximately 50% of the infrared energy for a meter of absorption length at the present 380ppm concentration. Thus all the energy it can absorb it does so in less than 100 meters. Increasing CO2 only shortens the absorption length in direct proportion of the density. With all the turbulence in the atmosphere CO2 increases are benign. CO2 absorbs about 8.3% of Earth's radiated infrared energy. This is constant over a very wide range of CO2 concentration. CO2 is not a problem.

What the hell is a "climate denier" just another ad hominem such an conspiracy theorist.

And they are so cock sure of themselves that it is CO2 and beyond that, caused by man.   But do they ever consider that it could be the overall toxic environment, including radiation that bio-magnify up to 2 million times in Chitin?

The two major structures are the buccal mass – chitin hooks – and
the radula, with a large number of small teeth. The move-
ments of these structures are under the control of the buccal
ganglion.
Hmmm, do you think that the pteropods might have trouble eating if one of their 2 major structures for eating was blow up by radiation?

Even so,
In some parts of the North Pacific Ocean, pteropods may make up only 2 to 10 percent of plankton species, while copepods and krill — which are more nutritious — play a greater role, Mackas said. But in a few isolated spots pteropods can make up half or more of plankton species.

Truth doesn't seem to be a main goal of science these days.    Instead, in almost every study or article you read, the closing conclusion, not stated directly but almost so, is that we need more money, we need more grant money.

I think this is a huge flashing light for us that we need better observations and monitoring of our natural environment,” she said. “We need better information.”

And thus the earth was lost, via grant whore scientists 

Check out the "cute" graphic below

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

How much carbon are we putting into the ocean?

We’re dumping the equivalent of a hopper car of coal — about 100 U.S. tons — into the ocean every second.

Mark Nowlin / The Seattle Times

Herring, mackerel and some seabirds eat pteropods, as do other pteropod species. In the open oceans, some small fishes, squids and large shrimp eat them. Some of those animals then become important in the diet of tuna, salmon and walleye pollock, the centerpiece of a $1 billion industry based in Seattle and Alaska.
--------------------------------------------
References:
1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to "members")
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.

2) "Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2:on the construction of the 'Greenhouse Effect Global Warming' dogma;" Tom V. Segalstad, University of Oslo
3) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)
Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (CDIAC), U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
4) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.
5) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:
a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264
b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat
by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT
e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Alternate link:
f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
by the ecoEnquirer, 2006
Alternate link:
g. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming?
by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001
Alternate link:
h. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65
Link:
5) Global Climate Change Student Guide
Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chester Street
Manchester
M1 5GD
United Kingdom
6) Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Anthropogenic Contributions
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California
7) Methane record and budget
Robert Grumbine

5 comments:

  1. Our atmosphere contains trace amts of helium and argon as well. These trace elements are a major component to regulating the chemistry. Its not much as well, but none the less important. We can use He and Ar as chronometers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am quite amazed, Stock, by your downplaying of climate change because of our global activity. It comes very close to the denial of adverse effects of nuclear business by its apologists. I guess it is driven by the same psychological barrier: the inability to admits ones' own damaging activity.

    Regarding climate change, let me elaborate.

    1. There is no activity without consequence. It is impossible that our activity has zero effect. Only how much is up to debate. If you do not want to take it as fact, you can derive this from hundreds of years of physical experimentation. Including modern desert-to-agriculture forming experiments gone wrong or currently running dry (Death Sea level sinking fast, Aralsee drying up, deserting Spain). Lots of regional changes will inevitably lead to a global response.

    2. Because of banker shills and politicians, the CO2 tax was never implemented in the way it was intended. Instead of providing an overall cost neutral incentive to reduce resource consumption, it was perverted to line the pockets of the biggest polluters. This was achieved by exempting these polluters from the payment of the CO2 tax. Instead they are given the certificates for free. However, the consumers of their products are charged fully. Tip your hat for the coal-smokers in Germany and elsewhere, because this scam is their invention.

    3. Regarding CO2 as a greenhouse driver. Extremely powerful lasers (up to hundreds of kilowatts beam power) in the mid-infrared are constructed using CO2 as gain medium. Guess what? CO2 has strong interaction cross-sections with light at wavelengths around 10um. That is in the wavelength range of thermal radiation. As a result, a small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is sufficient to provide a warm blanket.

    By the way, the atmosphere contained nearly no CO2 at all after O2 producing bacteria consumed it up. For the first time in earths geological past, earth turned into an ice ball, literally. This period lasted for millions of years until volcanoes put enough greenhouse gases back into the atmosphere.

    It would be prudent not to undermine your anti-nuclear stance by siding with deniers of the Anthropocene.

    Kind regards,

    Marcel Leutenegger

    ReplyDelete
  3. They (amtinukes)cant help it. To deny no global warming means they must accept nuclear. The fact that nuclear plants converted to coal like Zimmer Ohio meant they actually increased both CO2 and radiation by coal burning that liberated uranium and thorium. That latter bit they dont know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ya, but they didn't create the equivalent of 3 nuclear bombs per day like nuclear plants do.

      Delete

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments