patrick.net

This is something to consider for all the wind-power fans (no pun intended)

https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/true-cost-energy-generated-wind-turbines
> A 2018 study found that wind power can impact the climate by altering the atmospheric boundary layer. “We find that generating today’s US electricity demand with wind power would warm Continental US surface temperatures by 0.24 degrees Celsius,” it said.

richwicks says

Perhaps high concentrations of CO2 makes us all retarded?

I know you are making a joke here, but I want to point out that the makers of misleading charts are not "retarded," the makers believe their target audience is.

apex says

A 2018 study found that wind power can impact the climate by altering the atmospheric boundary layer.

Scale, buddy. That is like saying a gnat landing on a wrecking ball will affect the trajectory. Also, that wind either turns a turbine or it dissipates against other air, surface, or mountains.

richwicks says

"This isn't drawn on a linear scale. The X-scale seems arbitrary. Can you get the original data to create the graph?"

See




richwicks says

"I don't believe we're destroying the world by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere... "

True!

CO2 is life! Without CO2 there is no photosynthesis, there are no plants, no animals and no life on othis planet! In addition, humans are exhaling 4 to 5% CO2 which is 50,000 ppm CO2. So the notion that CO2 is pollution is bunk.

"They wouldn't think twice..."



From: https://twitter.com/theheadsaregone/status/1663461009430835200?ref_src=patrick.net

https://notthebee.com/article/these-climate-crazies-crashed-a-swedish-dance-show-and-got-instant-justice-from-the-camera-guy-

Climate crazies crashed a Swedish dance show and got instant justice from the camera guy.

Question: How much is 1.3% of 3% of 0.04%?

The_Deplorable says

"Question: How much is 1.3% of 3% of 0.04%?"

In other words what is the Australian contribution to the 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Answer:

1. "CO2 is 400 ppm of the atmosphere." That is over the whole world.

2. "Human beings create only 3% of this 400 ppm over the whole world.

Or 400 ppm x 3/100 = 12 ppm. So 12 ppm of the 400 ppm comes from human beings.

So "Human beings create only 12 ppm of this 400 ppm over the whole world. And this includes all the coal-fired power plants in China, India, Germany, Russia, the US etc. 12 ppm CO2 from all human acivity including pigs, sheep, cows - and this includes cow farts.

3. And Australia is responsible for 1.3% of the 12 ppm.

Or 12 ppm x 1.3/100 = 0.16 ppm

So Australia contributes 0.16 ppm to the 12 ppm CO2 that is attributed to humanity.

In other words, if Australia shuts down everything, nobody will notice! The CO2 in the atmosphere will remain at 400 ppm.

... but they can buy carbon offsets from a reputable dealer in Shanghai.

Didn't they do something with C14 in tree rings and confirm that less than 10% of the CO2 emitted since the 1700s is of human origin?

Good point that I hadn't considered: the "global" in "global warming" is perhaps an indication that of impending global control by the oligarchy.

Spock Predicts Ice Age

Onvacation says

Spock Predicts Ice Age

This is from "In Search Of - The Coming Ice Age" Season 2, Episode 23.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of..._(TV_series)

Hey, think it's great having a very good memory? It sucks. I remember what was said, NOBODY else does and I'm crazy to think that was EVER said!!!

Early fear porn.

https://slaynews.com/news/ireland-slaughter-200000-healthy-cows-fight-global-warming/

Ireland to Slaughter 200,000 Healthy Cows to Fight ‘Global Warming’

Patrick says

Ireland to Slaughter 200,000 Healthy Cows to Fight ‘Global Warming’

Big deal, the WEF is going for the slaughter of 7,500,000,000 humans.

Seems "green" companies are using their fake environmentalism to steal farmers property:
https://realrawnews.info/land-grab-and-environmental-deception-the-dark-side-of-green-energy-in-the-american-midwes/3093/

Also, I was reading up on solar farms recently related to our move back to the desert, and apparently they use quite a bit of water to keep the panels clean. Saw some articles about a community protesting them somewhere east of LA a few years back.

And, when we drove east to Yuma recently I noticed more wind turbines, but less functioning ones. Those things will break for any reason, so while they've spent more money on them, the net output has probably decreased.

richwicks says

Patrick says

This isn't drawn on a linear scale. The X-scale seems arbitrary. Can you get the original data to create the graph?

I don't believe we're destroying the world by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere (anymore, I did up until about 2003 or so), but I believe this is also deceptive.

Perhaps high concentrations of CO2 makes us all retarded?

Ha, pretty funny. This was my field in a former life. The x-axis is a geologic time scale, with more granularity (spacing) given recent eras, which have more complete rock records.

Some of the best critiques of climate dogma come from geologists, from what I’ve seen. To throw a bone to climatologists, CO2 was lower than at present over the last million years. (CO2 could be measured directly from air inclusions within the Vostok ice core data, and over the last 800,000 years we’ve been in more ice ages than not.) However going back more than 1 million years into the paleo record, we find CO2 higher than at present, while planetary temperature estimates are not remarkably high. (These temperature estimates are based in part on reconstructions of global sea level.)

Milankovich in the 1970’s correlated the fluctuations in paleo-climate to three predictable planetary phenomena: the obliquity, eccentricity, and precession of earth over time. Each has a periodicity on the order of 24k, 40k, and 100k years (though don’t quote me on which is which; need to check). The paper on Milankovich cycles led to panic over “global cooling” in the 70’s. The cooling ideas have been forgotten, but Milankovich’s work is still widely accepted. Earth’s orbital and axis shifts correlate well with paleo-temperature data, and indeed seem to be the dominant force in Quaternary climate change.

There is also no support in the geologic record for CO2 leading global temperature increases. Interestingly, temperature leads CO2 temporally, even in the Vostok ice core data. A counter-intuitive observation, certainly, but more obvious when you consider that most planetary CO2 is dissolved in the ocean. As ocean temperature rises, dissolved gases (of all sorts) exsolve and return to the atmosphere.

Also at 400ppm, CO2 is a trace component, while tropospheric water vapor is a major greenhouse gas, varying between 1 and 4% of the lower atmosphere. (Most of the greenhouse effect occurs in the dense troposphere.) Molecule for molecule, H2O and CO2 are comparable in heat trapping ability (unlike CH4, which has 20x the heat trapping potential — but methane too is trace and quickly oxidizes to CO2).

On the other hand, I do suspect CO2 increases (as measured by the Keeling curve) are anthropogenic. We have an obvious source, and no new sinks.

CO2 is a great acidifier, even at 400 ppm (enough to bring unbuffered rainwater down from pH 7 to 5.2). I’d think that acidification of rain and ocean water are a greater concern than CO2’s impact on temperature.

goofus says

On the other hand, I do suspect CO2 increases (as measured by the Keeling curve) are anthropogenic. We have an obvious source, and no new sinks.

No new sinks? If you increase the CO2 in an environment the plants will grow faster. The only sink for CO2 that has ever existed is plants.

Patrick says

What rise in CO2? From trace element to slightly higher trace element? That is like expecting a winter glacial melt off because the temp increased from minus 174 Celsius to minus 173.5 Celsius.

Patrick says

Answer:

1. Gaia is not emitting radiation at the frequency which CO2 absorbs, namely 15 microns.

2. Therefore the amount CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant. In fact, during the Paleozoic, Gaia experienced an ice age for 40 million years at a 4,200 ppm CO2 level. And this did not prevent the ice age from happening.

3. Given that Gaia is roughly at 59°F then our planet is radiating unimpeded into space at 10 microns.

4. CO2 as a greenhouse gas is so irrelevant that IR Astronomy is alive and well on our planet. Gaia is emitting heat energy between 9 and 13 microns and it is doing so unimpeded by CO2.

5. If anything is warming our planet, it is water vapor and the fact that Gaia is over 70% oceans! And thank God for the oceans - and the resulting water vapor - because it is these oceans that are keeping our planet habitable!.

https://thegloriousamerican.com/featured/center-for-global-warming-preparedness-opens-doors-on-long-beach-waterfront-6-9-23/

https://slaynews.com/news/greenpeace-founder-anti-carbon-dioxide-agenda-hoax/

Greenpeace Founder: Anti-Carbon Dioxide Agenda Is a Hoax

Renowned environmentalist Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, has blown the whistle to warn the public that the anti-carbon dioxide narrative is a hoax.

Moore, an ecologist and environmental activist for more than 50 years, argues that an increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial.

According to Moore, claims that climate change is “human-caused” are “propaganda” which he describes as “dangerous.”

The comments from Moore, a leading expert in environmentalism, directly conflict with the green agenda being pushed by Democrat President Joe Biden’s administration and globalist groups such as the United Nations (UN) and World Economic Forum (WEF). ...

According to Moore, there is no evidence that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for “global warming.”

Moore, who left Greenpeace’s leadership after being involved for 15 years, now criticizes the environmental movement for using scare tactics and disinformation.

He says that environmentalism has been hijacked and the movement has “abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.”

Patrick says

" https://slaynews.com/news/greenpeace-founder-anti-carbon-dioxide-agenda-hoax/ "

From the link: "According to Moore, there is no evidence that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for 'global warming.'"

True! And the science Proves that CO2 is not warming anything. The science of Astronomy for example contradicts Global Warming and throws it out the window as an impossibility:

• If CO2 is causing Global Warming, then where is the Global Warming on Mars with a CO2 concentration exceeding 950,000 ppm? Why is the average temperature of Mars at (minus) -81 °F given that the CO2 in the Martian atmosphere is 950,000 ppm?

• If CO2 is causing Global Warming, then where is the Global Warming on Venus with a CO2 concentration exceeding 970,000 ppm? Venus has the same temperature as Gaia at the one atmosphere level (sea level) with a very minor adjustment for Venus being closer to the Sun.

• How is it humanly possible for alarmists, to find Global Warming on Earth at 400 ppm CO2 but they cannot find Global Warming on Mars and Venus at CO2 levels exceeding 950,000 ppm? No answer.

Watch Dr. Moore on Twitter: https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1667183272864915459

The_Deplorable says

Venus has the same temperature as Gaia at the one atmosphere level (sea level)

I agree with your general point on AGW but that factoid is wrong. The surface temp of Venus is hot enough to melt lead. Are you perhaps meaning at the Venus altitude that would have a pressure equal to one Earth atmosphere? That would be at a very high Venusian altitude.

After I wrote "Venus has the same temperature as Gaia at the one atmosphere level (sea level)"

HeadSet says

"I agree with your general point on AGW but that factoid is wrong. The surface temp of Venus is hot enough to melt lead. Are you perhaps meaning at the Venus altitude that would have a pressure equal to one Earth atmosphere? That would be at a very high Venusian altitude."

Yes! That way we are comparing temperatures at the same atmospheric pressure. Recall that the atmospheric pressure of Venus at the surface is 1,350 psi while on Earth it is only 14.7 psi. So if you increase the Pressure of the Earth's atmosphere to 1,350 psi the temperature will go up just like on Venus -- and this according to the Ideal Gas Law.

The_Deplorable says

So if you increase the Pressure of the Earth's atmosphere to 1,350 psi the temperature will go up just like on Venus -- and this according to the Ideal Gas Law.

Interesting, I never thought of that. I just presumed that Venus did have a runaway greenhouse effect because the atmosphere is virtually all CO2, and much denser than on Earth. I suppose one could point an infrared telescope at Venus to see how much infrared from that high surface temperature is escaping into space.

This neglects the fact that Mar's atmoshpere is 0.095 PSI, compared to Earth's 14.7 PSI. How high would Mar's surface temperature be if it had 1000X the air density at surface level?

Just pointing out that Moore is constructing multiple straw men.

I think the negative effects of AGW are complete bullshit. We are saving the biosphere by adding CO2 to grow more plants, which release more water vapor, which warms the climate. Don't forget, during the last ice age, CO2 concentrations were barely above the 170 ppm that is necessary for plants to survive. These globohomo climate fucks are solely about preserving their waterfront property - they don't give a shit about anything else. A doubling of CO2 would approximately double plant yields. There would be hardly any need for fertilizer. THIS is what globohomo wants to prevent - a way to double the current world population without soylent green.

Forest Management

https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/seamen-friday-june-23-2023-c-and?publication_id=463409&post_id=130453469&isFreemail=true

To non-scientists, it seems like hyperbole to say the Atlantic ‘is on fire.’ We’re only talking about an average increase in water temperature of less than one degree. But even slight variations in ocean temperature can dramatically affect weather and sea life.

And the increase isn’t only one degree everywhere. It’s a lot more than that in spots, which will shortly become an important fact.

Whatever is happening, it’s definitely SOMETHING, and most scientists definitely have no idea what’s causing it. ...

Although a few of the many articles stretched the point, trying to claim that man’s carbon activity could be the culprit, there is no possible way that atmospheric carbon could heat the oceans this much through “global warming.” Ethical Skeptic — the same analyst who tracks covid and related death rates — has been watching and writing about this phenomenon for several months now. Paraphrasing Ethical, he proposes that the only possible source of all this energy are deap-sea ocean floor vents pouring vast amounts of superheated water into the oceans out of the Earth’s core.

Ethical’s theory reminded me of another news trend that I’ve observed this year in the scientific press. Excited deep-sea scientists have been discovering many new “hydrothermal vents” in the oceans recently...

A hydrothermal vent is a crack in the ocean’s floor out of which is shooting a vast amount of heated water, like an undersea hot spring. Except super-hot.

Ethical Skeptic has recently been publishing charts of daily sea surface temperatures, and he’s observed the anomaly developing from late last year. Historic levels of heating is showing up in the readings and much of that difference has shown up very, very recently. ...

Even a single degree over the average temperature is statistically significant, as is a one-third degree increase, because of the fact there is SO much water in the oceans. It takes a truly enormous amount of energy to heat it all up. An unimaginable amount of energy.

Especially if you’re talking about heating all that water up QUICKLY.

Ethical’s theory is the only current explanation that makes sense. The only way to generate all that energy is with something like magma or water superheated by molten rock pouring into the ocean somewhere.

Imagine LOTS of new undersea volcanoes. That could do it. ...

And as it happens, we are also seeing hot spots — places in the oceans where temperatures range much higher than one degree — which would be consistent with giant superheated vents, undersea volcanoes, or magma leaks. The hot spots might be located above these areas where super-hot water is gushing into the oceans.

Hot spots are also inconsistent with global warming, for obvious reasons. ...

I have no idea what any of this means, whether it’s something real or is another made up emergency, or whether there is any reason at all to even be concerned about it. Nor do the poor, baffled scientists. In one of the articles I reviewed, when the reporter asked a scientist what to expect in terms of weather and related side-effects from the ocean heating, she replied “Expect chaos.”

In other words, who knows? There doesn’t seem to be anything that can be done about it. We can’t fix this by making our dishwashers work even worse or by putting diapers on cows.

There’s no doubt we’re in for something new. The heating, which seems to have been happening for decades, is accelerating far beyond anything that can be explained by manmade carbon dioxide. And the first sacred cow to be slain will almost certainly be the “climate change” movement. It’s not carbon. It’s the ocean.

So I’m counting this whole thing as a blessing so far.