TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
Then your source is misleading. Time to find a legitimate news source.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Have you looked at the North Pole lately?
- Thread starter igrowone
- Start date
St. Phatty
Active member
It seems like the point is made. So much news about freakishly high temperatures in Alaska etc.
Weather is a very statistical thing, besides the part about roasting or freezing your ass off.
Up to some point, a span of consecutive hot years and highest-ever recorded temperatures, tell us we have a 150 year high temp wise in Alaska.
I would think that the Eskimo spoken history would be useful. They would know if something like this happened before.
So it's either the Heat version of a 500 year or 1000 year flood, or it's a for real demonstration of man-made Climate Change.
Weather is a very statistical thing, besides the part about roasting or freezing your ass off.
Up to some point, a span of consecutive hot years and highest-ever recorded temperatures, tell us we have a 150 year high temp wise in Alaska.
I would think that the Eskimo spoken history would be useful. They would know if something like this happened before.
So it's either the Heat version of a 500 year or 1000 year flood, or it's a for real demonstration of man-made Climate Change.
M
moose eater
Article in the Anchorage Daily News today/yesterday(??) states that earlier on-set of fire season, and later end to it, will be our new 'common' here.
And the Interior weather in Alaska hasn't been that odd lately, other than for increased moisture, earlier monsoon season, and later departure of it, but the South Central coast has had a freakish summer, with record time without rain, and hot sun; NOT coastal conditions, per se'.
Poor bastards down on the Kenai Peninsula, if it weren't enough to have fires at Swan Lake, Caribou Hills, etc., threatening homes and property, NOW parts of the Kenai are under watch for a dam to potentially collapse, up near Cooper Landing, and down stream, bringing flood warnings should it discombobulate, potentially flooding areas that are still contending with fires!
I told my wife that after this, the folks in those areas should maybe expect locusts, famine, disease, etc.
Phatty, there's already a number of older villages being relocated due to erosion, flooding, etc., and others that have been moved in the past. Brings a whole new meaning to 'mobile home.'
And the Interior weather in Alaska hasn't been that odd lately, other than for increased moisture, earlier monsoon season, and later departure of it, but the South Central coast has had a freakish summer, with record time without rain, and hot sun; NOT coastal conditions, per se'.
Poor bastards down on the Kenai Peninsula, if it weren't enough to have fires at Swan Lake, Caribou Hills, etc., threatening homes and property, NOW parts of the Kenai are under watch for a dam to potentially collapse, up near Cooper Landing, and down stream, bringing flood warnings should it discombobulate, potentially flooding areas that are still contending with fires!
I told my wife that after this, the folks in those areas should maybe expect locusts, famine, disease, etc.
Phatty, there's already a number of older villages being relocated due to erosion, flooding, etc., and others that have been moved in the past. Brings a whole new meaning to 'mobile home.'
A Directory of Inconvenient Climate Information Websites
Bookmark them. Read them. Share them. While you still can.
Edward Ring
- August 16th, 2019
Conservative free speech advocates have been rightly concerned about internet censorship, but the focus of those concerns has been relatively narrow. Conservatives are pushing back against big tech suppression of online critics of globalism, mass immigration, and identity politics. They are pushing back against Big Tech suppression of pro-Trump commentators. But there is another collection of online voices that quietly and very effectively have been suppressed: climate-change skeptics.
In the past 10 or 15 years, roughly at the same time as identity politics was assuming a dominant position in America’s corporate, academic, and media cultures, climate alarm followed a parallel trajectory. But starting in 2017, when the social media monopolies intensified their online offensive against politically incorrect content, climate skeptic content had already dwindled. It isn’t hard to understand why.
Identity politics, globalism, and mass immigration create obvious winners and losers, with Americans bitterly and almost evenly divided over what policies represent the best moral and practical choices. Policies and principles embracing “climate change,” by contrast, have conducted their own long, slow march through America’s institutions without encountering serious resistance. Proclaiming one’s belief in climate change dogma carries minimal downside and plenty of upside.
Embracing climate-change politics enriches and empowers the same cast of characters who embrace globalism—corporations, governments, the financial sector, nonprofits, academia, and the useful idiots in media and entertainment.
Meanwhile, the downside of climate change policies is harder to articulate than the downside of globalism. As a result, financial support for scientists and analysts tagged as climate change “deniers” has nearly dried up over the past decade or so. Whoever is left confronts an overwhelming climate alarm apparatus.
The problem, however, is that globalism and climate alarm are two sides of the same coin. Globalism requires “climate refugees” to overwhelm the cultures and transform the electorate in developed nations. It requires authoritarian rationing to “save the planet.” It requires supra-national governing bodies to cope with the “climate crisis.” And the globalist project is fatally undermined by the availability of cheap and abundant fossil fuel.
Fossil fuel will remain the most inexpensive and abundant source of energy for at least the next 20 to 30 years, and cheap energy is the prerequisite for prosperity, which in turn is the prerequisite for literacy and voluntary population stabilization, political stability, economic development, and world peace.
Ignoring this fact—that cheap energy worldwide can only be delivered in the near term by continuing to develop fossil fuel—is the true crime of “denial” that is being perpetrated on humanity by globalists. And yet, only a handful of websites still seek to reopen the debate as to just how dangerous or imminent the threat CO2 emissions are to humanity and the planet. Here, sorted by viewership (most viewed on top) are some of the independent climate skeptic websites that remain active in 2019.
Climate Skeptic Websites
Web viewership rises and falls based a great deal on Google search results. If a website link shows up on the first screen of Google search results, it will get traffic. And this is a self-reinforcing cycle, the more a site shows up in search results, the more it will get visited, and the more it gets visited, the higher it will go in search results. This chicken-and-egg process obscures the reality of biased algorithms.
Search Google under “climate skeptic websites,” and the first two results you will get take you to “SkepticalScience.com,” a website devoted to debunking climate skeptics, followed by “RealClimate.org,” produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The fourth result is of marginal assistance—a Business Insider report from 2009 that provides a mostly geriatric assortment of the “10 most respected global warming skeptics.” The fifth result is “Watts Up With That.” Note that the fourth and fifth results are the only ones not directing readers to “consensus” material.
Nonprofits Still Willing to be Climate Skeptics
The most unambiguously skeptical think tank still compiling data and analysis that presents a skeptical perspective on climate change is The Heartland Institute. The Chicago-based group refers to its position as “climate realism” and has assembled an impressive lineup of skeptical experts on climate science and climate policy. Heartland regularly hosts international conferences on the topic of climate change and sponsors the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which publishes regular reports that contradict much of what comes from the IPCC.
Another consistently realist think tank on climate is the American Enterprise Institute. The redoubtable PragerU has produced a 12-video series on climate change titled “Climate Change: What’s So Alarming.” Useful information on the scientific debate over climate change also comes from the libertarian Cato Institute and the venerable Heritage Foundation, although much of their focus has shifted to the policy debate.
Climate Skeptic Videos on YouTube
Searching YouTube to find climate skeptic content yields very little. If there are dedicated video channels offering ongoing new releases of credible climate skeptic content, they’re not very easy to find. Documentaries and other stand-alone videos with a climate skeptic perspective are sparse, but those few that could be found have valuable information:
It has become obligatory for any Democrat and the majority of Republican politicians in America—along with every establishment newscaster—to proclaim their adherence to the “consensus” on climate. The only debate left (not that it isn’t a big one) is how best to limit and eventually eliminate the use of fossil fuels.
The nondebate has serious consequences. It is preposterous to think worldwide use of fossil fuel will decline by any meaningful percentage within the next 30 years. What could happen, however, is it will be restricted to the point where developing nations, especially in Africa, will be pressured into developing a “renewable” energy infrastructure that will be far too expensive to rapidly deliver the broad-based prosperity that is a crucial prerequisite to population stabilization.
Moreover, developing nations that are denied access to cheap fossil fuel will continue to rely on biomass to supplement inadequate or unaffordable renewable energy, stripping their forests for energy, or, worse, they will annihilate their ecosystems to plant “carbon neutral” corporate biofuel monocultures.
None of this is necessary. The only reason we are debating how best to eliminate the use of fossil fuels quickly is that “the debate is over” with respect to the planetary impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. But that debate is not over. Read the material on these websites. Watch the videos. There is ample scientific basis for the debate to be raging, and yet the corporate globalist establishment universally declares the debate to be “over.”
Why?
Virtually all powerful vested interests in the Western hemisphere recognize climate change alarm as leverage to impose self-serving policies and garner higher profits. The reasons for this are myriad:
These policies also represent a profound cultural shift with consequences that extend to every corner of society. All of a sudden:
All of this is an inversion of reality. All of this must be challenged, and challenged with the same vigor that Americans of all backgrounds are finally rising up to challenge identity politics. Climate change alarm, in its emotional fearmongering and scapegoating, in its reliance on authoritarian governance, and in its co-opting of the industrial and financial elites, is explicitly fascist.
In George Orwell’s masterpiece, Nineteen Eighty-Four, the main character, Winston, worked for the “Ministry of Truth.” His job, day after day, was the systematic rewriting of history. Today’s social media and search monopolies are the realized versions of what Orwell imagined. They define and redefine our reality. As credible, informed content offering a climate skeptic’s perspective disappear from search results, as the traffic to these websites dwindles into nothingness, a part of our collective consciousness is lobotomized. We lose our ability to make informed choices.
Read these websites. Bookmark them. Share them. Print them. While you still can.
It is not enough to debate climate change policy. Even in the most benign forms, policies based on the premise that fossil fuel use must swiftly be eliminated represent policy choices that will magnify human suffering around the world at the same time as they disenfranchise the citizenry of entire nations.
The scientific debate must be renewed. Even if the alarmists are right, the fact that “the debate is over” is universally recited by every instrument of America’s establishment should terrify anyone concerned about free speech, if not freedom itself.
https://amgreatness.com/2019/08/16/a-directory-of-inconvenient-climate-information-websites/
Bookmark them. Read them. Share them. While you still can.
Edward Ring
- August 16th, 2019
Conservative free speech advocates have been rightly concerned about internet censorship, but the focus of those concerns has been relatively narrow. Conservatives are pushing back against big tech suppression of online critics of globalism, mass immigration, and identity politics. They are pushing back against Big Tech suppression of pro-Trump commentators. But there is another collection of online voices that quietly and very effectively have been suppressed: climate-change skeptics.
In the past 10 or 15 years, roughly at the same time as identity politics was assuming a dominant position in America’s corporate, academic, and media cultures, climate alarm followed a parallel trajectory. But starting in 2017, when the social media monopolies intensified their online offensive against politically incorrect content, climate skeptic content had already dwindled. It isn’t hard to understand why.
Identity politics, globalism, and mass immigration create obvious winners and losers, with Americans bitterly and almost evenly divided over what policies represent the best moral and practical choices. Policies and principles embracing “climate change,” by contrast, have conducted their own long, slow march through America’s institutions without encountering serious resistance. Proclaiming one’s belief in climate change dogma carries minimal downside and plenty of upside.
Embracing climate-change politics enriches and empowers the same cast of characters who embrace globalism—corporations, governments, the financial sector, nonprofits, academia, and the useful idiots in media and entertainment.
Meanwhile, the downside of climate change policies is harder to articulate than the downside of globalism. As a result, financial support for scientists and analysts tagged as climate change “deniers” has nearly dried up over the past decade or so. Whoever is left confronts an overwhelming climate alarm apparatus.
Fossil fuel will remain the most inexpensive and abundant source of energy for at least the next 20 to 30 years, and cheap energy is the prerequisite for prosperity, which in turn is the prerequisite for literacy and voluntary population stabilization, political stability, economic development, and world peace.
Ignoring this fact—that cheap energy worldwide can only be delivered in the near term by continuing to develop fossil fuel—is the true crime of “denial” that is being perpetrated on humanity by globalists. And yet, only a handful of websites still seek to reopen the debate as to just how dangerous or imminent the threat CO2 emissions are to humanity and the planet. Here, sorted by viewership (most viewed on top) are some of the independent climate skeptic websites that remain active in 2019.
Climate Skeptic Websites
- Watts Up With That?
- Real Climate Science
- No Tricks Zone
- Climate Depot
- JoNova
- Climate Change Dispatch (excellent Twitter feed)
- Roy Spencer Ph.D.
- The Global Warming Policy Foundation
- Bjorn Lomborg: Get the Facts Straight
- Junk Science
- Friends of Science
- Climate Audit
- CO2 Science
- Global Warming.org
- IceCap
- Jennifer Marohasy
- Science & Environmental Policy Project (excellent weekly email newsletter, sign up here)
- Greenie Watch
- Global Warming Science
- The Global Warming Challenge
- Tom Nelson Blogspot
- Science & Public Policy Institute
- Australian Climate Madness
- Climate Science
- Climate Lessons
- The Great Global Warming Hoax
- CO2 Web Info
- The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
Web viewership rises and falls based a great deal on Google search results. If a website link shows up on the first screen of Google search results, it will get traffic. And this is a self-reinforcing cycle, the more a site shows up in search results, the more it will get visited, and the more it gets visited, the higher it will go in search results. This chicken-and-egg process obscures the reality of biased algorithms.
Search Google under “climate skeptic websites,” and the first two results you will get take you to “SkepticalScience.com,” a website devoted to debunking climate skeptics, followed by “RealClimate.org,” produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The fourth result is of marginal assistance—a Business Insider report from 2009 that provides a mostly geriatric assortment of the “10 most respected global warming skeptics.” The fifth result is “Watts Up With That.” Note that the fourth and fifth results are the only ones not directing readers to “consensus” material.
Nonprofits Still Willing to be Climate Skeptics
The most unambiguously skeptical think tank still compiling data and analysis that presents a skeptical perspective on climate change is The Heartland Institute. The Chicago-based group refers to its position as “climate realism” and has assembled an impressive lineup of skeptical experts on climate science and climate policy. Heartland regularly hosts international conferences on the topic of climate change and sponsors the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which publishes regular reports that contradict much of what comes from the IPCC.
Another consistently realist think tank on climate is the American Enterprise Institute. The redoubtable PragerU has produced a 12-video series on climate change titled “Climate Change: What’s So Alarming.” Useful information on the scientific debate over climate change also comes from the libertarian Cato Institute and the venerable Heritage Foundation, although much of their focus has shifted to the policy debate.
Climate Skeptic Videos on YouTube
Searching YouTube to find climate skeptic content yields very little. If there are dedicated video channels offering ongoing new releases of credible climate skeptic content, they’re not very easy to find. Documentaries and other stand-alone videos with a climate skeptic perspective are sparse, but those few that could be found have valuable information:
- “No Trend in Extreme Weather in the U.S.—Climate Change Fraud Exposed” (10 minutes, 2019)
- “Fatal Flaw In Climate Change Science” (40 minutes, 2019)
- “Is Global Warming a Scam?” (17 minutes, 2019)
- “Cost-Effective Approaches to Save the Environment, with Bjorn Lomborg” (48 minutes, 2019)
- “The Truth About Global Warming” (14 minutes, 2018)
- “Nobel Laureate in Physics: ‘Global Warming is Pseudoscience’” (31 minutes, 2015)
- “The Lack of Science in the Scientific Consensus” (73 minutes, 2013)
- “Freeman Dyson: Climate Change Predictions Are ‘Absurd’” (3 minutes, 2012)
- “One Climate Change Scientist Takes on a Roomful of Sceptics” (45 minutes, 2011)
- “The Great Global Warming Swindle” (75 minutes, 2007)
It has become obligatory for any Democrat and the majority of Republican politicians in America—along with every establishment newscaster—to proclaim their adherence to the “consensus” on climate. The only debate left (not that it isn’t a big one) is how best to limit and eventually eliminate the use of fossil fuels.
The nondebate has serious consequences. It is preposterous to think worldwide use of fossil fuel will decline by any meaningful percentage within the next 30 years. What could happen, however, is it will be restricted to the point where developing nations, especially in Africa, will be pressured into developing a “renewable” energy infrastructure that will be far too expensive to rapidly deliver the broad-based prosperity that is a crucial prerequisite to population stabilization.
Moreover, developing nations that are denied access to cheap fossil fuel will continue to rely on biomass to supplement inadequate or unaffordable renewable energy, stripping their forests for energy, or, worse, they will annihilate their ecosystems to plant “carbon neutral” corporate biofuel monocultures.
None of this is necessary. The only reason we are debating how best to eliminate the use of fossil fuels quickly is that “the debate is over” with respect to the planetary impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. But that debate is not over. Read the material on these websites. Watch the videos. There is ample scientific basis for the debate to be raging, and yet the corporate globalist establishment universally declares the debate to be “over.”
Why?
Virtually all powerful vested interests in the Western hemisphere recognize climate change alarm as leverage to impose self-serving policies and garner higher profits. The reasons for this are myriad:
- Fossil fuel companies keep prices (and profits) high.
- “Renewable energy” companies acquire subsidies.
- Politicians enact new taxes.
- Public sector entities get new tax revenue.
- Environmentalist nonprofits have a new source of funds.
- Left-wing activists have a new basis to attack private ownership.
- Labor unions get more jobs, especially in the public sector.
- Lawyers have a new basis to file lawsuits.
- Wall Street trades emissions credits, making trillions in commissions.
- Climate researchers get more grant requests funded.
- United Nations bureaucrats get a guaranteed revenue stream.
- “Greentech” entrepreneurs receive generous subsidies for “green” products.
- Corporations can force consumers to replace all their appliances.
- Corporations can impose the “internet of things” to monitor household resource consumption.
- Millions of “climate refugees” will be transported to the developed nations who are to blame.
- Global governance will be necessary to coordinate climate mitigation efforts.
These policies also represent a profound cultural shift with consequences that extend to every corner of society. All of a sudden:
- The litmus test for an environmentalist is whether they embrace climate change alarm and support climate change activism.
- Elementary school children are being indoctrinated to believe the planet is in imminent danger of becoming uninhabitable.
- Capitalism, rather than being viewed as the only practical and reasonably equitable engine for economic growth, is portrayed as the despicable cause of environmental catastrophe.
- A life of rationed scarcity, remotely monitored and managed by algorithms, replaces the reasonable expectation that technology and capitalism will deliver increasing abundance for every generation.
- Sovereign nations have become a toxic anachronism.
- Developed Western nations must admit millions of destitute refugees, often coming from hostile cultures, because the states where they lived failed due to “climate change” brought on by industrial civilization.
All of this is an inversion of reality. All of this must be challenged, and challenged with the same vigor that Americans of all backgrounds are finally rising up to challenge identity politics. Climate change alarm, in its emotional fearmongering and scapegoating, in its reliance on authoritarian governance, and in its co-opting of the industrial and financial elites, is explicitly fascist.
In George Orwell’s masterpiece, Nineteen Eighty-Four, the main character, Winston, worked for the “Ministry of Truth.” His job, day after day, was the systematic rewriting of history. Today’s social media and search monopolies are the realized versions of what Orwell imagined. They define and redefine our reality. As credible, informed content offering a climate skeptic’s perspective disappear from search results, as the traffic to these websites dwindles into nothingness, a part of our collective consciousness is lobotomized. We lose our ability to make informed choices.
Read these websites. Bookmark them. Share them. Print them. While you still can.
It is not enough to debate climate change policy. Even in the most benign forms, policies based on the premise that fossil fuel use must swiftly be eliminated represent policy choices that will magnify human suffering around the world at the same time as they disenfranchise the citizenry of entire nations.
The scientific debate must be renewed. Even if the alarmists are right, the fact that “the debate is over” is universally recited by every instrument of America’s establishment should terrify anyone concerned about free speech, if not freedom itself.
https://amgreatness.com/2019/08/16/a-directory-of-inconvenient-climate-information-websites/
St. Phatty
Active member
I wonder if a criminal or perhaps general cabal will coalesce, based on the concept that they can control the amount of sea level rise.
But if they can't and it all melts - 230 feet. I figure that's +-10%.
https://www.google.com/search?q=if+all+the+polar+ice+caps+melt+how+much+would+oceans+rise
So all the real estate that's at that elevation, might have surfboard shops in 100 or 500 years.
I think Florida has hills that go as high as 600 feet. Florida would end up looking like Key West.
India would probably be un-inhabitable. Most of the people there are acclimated to the old heat but the new heat is killing some of them already.
I think if governments were realistic about project planning they would ban most new building below 230 feet.
But if they can't and it all melts - 230 feet. I figure that's +-10%.
https://www.google.com/search?q=if+all+the+polar+ice+caps+melt+how+much+would+oceans+rise
So all the real estate that's at that elevation, might have surfboard shops in 100 or 500 years.
I think Florida has hills that go as high as 600 feet. Florida would end up looking like Key West.
India would probably be un-inhabitable. Most of the people there are acclimated to the old heat but the new heat is killing some of them already.
I think if governments were realistic about project planning they would ban most new building below 230 feet.
Sea-Level Hysteria Falls Short on Science
An interesting collection of measurements should ease panic over sea levels rising.
By: Onar Åm August 14, 2019
Sea-Level Hysteria Falls Short on Science
Read More
New evidence from one of the world’s oldest sea-level measurement sites in Australia suggests that the oceans are not rising as fast as previously thought. Climate change may be overrated.
Background
Port Arthur, Tasmania
In the 20th century, the oceans rose by slightly less than an inch per decade, according to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the current consensus is that manmade global warming will make them rise even faster due to thermal expansion.
However, a few stubborn voices challenge this view. One of these is Australian amateur scientist and vocal climate skeptic John Daly, who made a fascinating report about an old sea-level benchmark in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Based on measurements done over an extended period, Antarctic explorer Sir James Clark Ross struck a mark on the Isle of the Dead in 1841 to document the average sea level.
Now, nearly two centuries later, the mark is still visible, suggesting that there has been little or no sea-level rise. Mainstream scientists dismissed it as an error and gave it little attention.
more at: https://www.libertynation.com/sea-level-hysteria-falls-short-on-science/
An interesting collection of measurements should ease panic over sea levels rising.
By: Onar Åm August 14, 2019
Sea-Level Hysteria Falls Short on Science
Read More
New evidence from one of the world’s oldest sea-level measurement sites in Australia suggests that the oceans are not rising as fast as previously thought. Climate change may be overrated.
Background
Port Arthur, Tasmania
In the 20th century, the oceans rose by slightly less than an inch per decade, according to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the current consensus is that manmade global warming will make them rise even faster due to thermal expansion.
However, a few stubborn voices challenge this view. One of these is Australian amateur scientist and vocal climate skeptic John Daly, who made a fascinating report about an old sea-level benchmark in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Based on measurements done over an extended period, Antarctic explorer Sir James Clark Ross struck a mark on the Isle of the Dead in 1841 to document the average sea level.
Now, nearly two centuries later, the mark is still visible, suggesting that there has been little or no sea-level rise. Mainstream scientists dismissed it as an error and gave it little attention.
more at: https://www.libertynation.com/sea-level-hysteria-falls-short-on-science/
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
"...Australian amateur scientist and vocal climate skeptic John Daly..."
Got anything from a pro? Just asking because I'm an amateur rocket scientist but i don't know much about astronomy so you shouldn't trust my rocket calculations.
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
Heat Stress Kills Thousands of Salmon in Alaska
https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/alaska-salmon-heat-deaths-1.5256288
https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/alaska-salmon-heat-deaths-1.5256288
St. Phatty
Active member
We're talking about something with perhaps a 150 year time line.
It's not panic to prepare for a foreseeable event that far in the future. It's common sense.
I was going to say, the first step is when one of our underwater cities falls to a hurricane.
But that sort of already happened, in New Orleans in 2005.
People signing 30 year mortgages in Miami are being a little optimistic.
kickarse
Active member
here ya go, a little bit more on it
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Completed_Inquiries/jsct/kyoto/sub44c
M
moose eater
Similar story in the Anchorage Daily News this morning; attributing the salmon die-offs to lower water levels in the streams/rivers, and the hotter weather near the coast, which, when considering the reduced mass/volumes in H2O, means that the increased temps heat the reduced bodies of water that much faster.
Alaska scored the hottest July on record, but mostly because of the coast's increased temps; the Interior has a history of hot summers.
Either way, between the legalized wanton waste of the trawler fleets, the changes in ocean water, and now the lower water in spawning streams/creeks/rivers, there will undoubtedly be some places that suffer in re. to salmon reproduction this year, moreso than recent years.
Meanwhile, here in the Interior, I can't get 4 days of sun in a row, since the monsoon season set in, to help dry out the gravel sources, so I can haul a load of D1 road mix for my various needs.
St. Phatty
Active member
It's all one big water based extraction.
M
moose eater
Yeah, but it seems that it's being 'extracted' (a lot of it via evaporation) from all the places that are typically supposed to be wet, and being supplied, incessantly, to the places that are (traditionally) supposed to be more dry.
Meanwhile there appears to be some sort of legislative/political tiff between the western states, and the plains that want their water. Maybe they haven't read about California's rationing in recent times?
The losing-water-regularly dry west coast (S. Cal) wanted to divert waters from the Yukon Territory, etc., 40+ years ago, via a pipeline scheme, and that plan (pipe dream; pun intended) was met with hostile objection at that time. Now, with water levels in parts of the Yukon Territory, to include some of their major waterways and lakes, being at notable lows, I'd wager they're glad they frowned on such agendas when they did... even if they couldn't read the future.
As the Sioux said at Standing Rock; "Water is life."
Meanwhile there appears to be some sort of legislative/political tiff between the western states, and the plains that want their water. Maybe they haven't read about California's rationing in recent times?
The losing-water-regularly dry west coast (S. Cal) wanted to divert waters from the Yukon Territory, etc., 40+ years ago, via a pipeline scheme, and that plan (pipe dream; pun intended) was met with hostile objection at that time. Now, with water levels in parts of the Yukon Territory, to include some of their major waterways and lakes, being at notable lows, I'd wager they're glad they frowned on such agendas when they did... even if they couldn't read the future.
As the Sioux said at Standing Rock; "Water is life."
the silvers are massing off the tributaries here now.
some big rain needed to flush the redds for this years spawn and only sparse rainfall (less than an inch)... the natives who control salmon harvest have put their gill nets out.
yes, the first nations peoples determine salmon harvest here. the state enforces.
coho in the next month or so, depending on rainfall.
some big rain needed to flush the redds for this years spawn and only sparse rainfall (less than an inch)... the natives who control salmon harvest have put their gill nets out.
yes, the first nations peoples determine salmon harvest here. the state enforces.
coho in the next month or so, depending on rainfall.
White Beard
Active member
And it requires mention that thawing permafrost deposits of methane hydrates are leaking methane into sea and air - and have been for an unknown time (we were inattentive ‘cause we figured that couldn’t happen).
Methane is considerably more “potent” as a greenhouse gas than CO2, and there’s enough of it in hydrates to firmly tip the scales toward runaway warming...which is sure to happen if, well, it keeps warming...cows won’t even me a blip, as sources of methane goes if/when the hydrates give up their gas....
A Short List Of Facts Global Warming Alarmists Don’t Want To Face
I & I Editorial Board
9 hours ago
Add comment
4 min read
I&I Editorial
Democrats nearly had a brawl last week in California after the party’s Resolutions Committee rejected a proposed climate debate among Democratic presidential candidates. Global warming so fully occupies the thinking of some that there’s no room for information that will contradict their faith.
If they’d only open their minds they’d see:
The U.S. hasn’t warmed since 2005. America isn’t the entire world. But the alarmists gleefully point out regional heatwaves and the “hottest day on record” when cities endure summer scorchers. So let’s look at the data. The U.S. Climate Reference Network, “a sophisticated climate-observing network specifically designed and deployed for quantifying climate change on a national scale,” has found there’s been no warming in the U.S. going back to 2005.
In fact, says meteorologist Anthony Watts, the “little known data from the state-of-the-art” operation, “(which never seems to make it into NOAA’s monthly ‘state of the climate’ reports) show that for the past nine months, six of them were below normal.”
The data also tell us 2019’s average has been cooler than 2005’s, the first year of the data set.
Man’s carbon dioxide emissions are not burning down the Amazon. Empty-headed celebrities and activists have had quite a virtue-signaling feast tweeting photos from fires three decades ago, fires in Europe, and fires in the U.S. Yes, we’ve seen the claims that there are 80% more fires this year than last in South America, but we’ve also seen this from the New York Times:
“The majority of these fires were set by farmers preparing Amazon-adjacent farmland for next year’s crops and pasture.”
Of course that’s a disposable detail because it doesn’t fit the narrative.
Carbon dioxide increases historically lag temperature increases. “In 1985, ice cores extracted from Greenland revealed temperatures and CO2 levels going back 150,000 years,” writes author Joanne Nova. “Temperature and CO2 seemed locked together. It was a turning point — the ‘greenhouse effect’ captured attention. But, in 1999 it became clear that carbon dioxide rose and fell after temperatures did. By 2003, we had better data showing the lag was 800 ± 200 years. CO2 was in the back seat.”
Of course the climate crusaders have written at great length to tell us it’s all just a myth. This time, they say, the warming (which is in doubt) is caused by man. It just has to be. All those other warming periods, the alarmists tell us, can be explained by natural events, such as Earth’s orbit around the sun, which, incidentally, we have mentioned as one of many factors that influence climate changes.
Less than 5% of carbon dioxide emissions are produced by man. Web searches turn up what seems like an endless list of stories and blog posts reporting that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have reached or exceeded 415 parts per million. This has been almost universally treated as the tip of an imminent disaster, as man has pushed greenhouse gas emissions beyond a dangerous threshold. But has he?
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “agrees today’s annual human carbon dioxide emissions are 4.5 ppm (parts per million) per year and nature’s carbon dioxide emissions are 98 ppm per year,” says climate scientist Ed Berry. “Yet, the IPCC claims human emissions have caused all the increase in carbon dioxide since 1750, which is 30% of today’s total.
“How can human carbon dioxide, which is less than 5% of natural carbon dioxide, cause 30% of today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide? It can’t.”
Don’t like Berry’s numbers? Consider another set of figures from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, which says that of the 750 gigatons of CO2 which travel through the carbon cycle every year, only 29 gigatons, or less than 4%, are produced by man.
Is it possible for such a small portion to have such a great influence? Despite what the hysterics tell us, it’s an unanswered question.
There are many other unanswered questions about climate, as well. An honest person would admit that they might remain unanswered forever. An alarmist, however, has his mind made up — and closed down.
https://issuesinsights.com/2019/08/...s-global-warming-alarmists-dont-want-to-face/
The great failure of the climate models
by Patrick Michaels and Caleb Stewart Rossiter
| August 25, 2019 12:00 AM
Computer models of the climate are at the heart of calls to ban the cheap, reliable energy that powers our thriving economy and promotes healthier, longer lives. For decades, these models have projected dramatic warming from small, fossil-fueled increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, with catastrophic consequences.
Yet, the real-world data aren’t cooperating. They show only slight warming, mostly at night and in winter. According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there has been no systematic increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, and the ongoing rise in sea level that began with the end of the ice age continues with no great increase in magnitude. The constancy of land-based records is obvious in data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Should we trust these computer models of doom? Let’s find out by comparing the actual temperatures since 1979 with what the 32 families of climate models used in the latest U.N. report on climate science predicted they would be.
Atmospheric scientist John Christy developed a global temperature record of the lower atmosphere using highly accurate satellite soundings. NASA honored him for this achievement, and he was an author for a previous edition of the U.N. report. He told a House Science Committee hearing in March 2017 that the U.N. climate models have failed badly.
Christy compared the average model projections since 1979 to the most reliable observations — those made by satellites and weather balloons over the vast tropics. The result? In the upper levels of the lower atmosphere, the models predicted seven times as much warming as has been observed. Overprediction also occurred at all other levels. Christy recently concluded that, on average, the projected heating by the models is three times what has been observed.
This is a critical error. Getting the tropical climate right is essential to understanding climate worldwide. Most of the atmospheric moisture originates in the tropical ocean, and the difference between surface and upper atmospheric temperature determines how much of the moisture rises into the atmosphere. That’s important. Most of Earth’s agriculture is dependent upon the transfer of moisture from the tropics to temperate regions.
Christy is not looking at surface temperatures, as measured by thermometers at weather stations. Instead, he is looking at temperatures measured from calibrated thermistors carried by weather balloons and data from satellites. Why didn’t he simply look down here, where we all live? Because the records of the surface temperatures have been badly compromised.
Globally averaged thermometers show two periods of warming since 1900: a half-degree from natural causes in the first half of the 20th century, before there was an increase in industrial carbon dioxide that was enough to produce it, and another half-degree in the last quarter of the century.
The latest U.N. science compendium asserts that the latter half-degree is at least half manmade. But the thermometer records showed that the warming stopped from 2000 to 2014. Until they didn’t. In two of the four global surface series, data were adjusted in two ways that wiped out the “pause” that had been observed.
The first adjustment changed how the temperature of the ocean surface is calculated, by replacing satellite data with drifting buoys and temperatures in ships’ water intake. The size of the ship determines how deep the intake tube is, and steel ships warm up tremendously under sunny, hot conditions. The buoy temperatures, which are measured by precise electronic thermistors, were adjusted upwards to match the questionable ship data. Given that the buoy network became more extensive during the pause, that’s guaranteed to put some artificial warming in the data.
The second big adjustment was over the Arctic Ocean, where there aren’t any weather stations. In this revision, temperatures were estimated from nearby land stations. This runs afoul of basic physics.
Even in warm summers, there’s plenty of ice over much of the Arctic Ocean. Now, for example, when the sea ice is nearing its annual minimum, it still extends part way down Greenland’s east coast. As long as the ice-water mix is well-stirred (like a glass of ice water), the surface temperature stays at the freezing point until all the ice melts. So, extending land readings over the Arctic Ocean adds nonexistent warming to the record.
Further, both global and United States data have been frequently adjusted. There is nothing scientifically wrong with adjusting data to correct for changes in the way temperatures are observed and for changes in the thermometers. But each serial adjustment has tended to make the early years colder, which increases the warming trend. That’s wildly improbable.
In addition, thermometers are housed in standardized instrument shelters, which are to be kept a specified shade of white. Shelters in poorer countries are not repainted as often, and darker stations absorb more of the sun’s energy. It’s no surprise that poor tropical countries show the largest warming from this effect.
All this is to say that the weather balloon and satellite temperatures used in Christy’s testimony are the best data we have, and they show that the U.N.’s climate models just aren’t ready for prime time.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/the-great-failure-of-the-climate-models
Posted on August 24, 2019 by John Hinderaker in Climate
Michael Mann Refuses to Produce Data, Loses Case
Some years ago, Dr. Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” At issue was Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to show a sudden and unprecedented 20th century warming trend. The hockey stick featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), but has since been shown to be wrong. The question, in my view, is whether it was an innocent mistake or deliberate fraud on Mann’s part. (Mann, I believe, continues to assert the accuracy of his debunked graph.) Mann sued Ball for libel in 2011. Principia Scientific now reports that the court in British Columbia has dismissed Mann’s lawsuit with prejudice, and assessed costs against him.
What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.
The rules of discovery provide that a litigant must make available to opposing parties documents that reasonably bear on the issues in the case. Here, it is absurd for Mann to sue Ball for libel, and then refuse to produce the documents that would have helped to show whether Ball’s statement about him–he belongs in the state pen–was true or false. The logical inference is that the R2 regression analysis and other materials, if produced, would have supported Ball’s claim that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud on Mann’s part.
Mann says that his lawyers are considering an appeal. He can appeal to his heart’s content, but there is not a court in North America that will allow a libel case to proceed where the plaintiff refuses to produce the documents that may show whether the statements made about him were true or false.
Mann responded to the dismissal of his lawsuit in typically mean-spirited and dishonest fashion: “The dismissal involved the alleged exercise of a discretion on [sic] the Court to dismiss a lawsuit for delay.” The dismissal was for failure to obey a court order, and the delay went on for eight years.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/08/michael-mann-refuses-to-produce-data-loses-case.php
I & I Editorial Board
9 hours ago
Add comment
4 min read
I&I Editorial
Democrats nearly had a brawl last week in California after the party’s Resolutions Committee rejected a proposed climate debate among Democratic presidential candidates. Global warming so fully occupies the thinking of some that there’s no room for information that will contradict their faith.
If they’d only open their minds they’d see:
The U.S. hasn’t warmed since 2005. America isn’t the entire world. But the alarmists gleefully point out regional heatwaves and the “hottest day on record” when cities endure summer scorchers. So let’s look at the data. The U.S. Climate Reference Network, “a sophisticated climate-observing network specifically designed and deployed for quantifying climate change on a national scale,” has found there’s been no warming in the U.S. going back to 2005.
In fact, says meteorologist Anthony Watts, the “little known data from the state-of-the-art” operation, “(which never seems to make it into NOAA’s monthly ‘state of the climate’ reports) show that for the past nine months, six of them were below normal.”
The data also tell us 2019’s average has been cooler than 2005’s, the first year of the data set.
Man’s carbon dioxide emissions are not burning down the Amazon. Empty-headed celebrities and activists have had quite a virtue-signaling feast tweeting photos from fires three decades ago, fires in Europe, and fires in the U.S. Yes, we’ve seen the claims that there are 80% more fires this year than last in South America, but we’ve also seen this from the New York Times:
“The majority of these fires were set by farmers preparing Amazon-adjacent farmland for next year’s crops and pasture.”
Of course that’s a disposable detail because it doesn’t fit the narrative.
Carbon dioxide increases historically lag temperature increases. “In 1985, ice cores extracted from Greenland revealed temperatures and CO2 levels going back 150,000 years,” writes author Joanne Nova. “Temperature and CO2 seemed locked together. It was a turning point — the ‘greenhouse effect’ captured attention. But, in 1999 it became clear that carbon dioxide rose and fell after temperatures did. By 2003, we had better data showing the lag was 800 ± 200 years. CO2 was in the back seat.”
Of course the climate crusaders have written at great length to tell us it’s all just a myth. This time, they say, the warming (which is in doubt) is caused by man. It just has to be. All those other warming periods, the alarmists tell us, can be explained by natural events, such as Earth’s orbit around the sun, which, incidentally, we have mentioned as one of many factors that influence climate changes.
Less than 5% of carbon dioxide emissions are produced by man. Web searches turn up what seems like an endless list of stories and blog posts reporting that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have reached or exceeded 415 parts per million. This has been almost universally treated as the tip of an imminent disaster, as man has pushed greenhouse gas emissions beyond a dangerous threshold. But has he?
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “agrees today’s annual human carbon dioxide emissions are 4.5 ppm (parts per million) per year and nature’s carbon dioxide emissions are 98 ppm per year,” says climate scientist Ed Berry. “Yet, the IPCC claims human emissions have caused all the increase in carbon dioxide since 1750, which is 30% of today’s total.
“How can human carbon dioxide, which is less than 5% of natural carbon dioxide, cause 30% of today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide? It can’t.”
Don’t like Berry’s numbers? Consider another set of figures from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, which says that of the 750 gigatons of CO2 which travel through the carbon cycle every year, only 29 gigatons, or less than 4%, are produced by man.
Is it possible for such a small portion to have such a great influence? Despite what the hysterics tell us, it’s an unanswered question.
There are many other unanswered questions about climate, as well. An honest person would admit that they might remain unanswered forever. An alarmist, however, has his mind made up — and closed down.
https://issuesinsights.com/2019/08/...s-global-warming-alarmists-dont-want-to-face/
The great failure of the climate models
by Patrick Michaels and Caleb Stewart Rossiter
| August 25, 2019 12:00 AM
Computer models of the climate are at the heart of calls to ban the cheap, reliable energy that powers our thriving economy and promotes healthier, longer lives. For decades, these models have projected dramatic warming from small, fossil-fueled increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, with catastrophic consequences.
Yet, the real-world data aren’t cooperating. They show only slight warming, mostly at night and in winter. According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there has been no systematic increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, and the ongoing rise in sea level that began with the end of the ice age continues with no great increase in magnitude. The constancy of land-based records is obvious in data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Should we trust these computer models of doom? Let’s find out by comparing the actual temperatures since 1979 with what the 32 families of climate models used in the latest U.N. report on climate science predicted they would be.
Atmospheric scientist John Christy developed a global temperature record of the lower atmosphere using highly accurate satellite soundings. NASA honored him for this achievement, and he was an author for a previous edition of the U.N. report. He told a House Science Committee hearing in March 2017 that the U.N. climate models have failed badly.
Christy compared the average model projections since 1979 to the most reliable observations — those made by satellites and weather balloons over the vast tropics. The result? In the upper levels of the lower atmosphere, the models predicted seven times as much warming as has been observed. Overprediction also occurred at all other levels. Christy recently concluded that, on average, the projected heating by the models is three times what has been observed.
This is a critical error. Getting the tropical climate right is essential to understanding climate worldwide. Most of the atmospheric moisture originates in the tropical ocean, and the difference between surface and upper atmospheric temperature determines how much of the moisture rises into the atmosphere. That’s important. Most of Earth’s agriculture is dependent upon the transfer of moisture from the tropics to temperate regions.
Christy is not looking at surface temperatures, as measured by thermometers at weather stations. Instead, he is looking at temperatures measured from calibrated thermistors carried by weather balloons and data from satellites. Why didn’t he simply look down here, where we all live? Because the records of the surface temperatures have been badly compromised.
Globally averaged thermometers show two periods of warming since 1900: a half-degree from natural causes in the first half of the 20th century, before there was an increase in industrial carbon dioxide that was enough to produce it, and another half-degree in the last quarter of the century.
The latest U.N. science compendium asserts that the latter half-degree is at least half manmade. But the thermometer records showed that the warming stopped from 2000 to 2014. Until they didn’t. In two of the four global surface series, data were adjusted in two ways that wiped out the “pause” that had been observed.
The first adjustment changed how the temperature of the ocean surface is calculated, by replacing satellite data with drifting buoys and temperatures in ships’ water intake. The size of the ship determines how deep the intake tube is, and steel ships warm up tremendously under sunny, hot conditions. The buoy temperatures, which are measured by precise electronic thermistors, were adjusted upwards to match the questionable ship data. Given that the buoy network became more extensive during the pause, that’s guaranteed to put some artificial warming in the data.
The second big adjustment was over the Arctic Ocean, where there aren’t any weather stations. In this revision, temperatures were estimated from nearby land stations. This runs afoul of basic physics.
Even in warm summers, there’s plenty of ice over much of the Arctic Ocean. Now, for example, when the sea ice is nearing its annual minimum, it still extends part way down Greenland’s east coast. As long as the ice-water mix is well-stirred (like a glass of ice water), the surface temperature stays at the freezing point until all the ice melts. So, extending land readings over the Arctic Ocean adds nonexistent warming to the record.
Further, both global and United States data have been frequently adjusted. There is nothing scientifically wrong with adjusting data to correct for changes in the way temperatures are observed and for changes in the thermometers. But each serial adjustment has tended to make the early years colder, which increases the warming trend. That’s wildly improbable.
In addition, thermometers are housed in standardized instrument shelters, which are to be kept a specified shade of white. Shelters in poorer countries are not repainted as often, and darker stations absorb more of the sun’s energy. It’s no surprise that poor tropical countries show the largest warming from this effect.
All this is to say that the weather balloon and satellite temperatures used in Christy’s testimony are the best data we have, and they show that the U.N.’s climate models just aren’t ready for prime time.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/the-great-failure-of-the-climate-models
Posted on August 24, 2019 by John Hinderaker in Climate
Michael Mann Refuses to Produce Data, Loses Case
Some years ago, Dr. Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” At issue was Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to show a sudden and unprecedented 20th century warming trend. The hockey stick featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), but has since been shown to be wrong. The question, in my view, is whether it was an innocent mistake or deliberate fraud on Mann’s part. (Mann, I believe, continues to assert the accuracy of his debunked graph.) Mann sued Ball for libel in 2011. Principia Scientific now reports that the court in British Columbia has dismissed Mann’s lawsuit with prejudice, and assessed costs against him.
What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.
The rules of discovery provide that a litigant must make available to opposing parties documents that reasonably bear on the issues in the case. Here, it is absurd for Mann to sue Ball for libel, and then refuse to produce the documents that would have helped to show whether Ball’s statement about him–he belongs in the state pen–was true or false. The logical inference is that the R2 regression analysis and other materials, if produced, would have supported Ball’s claim that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud on Mann’s part.
Mann says that his lawyers are considering an appeal. He can appeal to his heart’s content, but there is not a court in North America that will allow a libel case to proceed where the plaintiff refuses to produce the documents that may show whether the statements made about him were true or false.
Mann responded to the dismissal of his lawsuit in typically mean-spirited and dishonest fashion: “The dismissal involved the alleged exercise of a discretion on [sic] the Court to dismiss a lawsuit for delay.” The dismissal was for failure to obey a court order, and the delay went on for eight years.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/08/michael-mann-refuses-to-produce-data-loses-case.php
F
Frylock
Trichrider and Dumbar.... *cough* Kickarse standing in blistering heat with water around their knees claiming 'hoax, liberal lefty nonsense'
shaking the chains of cultism we are. free your mind friend.
the truth sets you free...
this video very well states what i've been referring to re: electrical charging and varying potential creating atmospheric turbulence.
heat is high pressure, cooling is release of pressure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEWoPzaDmOA
[YOUTUBEIF]rEWoPzaDmOA[/YOUTUBEIF]
the truth sets you free...
this video very well states what i've been referring to re: electrical charging and varying potential creating atmospheric turbulence.
heat is high pressure, cooling is release of pressure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEWoPzaDmOA
[YOUTUBEIF]rEWoPzaDmOA[/YOUTUBEIF]
