patrick.net

Global warming is a lie

If you use electric cars and solar panels, you are part of the solution, not the problem. Like me.

They couldn't be more wrong on Sea level rising. The Ocean does not rise. The Physics are against it. In the even the Surface of Earth has more fresh water than is needed. It runs off to the Ocean. Where the volume the Ocean can contain is at a maximum Depth for the weight and volume of our Oceans. Before it the barrier resistance of the Earth's Crust is breached. Excess water is forced into the Trenches where it is forced down into the crust where it journeys toward the mantle where it is heated up and converted into steam and the Salt from the Ocean is deposited in voids in the crust. The steam as it is forced up through the crust. Cools and and creates aquifers and mountain seepage. Excess water is forced up to the surface as creeks, springs, rivers and lakes. That work their way back to the Ocean to put more pressure on the Ocean floor to force more water into the crust, to deposit more salt, to replenish Aquifers for Nestle to buy world over.

If an Asteroid with as much water as half of the Pacific Ocean were to hit earth I still don't think the Earth would flood from the Ocean up. Perhaps the initial tsunami. But it wouldn't just be the Coastal people swamped. People think they would be safe in Mountain ranges, but whole mountain sides would be washed away in landslides caused by liquefaction and other hydrodynamic forces. Rivers would swell banks everywhere, dry lake beds would be would suddenly appear bigger than ever. Inland towns and cities would be consumed in vast ancient Lakes and Sea beds that had been dry for millions of years. Caves would heave forth a torrent of waterfalls carving the landscape creating new landscapes. All of this loosening and over saturation of the Crust would make it swell. That's right the Ocean still wouldn't rise the earth would swell and dry land would be swamped from inland not from the rising Sea.
Some Large land masses would fragment like the Indonesian Island chain but the earth would be a half a mile thicker all the way around. The Ocean would just rise the amount the new water displaced.
It doesn't work that way.
That's not to say a cataclysm like that wouldn't fuck some shit up because it would. I'm simply showing that even then Ocean doesn't rise and cover everything but Mount Everest if you dumped a half mile of water on the earth.

Because it's really hard to google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level ...
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/SatelliteData/jason/
"What is the ideal temp for human habitation?"
$ obviously the same as existed during the past 10,000 years during which billions of apes pullulated on the surface of this planet.

Tenpoundbass says

I'm simply showing that even then Ocean doesn't rise and cover everything but Mount Everest if you dumped a half mile of water on the earth.

So what ? Nobody is saying that. They're simply saying many coastal areas that are a very small amount above sea level are going to be in trouble if ACC continues unabated.

Funny this is the age we live in . Every nitwit with an opinion thinks his opinion on a complex scientific question is just as good as a phd at Stanford or MIT.

Wtf ? How did we get here ?

ALso why does it supposedly take so much certainty ? We all know how decisions are made in life. They are often based on risks and probabilities.

Usually the best you can do is assign a probability to a given problem. "This guy probably isn't good for my daughter" or "there's too high of a this car will break down, for me not to make a change, or these bit coins are just too damn high - I better sell.

It the probability of something adverse happening that affects your decision, or occasionally the probability of something working out really well that causes you to go for it. The best we have is probabilities.

So how in the hell can your position be that 99% of scientists are just wrong ? From a probabilistic perspective you should be saying " I know some people have their doubts = but I'm going to go with the experts."

If you won't go with the experts, then you should have reasonable certainty and a proof to back up your reasoning. But at this point I've gone too far. Talkin about proofs with people who think emotion is a proof.

Heraclitusstudent says

pullulated on the surface of this planet.

Pollution and overpopulation are real problems.
"Human overpopulation occurs when the ecological footprint of a human population in a specific geographical location exceeds the carrying capacity of the place occupied by that group"
But we are not the cause of the earths temperature. global warming climate change is a fraud. The fact that the alarmists don't answer the questions above, or more likely have not even looked for the answers, tells us that they are ignorant or not interested in the truth.

No such thing as a "wrong question".
Unless u r a member of the 'thought police'...
Onvacation says

"What is the ideal temp for human habitation?"
HEYYOU sez: Wrong question.

So how in the hell can your position be that 99% of scientists are just wrong

If you won't go with the experts,

You are just wrong, someone lied to you and swallowed it, hook line and sinker.

There is no 99% consensus among the scientists. https://skepticalscience.com/AMS-meteorologists-97-percent.html
The 97% consensus exists among a small number (something around a hundred) of 'experts in the field'. Those experts have been caught lying, on multiple occasions. A fresh example is multiple interviews earlier this year where those experts (such as Mann and Trenberth) claim that climate change has exacerbated hurricanes. But according to NASA, hurricanes (and most other extreme weather events) are down both in severety and frequency.

anon_1bd09 says

There is no 99% consensus among the scientists. https://skepticalscience.com/AMS-meteorologists-97-percent.html
The 97% consensus exists among a small number (something around a hundred) of 'experts in the field'. Those experts have been caught lying, on multiple occasions. A fresh example is multiple interviews earlier this year where those experts (such as Mann and Trenberth) claim that climate change has exacerbated hurricanes. But according to NASA, hurricanes (and most other extreme weather events) are down both in severety and frequency.

Here's what NASA says:

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11377
Is the frequency of extreme weather events a sign that global warming is gaining pace and exceeding predictions?

Bill Patzert, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, says the evidence that extreme weather events have been more frequent in recent years is definitely to the contrary. "The United States has always had extreme weather. We look back on our weather history. It's been punishing: floods, droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, great forest fires.

"Is global warming happening? No doubt about it. We're living in a warmer world, we're living in a melting world, sea levels are rising. Now, direct evidence of the footprint or the fingerprint of global warming: we're seeing more frequent, more intense, and longer lasting heat waves. As far as hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, floods, and drought, the evidence is definitely not in. The consensus among almost all scientists is that it's a small fingerprint, not a large footprint.

"But what is true is that in this country, in the United States, we live in many areas with great risk to drought, to tornadoes, to hurricanes, and so part of the dialogue is not only extreme weather and global warming, but is the amount of risk we can tolerate. Now looking to the future, global change, global warming - it definitely is accelerating and it will have an impact on extreme weather, but at this point, not much."

And answers to more questions for anyone who really wants to learn:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_8hVmWnP_O2EkT_3QxqaCv_eSjMfrrIa

Here's what NASA says:

This is not what NASA says. This is what someone says in an interview, an interview he is not going to be held responsible for. It is like a house inspector telling you one thing, and writing down in the report another.

In an official, for the record statement, NASA (and IPCC, and every other organization) are not alarmist at all. You would think the reports are written by different people.

anon_08dee says

They're simply saying many coastal areas that are a very small amount above sea level are going to be in trouble if ACC continues unabated.

How much has the sea risen?

anon_08dee says

But at this point I've gone too far. Talkin about proofs with people who think emotion is a proof.

So you have no answers to my questions?

Onvacation says

So you have no answers to my questions?

Questions were answered above. Why do you pretend otherwise?

Example from Hercs links: