patrick.net

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/03/05/study-polar-bear-numbers-reach-new-highs-population-increases-to-the-highest-levels-in-decades/

Polar Bear numbers reach new highs – Population increases to the highest levels in decades
Far from the 2007 predictions of a 67% decline in global polar bear numbers, the new report reveals that numbers have risen to the highest levels in decades.

The US Geological Survey estimated the global population of polar bears at 24,500 in 2005. In 2015, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group estimated the population at 26,000 (range 22,000–31,000)7 but additional surveys published 2015–2017 brought the total to near 28,500. However, data published in 2018 brought that number to almost 29,5009 with a relatively wide margin of error. This is the highest global estimate since the bears were protected by international treaty in 1973.

While the Civil War had little effect on Santa Barbara, the disastrous drought of 1863 ended the Rancho Period, as most of the cattle died and ranchos were broken up and sold.

Oh no! Early global warming.

Tahoe Sierra now has 300% of usual snow pack - Manbearpig! Manbearpig!

Release the Polar Bears in Zug! Give them tunnel headlamps!

That's why they now call it "climate change."

If it gets colder, warmer, wetter, dryer than the climate is changing.

If the weather stays the same than the weather pattern is changing so it must be climate change as well.

https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/cbs-60-minutes-promotes-scientist

CBS “60 Minutes” Promotes Scientist Who Claimed Billions Would Die From Global Cooling...

And archival footage shows Ehrlich claiming that global cooling, not global warming, would result in global famine.

“As you know, we're already cooling the planet,” he said in a 1970 speech (above).

From "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg I learned that Paul Ehrlich was primarily concerned with creating fear to get funding.

https://twitter.com/AlexEpstein/status/1610682756945825794?ref_src=patrick.net

"You oughta make the FCC see to it that large families are always treated in a negative light on television."

"the government will simply tell you how many children you can have and throw you in jail if you have too many"

CBS darling Paul Ehrlich in 1970

Has video.

https://notthebee.com/article/students-at-a-british-university-start-a-protest-against-greenwashing-because-the-university-spent-25000-on-a-statue-of-greta-thunberg

This is such a funny story.

Winchester University in Britain is seeing protests from students who are mad because it spent £24,000 on a life-sized Greta Thunberg statue instead of spending that money on climate-related goals.

Patrick says

Winchester University in Britain is seeing protests from students who are mad because it spent £24,000 on a life-sized Greta Thunberg statue instead of spending that money on climate-related goals.

Well, to be fair, it is a waste of money.

Nobody will know who Greta Thunberg was 5 years from now. The propaganda is getting more desperate and pathetic.

richwicks says

Nobody will know who Greta Thunberg was 5 years from now.

I dunno, people still know who Paul Ehrlich is, and that clown was totally wrong.

HeadSet says

richwicks says

Nobody will know who Greta Thunberg was 5 years from now.

I dunno, people still know who Paul Ehrlich is, and that clown was totally wrong.

Ehrlich was an academic and he published many books on the subject at the time, which was a new thing, and did many interviews on this thing people used to watch called "television".

We're in a different world today. Hardly anybody reads books, nobody smart really wastes time listen to television for information, and plus, Ehrlich is largely remembered BECAUSE he was so wrong.

I remember the 1970's, every damned film was some disaster film. A Boy and his Dog, Logan's Run, The Day After Tomorrow, Red Dawn, The Omega Man, Soylent Green, Planet of the Apes, Silent Running, Mad Max, blah blah blah blah. The (distant) future might be nice, but some calamity will happen in our lifetimes!!

Hey - tell me a film that is about "global warming" or "the environment" that did well? What? The remake of the Day the Earth Stood Still?

We have more propaganda today, but we have more people recognizing it for what it is, and immediately, and calling it out. Strange World, that flop, did NOT flop because it had a gay character really - although that's what it's being blamed on (and maybe it has a part), it's that the entire message is that the society is destroying itself by using energy, so they must go back to an earlier, and much more difficult way of life.

https://twitter.com/MarkThomasIw/status/1613310113326198784?ref_src=patrick.net



Seems likely to be true:

https://www.academia.edu/40573989/Discovery_of_Massive_Volcanic_CO2_Emissions_Rebuts_human_caused_Global_Warming_Theory...geological_heat_flow_is_possibly_the_root_cause_of_changes_to_our_oceans

JAMES MATKIN The amounts of Co2 are measured in Gt and obviously the are just estimates with a great deal of annual variability. Think about the key sources of volcanoes and wildfires and how easy it is to err. There is no actual observation of the three primary different sources of Co2. Numbers are simply statistical estimates from data. This is a significant problem for the alarmist theory of human caused global warming. Written by James E. Kamis on November 6, 2018 Recent research shows that the volume of volcanic CO2 currently being emitted into Earth’s atmosphere is far greater than previously calculated, challenging the validity of the man-made global warming theory. Figure 1: Volcanic gas emissions breakthrough overlying fractured and partially melted glacial ice sheet. (Image credits: Christina Neal, AVO/USGS) The cornerstone principle of the global warming theory, anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is built on the premise that significant increases of modern era human-induced CO2 emissions have acted to unnaturally warm Earth’s atmosphere. A warmed atmosphere that directly, or in some cases indirectly fuels anomalous environmental disasters such as ocean warming, alteration of ocean chemistry, polar ice sheet melting, global sea level rise, coral bleaching and most importantly dramatic changes in climate. There are numerous major problems with the AGW principle. Identification of Volcanic vs. Man-made CO2 Natural volcanic and man-made CO2 emissions have the exact same and very distinctive carbon isotopic fingerprint. It is therefore scientifically impossible to distinguish the difference between volcanic CO2 and human-induced CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels (see here). This major problem with the AGW principle has been rationalized away by consensus climate scientists who insist, based supposedly reliable research, that volcanic emissions are minuscule in comparison to human-induced CO2 emissions (Gerlach 1991). Terrance Gerlach’s volcanic CO2 calculation was based on just 7 actively erupting land volcanoes and three actively erupting ocean floor hydrothermal vents (seafloor hot geysers). Utilizing gas emission data from this very limited number of volcanic features, Gerlach estimated that the volume of natural volcanic CO2 emissions is 100 to 150 times less than the volume of man-made CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and therefore of no consequence. To put this calculation process into perspective, the Earth is home to 1,500 land volcanoes and 900,000 seafloor volcanoes/hydrothermal vents. By sampling just an extremely small percent of these volcanic features it is impossible to imagine that the calculation is correct. Especially knowing that volcanic activity varies greatly from area to area, volcano to volcano, and through time. Utilizing just 0.001 percent (10/901,500) of Earth’s volcanic features to calculate volcanic CO2 emissions does not inspire confidence in the resulting value. Non-Erupting Volcanoes Can Emit Massive Amounts of CO2 into Earth’s Atmosphere Recent geological research by the University of Leeds and others proves that non-erupting volcanoes can emit massive amounts of CO2 into Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. The Gerlach calculation and all follow-up calculations utilized volcanic CO2 rates from actively erupting volcanoes. Lost in the numerous recent media articles concerning the argument of when, or if Iceland’s Katla Volcano will erupt is the discovery that this non-erupting subglacial volcano is currently emitting staggering amounts of CO2 into Earth’s atmosphere! Researchers from the University of Leeds who studied the Katla Volcano said this. “We discovered that Katla volcano in Iceland is a globally important source of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in spite of being previously assumed to be a minor gas emitter. Volcanoes are a key natural source of atmospheric CO2 but estimates of the total global amount of CO2 that volcanoes emit are based on only a small number of active volcanoes. Very few volcanoes which are covered by glacial ice have been measured for gas emissions, probably because they tend to be difficult to access and often do not have obvious degassing vents. Through high‐precision airborne measurements and atmospheric dispersion modeling, we show that Katla, a highly hazardous subglacial volcano which last erupted 100 years ago, is one of the largest volcanic sources of CO2 on Earth, releasing up to 5% of total global volcanic emissions. This is significant in the context of a growing awareness that natural CO2 sources have to be more accurately quantified in climate assessments and we recommend urgent investigations of other subglacial volcanoes worldwide.”(see here) The Number of Volcanoes Emitting CO2 into the Atmosphere at Any One Time The calculation of the total yearly volume of volcanic CO2 emitted into the atmosphere is based on the presumption that very few volcanoes are erupting at any one time. Scientists from various worldwide volcano research institutions, most notably the United States Geological Survey, have estimated this number to be 20. This very low number has been challenged by many scientists including those at NASA. A multinational team led by NASA has initiated a high-resolution satellite CO2 monitoring project (see here). This project is focused on determining how many geological features are emitting CO2 at any one time. This project may eventually give scientists a better idea of how many land volcanoes are emitting CO2 at any one time. However, it is doubtful the project will properly record ocean CO2 emissions from Earth’s 900,000 deep ocean floor and very difficult to monitor volcanic features. In any case, this project is certainly a step forward towards achieving a better understanding of the climate influence of volcanic CO2 emissions. The Amount of CO2 and heat infused into Earth’s Oceans by Seafloor Geological Features About 71% of Earth’s surface is covered by oceans making it a water, not land, planet. For many years now, scientists have contended that the nearly one million geological features present in these vast ocean regions have played a minimal role in heating and chemically charging ocean seawater. Instead of contending that man-made atmospheric CO2 was the root cause of changes to our oceans.

http://www.plateclimatology.com/discovery-of-massive-volcanic-co2-emissions-puts-damper-on-global-warming-theory

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/scec/records/all/all

Patrick says

Anybody remembers PEAK OIL?

I read the book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg years ago. One point I remember is that proven oil reserves go UP every year and never down.

At this rate, we will never arrive at "peak oil".

Eric Holder says

Patrick says

Anybody remembers PEAK OIL?

I do. Matthew Simmons took me in, he was a scumbag that died in his hot-tub at 67. He promoted trades publicly and took the other side.

The Hubbert Peak seemed to be the real deal, since it coincided with his prediction in the 1970s. It appears that was indeed contrived, and I remember as a kid thinking that was silly nonsense from conspiratards. Funny how stupid I was as a kid. I wonder how I will look back on my current self in another 20 years.

Patrick says

I read the book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg years ago. One point I remember is that proven oil reserves go UP every year and never down.

At this rate, we will never arrive at "peak oil".

Noooooooo!

https://www.zerohedge.com/weather/siberia-records-minus-80-degrees-talk-polar-vortex-grows

Manbearpig!

Patrick says

I read the book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg years ago. One point I remember is that proven oil reserves go UP every year and never down.

At this rate, we will never arrive at "peak oil".

This is what I've seen:




Source:

https://www.google.com/search?q=oil+finds+versus+oil+use&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwmOWC88r8AhU_OkQIHXv1D58Q_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1529&bih=1050&dpr=1#imgrc=gsy9Ke17Dw7ckM

Here is yandex's returns:

https://yandex.com/images/search?from=tabbar&text=oil+finds+versus+oil+use

Which is pretty useless.

Can't trust anything from this government now though.

https://notthebee.com/article/if-there-is-a-single-video-clip-on-climate-change-that-you-ever-watch-make-it-this-one

Every non-woke politician on the planet should be repeating this line for the next 10 years:

The way to improve the world is to work, is to create – it is to build. And the problem with woke culture is that it has trained too many young minds like yours to forget about that.

https://twitter.com/LetsGoBrando45/status/1614260315453292544?ref_src=patrick.net

Obligatory: https://youtu.be/BGoEP-IqoDg

https://notthebee.com/article/breaking-climate-cultists-lose-yet-another-round-to-reality

Although scientists are still studying the size and severity of storms that killed 19 people and caused up to $1 billion in damage, initial assessments suggest the destruction had more to do with California's historic drought-to-deluge cycles, mountainous topography and aging flood infrastructure than it did with climate-altering greenhouse gasses.

Although the media and some officials were quick to link a series of powerful storms to climate change, researchers interviewed by The Times said they had yet to see evidence of that connection. Instead, the unexpected onslaught of rain and snow after three years of punishing drought appears akin to other major storms that have struck California every decade or more since experts began keeping records in the 1800s.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uhq557vrnww0ala/PositiveImpactOfCO2ForLife.pdf?dl=0

Patrick says

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uhq557vrnww0ala/PositiveImpactOfCO2ForLife.pdf?dl=0

^^^^^^ This!

We're not only saving the planet from a new ice age, but also saving the plants of the world from CO2 starvation.

Maybe WEF globohomo wants CO2 starvation, but then, where will we get ze bugs?

stereotomy says

We're not only saving the planet from a new ice age, but also saving the plants of the world from CO2 starvation.

No, the CO2 emissions are not enough to warm the planet and barely make a dent in plant CO2 starvation. Pollution however is real, but curbing pollution does not empower governments like the fake climate change agenda does.

HeadSet says

stereotomy says

We're not only saving the planet from a new ice age, but also saving the plants of the world from CO2 starvation.

No, the CO2 emissions are not enough to warm the planet and barely make a dent in plant CO2 starvation. Pollution however is real, but curbing pollution does not empower governments like the fake climate change agenda does.

CO2 is not a pollutant though, maybe a very light one, but not worth fighting compared to other real pollutants much more harmful to humans and animals. Plants love CO2.

mell says

CO2 is not a pollutant... Plants love CO2.

True!

In fact, CO2 is life! Without CO2 there is no photosynthesis, there are no plants, no animals and no life on our planet! In addition, humans are exhaling 4 to 5% CO2 which is 50,000 ppm CO2. So where is the logic here?

Besides, Gaia radiates heat straight into space unimpeded by CO2. That is why the science of Infrared 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.

The_Deplorable

The_Deplorable says

Gaia radiates heat straight into space unimpeded by CO2.

Interesting to see an infrared satellite image taken from the night side of Earth. If you are correct, even North Korea should have a red glow.

Earlier I wrote, "Gaia is emitting heat energy between 9 and 13 microns and it is doing so unimpeded by CO2."

HeadSet says

Interesting to see an infrared satellite image taken from the night side of Earth. If you are correct, even North Korea should have a red glow.

Yes!

If you employ the correct camera and filter then all the continents - including North Korea - will glow because Gaia is emitting heat energy between 9 and 13 microns and it is doing so unimpeded by CO2 meaning, CO2 does not absorb heat energy in this range. CO2 absorbs heat energy at 15 microns.

By the way, we already have data that show the relationship between Atmospheric CO2 and Global Temperature for the Last 425 Million Years.




And this graph shows that there is no relationship between the two, meaning, CO2 is not warming anything. The full article is here: https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/76

The_Deplorable

Dan Peña

https://twitter.com/AP4Liberty/status/1621218260803899392?ref_src=patrick.net

Mount Washington, NH may break an all time record for Cold and Wind.

Mt Washington is right in the center of where Arctic blasts come down from Canada and get close to the Atlantic, most dramatically changing and worst weather (combining wind speed, wind chill, visibility conditions, and rapidity of condition change) in the World.
https://www.mountwashington.org/experience-the-weather/current-summit-conditions.aspx

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses