Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 87. (Read 636443 times)

The actor in question is named Tom. Way to hoax Kubrick on hoaxing the hoaxed Moon landing hoax; classic obfuscation and disinformation strategy.

#oscar is an alien lizard

inb4 stanley kubrick admits faking moon landing      

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR4pf6pp1kQ

#masterpiece

What the article is is one of many efforts to "explain away" the lack of global warming in the last 20 years.  This attempt is to blame it on the aforementioned cooling effect of aerosols, and then to conclude that the future is "hotter than ever."

Very dubious science here - We don't well understand aerosol effects but can quantify them, for example by looking at the effect on climate of volcanoes, then qunatifying the number of coal power plants to match a volcano, and so forth.

To quote a former NASA insider "NASA doesn't just lie about some things, they lie about everything".

Perhaps NASA would like to explain how the reflective fly ash particles end up above our heads when the power plants contain and collect them all? It's time to stop denying the chemtrail geoengineering program.

"Temporarily". I think that's the key man. You know when you drink a bit too much, you spend a fucking good night and you feel strong and awesome and all.

But you wake up in the morning with a headache strong enough to kill you that's another story.
I'm pretty sure that when you throw a bucket of fuel to someone and set him on fire, you can prove that it first lower their body temperature at first. Not sure it does any good in the long term though!
And they're saying that "aerosols - also given off by burning fossil fuels - actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily.
". Yeah but what amount of aerosols is released by burning fossil fuels? Is it enough to compensate the CO2?

A bit shady and lacking of data for something "scientific" ;-)

Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA






Fossil fuel burning gives of aerosols which reflect sunlight

Major theories about what causes temperatures to rise have been thrown into doubt after NASA found the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialisation where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place.

Environmentalists have long argued the burning of fossil fuels in power stations and for other uses is responsible for global warming and predicted temperature increases because of the high levels of carbon dioxide produced - which causes the global greenhouse effect.

While the findings did not dispute the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming, they found aerosols - also given off by burning fossil fuels - actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily.

The research was carried out to see if current climate change models for calculating future temperatures were taking into account all factors and were accurate.

A NASA spokesman said: "To quantify climate change, researchers need to know the Transient Climate Response (TCR) and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of Earth.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA

I am going to have to report you to the Bureau of Adjustments.

EXCLUSIVE: NOAA Relies On ‘Compromised’ Thermometers That Inflate US Warming Trend



The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s reliance on poorly-sited weather stations to calculate surface temperatures is inflating the warming trend of the U.S. and maybe even the rest of the world, according to a landmark study looking at three decades of data.

“The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts,” Anthony Watts, a seasoned meteorologist and lead author of the study, said in a statement Thursday.

These “compromised” weather stations run hotter than stations that are well-sited, and are used by NOAA as a benchmark to make upward adjustments for other weather stations that are part of the agency’s official temperature record.

Watts and his fellow researchers found only 410 “unperturbed” weather stations out of the 1,218 stations used by NOAA to determine U.S. climate trends. These “unperturbed” stations don’t need to be adjusted by NOAA because they had not been moved, had any equipment changes, or change in the time temperatures were observed.

Watts found well-sited stations show significantly less warming than poorly-sited stations from 1979 to 2008 — the time period was chosen in order to respond to NOAA papers from 2009 and 2010 justifying its weather station adjustments. Now, Watts has years of evidence showing NOAA is relying on shoddy weather stations to make its temperature adjustments.

“This study demonstrates conclusively that this issue affects temperature trend and that NOAA’s methods are not correcting for this problem, resulting in an inflated temperature trend. It suggests that the trend for U.S. temperature will need to be corrected.” Watts said.


http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/exclusive-noaa-relies-on-compromised-thermometers-that-inflate-u-s-warming-trend/

Know your enemy.

and:


There actually is an unfortunate kernel of legitimacy to my statement in straight thermodynamics and population-dynamics terms.  Probably.  I really have no very good solution to the problem.  I know who does NOT have a very good solution, though, and that would be precisely the people who are most fixated on and likely to become the leaders of a so-called 'new world order.'  I would literally rather humanity go back to the stone age and spend a few thousand years getting back to where we are now than to shift to a one-world totalitarian framework under these freaks though that is not a practical possibility.  It is harder to forget things than it is to discover things in the first place.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/16/greenland-has-lost-a-staggering-amount-of-ice-and-its-only-getting-worse/?postshare=6131450289470412&tid=ss_tw

“We find that 2003–2010 mass loss not only more than doubled relative to the 1983–2003 period, but also relative to the net mass loss rate throughout the twentieth century,” the study notes. It states that mass loss in this most recent period, ending in 2010, was 186 gigatons per year on average, though other estimates have put that number even higher for the most recent years. NASA currently states that Greenland is losing 287 billion tons of ice per year.

The fact that Greenland was losing mass throughout the entirety of the 20th century may seem surprising. But the paper suggests that we are coming out of the Little Ice Age, a cooler period, and so glacier retreat was more or less kicked off around 1900 — and then accelerated as major human-caused global warming kicked in.


Here is a phenomena under observation by scientists.  They would ascribe causation to two factors, natural and man made.  To the credit of these scientists, they acknowledge the Little Ice Age.  James Hanson, and his collaborator in alarmism, Al Gore, tried for a long time to claim that there was no LIA, and no Medival Warming Period, either.  These natural variations got in the way of the false hypothesis they wished to put over on people.  These scientist state there was a LIA, and it was a big factor in the studied melt of Greenland.

But is the man made effect insignificant, moderate, or severe?

That is the direct result of what scientists call "climate sensitivity."

Not a stupid way of seeing things...

Though I would say we would much more easily find a solution with nearly free and unlimited energy than without. Maslow pyramid: if your basic neds are fulfilled then only you'll start thinking in a more global way!

That's slop people aren't bacteria, this is typical elitist propaganda.

Fusion would be as big a disaster at this point as adding sugar to a vat of bacteria.  Human populations would explode and devastate the earth.  I suspect that fusion is fairly well developed in certain circles and I've heard (on this board I think) of reports of it coming to the fore out of China or Russia or both.

'We' need a one-world government with proven methods of population control before the Kracken can be released.  Of course such a construct could be useful for a wide variety of enterprises as well.

This I all more or less agree with, IIRC carbon emissions per person in France was about 4T/year, in the USA it is more like 20T/year.  However, Uranium reserves are adequate for thousands of years.  And (apparently) better than that, Thorium reactors appear cheap and appear to have inherent safety far in excess of U.  Thorium, it's all over the place...I have some in my garage, tungsten TIG welding rods are 2% thorium.

You are correct about distrusting estimates for fusion power.  Particularly when anybody starts showing pictures of Tokamuk style nonsense.

It may not be a person that figures out fusion it may be an "AI"nstein.

Like what I did there  

Lol yeah, as an engineering student I'll warn you: don't listen to any estimation. People saying that we'll discover fusion in 10 years are not scientists working on it. they're the same that said the exact same thing 10 years ago 
Fusion is beyond our comprehension, it will need another Einstein to grant us the understandment of something mortals are not meant to understand. We can discover it tomorrow or in 1000 years. It's something above us, too far. We'll need another complete genius, another Tesla to, again, steal the fire to the god 

But I hope we'll manage to, every energy problem will disappear in the year we discover the secret of fusion! We'll be able to produce enough electricity for a city for a year with a glass of water!

Amen xD

Fingers crossed for fusion reactors in the not too distant future :

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/germany-w7-x-fusion-reactor-011227059.html

There are also lots of evidence that it is true 

But let's not get back into this debate as we more or less concluded just before that we were still unable to be sure if it's true or not... We'll maybe settle this in a few years! Though as a French I'm strongly in favor of the "precaution principle". This principle is even written in our constitution!

Concerning the nuclear, again as a French I can't say anything against it :3
It's one of our main skill domain, it produces around 75% of our electricity, with the hydro producing 20%.
Nuclear is currently a good thing, wether you believe in high CO2 sensitivity or not, CO2 has some proven and undeniable negative effects especially on some species highly sensitive. And again it can't be a bad thing to reduce our emission, just in case because we have no freaking precise and undoubtful idea about their consequences.

The problem being that Nuclear is even less renewable than oil. If tomorrow we wanted to produce the electricity of the world with nuclear we would have barely enough uranium for a few decades. Nuclear research is going trough the roof though and we hope to finish the NuclearPlant v2.0 in not long, it will allow us to use the current nuclear waste to produce electricity... Granting the world a few decades of electricity.
Security and safety is also a big problem with Nuclear. I believe Nuclear plants should belong to the state only, as private nuclear plants tend to be optimized for profit, most of the time impacting the safety. That was the case in Japan (around 20 incidents that "disappeared" in the years before Fukushima) and that's the case in France: since complete privatisation less and less maintenance time are allowed to rise the productivity of the plants... Creating safety breach.

The main problem being that Nuclear is not renewable. It can and should only be considered as a transition state. A necessity but not a solution.
Currently the only true renewable energy is hydrolic electricity production. But research concerning solar electricity are on their good way! Recently a scientist managed to reproduce the exact photosynthesis cycle of trees. It produces electricity AND oxygen while consuming CO2, at an even better rate than current solar systems.

I think we should develop nuclear to buy us some time, and use this time to develop real renewable energies, not trying to implement unfinished or unrealistic solution such as our current wind and solar energy solution. Let's continue the research, France will sell nuclear to the world while you find something else