The Global Warming Scam: A Bigger SCAM than first Suspected
- Thread starter Nazaroo
- Start date
Nazaroo
New member
Its pretty easy to call Bull Poop on this NASA propaganda film for kiddies.
He claims at 1:34:
"In the Western Pacific, sea levels have been rising very rapidly,
This is because heat is being pushed from East to West,
across the Pacific."
Look first at the actual data:
Heat naturally disperses and dissipates, as the Laws of Thermodynamics plainly show
in natural systems that conduct heat, like this.
Winds cannot "gather heat together" and then concentrate it at a relative point-source.
Never mind the fact that wind currents will not be the same at different latitudes,
such as those here at Japan and separately at the Philippine Islands!
In fact, wind systems near the Philippines are most often circular and form typhoons.
Nor could the heat collected by winds on ocean surfaces suddenly stop dead westward.
The correlation between average temperature of the ocean and its level is strong.
The correlation between temperature and ocean depth is non-existant.
The proximity of land masses cannot magically 'absorb' the heat being pushed West
(according to the explanation), nor would winds stop suddenly at the shores of Asian Islands.
It is obvious to any real scientist that the data in the picture is best explained
as heat generated from below by the subduction of the pacific plates,
and in fact, the high concentrations of heat (shown by sea level) peak right at
the plate-clash zones, which are also very high areas of volcanic activity.
Just look at the high correlation between the upper RED ZONE off Japan above,
with the volcanic activity around the plates off Japan below:
There can be no doubt that the 'rising' of the sea levels in these key areas
(and indeed the hottest areas and highest areas and rises in the ocean)
are plainly caused by volcanic activity which is completely independent of
industrial activity, global pollution, or human activity.
In fact, the data shows that other than the volcanic activity around the Ring of Fire,
the ocean is NOT RISING.
Thus the data tells the OPPOSITE NARRATIVE to the Global Warming pundits.
Likewise, plotting earthquake activity around the Phillipines shows plainly
what the source of the heat is.
The laws of convection dictate that if ocean currents at the surface are moving in one direction,
the currents at the ocean floor will probably be moving in the opposite direction.
Thus its likely that the heat generated from the crustal activity
is being transported EASTWARD, not Westward as the idiot from NASA suggests.
Nazaroo
New member
The second video is at least more accurate than the first,
in that it admits some key points:
(1) Levels have been rising since long before any industrial age or human input.
(2) Average global levels are not expected to rise globally more than 12 - 24" over the next 100 years.
(3) Current level rises on the Western coast of the USA are caused by El Nino effects,
and not by global warming at all, and in fact have resulted in measurements way
outside the projected global trends.
And lets get to the point: El Nino type effects have nothing to do with greenhouse gases,
global warming, or industrial contributions to the atmosphere.
The ocean effects appear driven by large-scale processes far outside of human control.
brewmama
New member
Here are 10 of the many scientific problems with the assumption human activity is causing “global warming” or “climate change”:
1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today’s temperatures are unusual.
2. Satellite temperature data does not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly:
3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980’s, but for many parts of the world the 1980’s was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years:
4. The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980:
5. Urban heat island effect skews the temperature data of a significant number of weather stations:
6. There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels:
7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes:
8. There have been many periods during our recent history that a warmer climate was prevalent long before the industrial revolution:
9. Glaciers have been melting for more than 150 years
10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming:
Great article!
http://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen
1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today’s temperatures are unusual.
2. Satellite temperature data does not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly:
3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980’s, but for many parts of the world the 1980’s was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years:
4. The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980:
5. Urban heat island effect skews the temperature data of a significant number of weather stations:
6. There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels:
7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes:
8. There have been many periods during our recent history that a warmer climate was prevalent long before the industrial revolution:
9. Glaciers have been melting for more than 150 years
10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming:
Great article!
http://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen
gcthomas
New member
He seems to be suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect of be thinks that a data analyst with no experience of climate theory of the instrumentation used has the capability to spot huge holes that scientists missed.
Unless he is just an unhinged conspiracy theorist. All these points have been addressed a host of times, yet they keep returning like zombies.
Silly post.
brewmama
New member
Are you actually questioning his credentials, without giving a reason why?
No, they have NOT been satisfactorily addressed.
And you should really be careful of claiming that "climate scientists" have the most expertise in statistics since that has been roundly and soundly disabused.
gcthomas
New member
Take his point 7 explanation.
| ... * It turns out that between water vapor and CO2,*nearly all of the radiation that can be absorbed by CO2*is already being absorbed. Thus increasing the CO2*levels should have very minimal impact on the atmosphere’s ability to retain heat radiated from the Earth.**... |
He goes from "minimal" absorption effect to "no" global warming effect. Minimal is not, of course, zero.
So, how much global warming is ascribed to increases in CO2? Say, 0.6 kelvin. Since the temperature is about 288 K, that is only 0.6/288 = 0.2%. The climatologists are only claiming a temperature rise of 0.2%, so how can your denier so easily dismiss a "minimal" but non-zero effect? (he neglected to supply any calculations from theory that justified his rejection.) All that is needed is a tiny effect.
You tell me why you think a tiny temperature change can't be caused by what you agree is a "minimal" but nonzero effect?
What is your evidence for this claim that sea levels have been rising since long before any industrial age?
Nazaroo
New member
Glacial retreat since 1700.
I see you haven't commented on the absurd errors of your NASA spokesperson.
"Worldwide, most mountain glaciers have been retreating since the end of the 'Little Ice Age'. Although this date varies from region to region, in most locations, retreat was underway by the late 1800s." -- http://www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/glaciers/glaciers_sea_level.asp
"The Little Ice Age ended in the latter half of the nineteenth century or early in the twentieth century."
See also: Retreat of glaciers since 1850
Nazaroo
New member
If you prefer 1850 it makes no difference.
If so, it was not caused by the Industrial Revolution.
And if it was, we should be grateful, for the end of the cold spell
was also the end of European famine and plague.
"Since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750, human activities have contributed substantially to climate change by adding CO2 and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere. These greenhouse gas emissions have increased the greenhouse effect and caused Earth’s surface temperature to rise. The primary human activity affecting the amount and rate of climate change is greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels." -- http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html
Well, there's no question in my mind that the Industrial Revolution was a necessary step in the societal evolution of the human species. We are bound to progress, and the fossil-fuel era has been a big jump-start for us. Unfortunately it also has its downside, but I'm hopefully optimistic that we can find solutions before things get too dire.