Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 98. (Read 636455 times)

Well it is just not fair.  They said the sky was going to be dark as the climate Deniers got sucked up in the Climate Induced Hurricanes and rained down on the barren lands of Climate Induced Drought.  They said the Polar Bears were coming south, after eating all the Eskimos, heading inland into Canada.  The Deniers were banned from Reddit, but they didn't go away.  And I done figured it out. 

Because there's one big Denier behind the Deniers.  She's telling them what to do and say.  They are just puppets on a string.  She's in control.  Mother Earth.  Now if we get rid of her, all the Deniers will shut up or go away.

There's gotta be a way...

A shoebox is much more echo friendly and green than an evil ozone hole making freezer...

Hey, so like are we still trying to Hide the Decline?

Maybe stuff it in a shoebox?

I think she may be on to something there.  I'll help out here, and get my 5" hole saw and cut two holes on one end and one on each side.  Then she can walk around with that box.  Just call her "The Box Girl."  Might not fit on a bus, though. 

I wanna see her ride her green eco friendly bike in that box.

She will be fine. Look at that smile. Sleeping with your own frozen pee and frozen poop?  She's a true believer. There is nothing that will make her have a different view. Ever.

She's going to feel really stupid when she learns the truth about "global warming".

Woman Locks Herself In A Freezer For One Year To Oppose “Global Warming”…






A woman in California discovered a completely original way to denounce global warming and raise awareness about it.

Jade Martens is a 26 year old Greenpeace activist. She has just spent a full 12 months inside a small commercial freezer as a protest against the poor performance of the Obama administration on the subject of carbon dioxide emissions. She wants to continue her stay in the freezer till the time the government does something concrete.

This young woman slept, ate, and even relieved herself inside the small chest freezer of 6′x3′x4′. The freezer was kept in the hall of the San Francisco Congress Center. Jade just gave herself the liberty of standing up a few times every day for stretching.

She hoped that this incredible stance will draw public attention and educate people on the urgent need to protect the environment, and this will force the government to finally take positive action.

And like she hoped, she was able to certainly draw attention. Speaking to the reporters, Jade said, “The government and the corporations aren’t doing anything for the environment. Somebody had to do something, so I decided to take action myself. I hope that my actions can help raise awareness about global warming, and can eventually bring some political change”.

Miss Martens agrees that her action is putting a great strain on her mental and physical condition. However she insists on staying inside the freezer for another year at least. It could be even more if my health permits, she says.

Danish filmmaker, Hans Mitzbërg, has already decided to make a documentary about her militant action.



http://www.heraldweekly.com/activist-spends-a-year-in-freezer-to-oppose-global-warming/5680

They don't care about the debt.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Donald-Marron/2013/0109/1-trillion-coin-Should-Obama-exploit-the-Treasury-s-platinum-loophole

Sorry, the reeducation camps are all full with people who are being trained to be friendly to transgendered victims of the past history of social injustice.


Reed camps are not an option.  Budget problems also exist as excess printed money is all allocated for jet travel for climate change conferences.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Propaganda. Reeducation camps.

Heck, if you want to strip some Co2 out of the air, just go down to the South Pole in the winter and reduce the air temp another 10-20 degrees and let the solid Co2 fall right out.  The energy cost of doing that is the energy cost of that reduction in temperature, basically, like the cost to run an airconditioner.

Next, is it a big deal to make some fuel out of air?  Well, air has H, C, and O basically in reduced form.  So if you want to add energy in to get them back to where they can be oxidized again, be my guest.  This is called rearranging atoms.  It takes a lot of energy.  Because of process inefficiencies, it takes a lot more energy than you will get out in the end product.

But the real problem with this type of thing is that instead of teaching people how things work (Like I just did with the bolded paragraph) or teaching them to discriminate between options and intelligently pick the best (like I did with the underlined paragraph)
, people are being taught to not think and to blissfully believe in junk impractical pseudoscience.  And further, they are being taught not to criticize such things and too keep quiet about their inner suspicions.

Those inner suspicions are dangerous.  Lose your job, get bad grades in school, get shunned socially, be labeled a Denier, you are plain fucked if you don't play along.

How about that.

So now the green energy warriors are making fuel out of thin air (literally)


This is some really amazing news out of the green energy, climate change community which should have everyone partying in the streets before long. An industrial plant in Canada is producing diesel fuel out of thin air… plus some water and a few other things. And as part of their save the world agenda, they’re doing it by pulling carbon out of the atmosphere, thereby reducing greenhouse gas levels. That’s simply incredible. If I’d known we could make gasoline out of air all this time we wouldn’t have to bother with all that messy drilling into the ground. Any moment now we should be able to close all the coal mines and the ocean levels should begin to recede. I’m excited about this plan.

Okay, guys… let’s see what you’ve got. (Technology Review)

On Friday a group of government officials, environmentalists, and local bigwigs gathered in the coastal town of Squamish, British Columbia, about an hour north of Vancouver, to mark the onset of what could one day be a new industry: creating carbon-neutral transportation fuel made from carbon dioxide captured from air.

The company that built the plant, Carbon Engineering, was founded by a Canadian scientist named David Keith. A Harvard professor of applied physics, Keith has made headlines before for his outspoken advocacy for more research into geoengineering (specifically, seeding the lower stratosphere with sulfuric acid to reflect sunlight and cool the planet)…

The process uses a large wall of fans, known as a contactor, to push air through a liquid that reacts with the CO2. That carbon dioxide-rich solution is then put through several processing steps to create a purified stream of CO2 gas and the liquid that is returned to the contactor.


Well that all sounds just great. And Dr. Keith isn’t even the first one to do it. Audi was playing around with this for a couple of years and they produced some diesel about six months ago.

The base fuel is referred to as “blue crude,” and begins by taking electricity from renewable sources like wind, solar or hydropower and using it to produce hydrogen from water via reversible electrolysis. The hydrogen is then mixed with CO2 that has been converted into CO in two chemical processes and the resulting reactions produce a liquid made from long-chain hydrocarbons – this is blue crude, which is then refined to create the end product, the synthetic e-diesel.

It’s a clever idea and one that’s interesting enough to go read up on the details of how this works. They’re basically using huge fans to drive air through a solution of molten lithium carbonate with lithium oxide dissolved in it. (Sounds tasty, eh?) Then you force a large electric current through it and the carbon falls out of solution, releasing oxygen. You next need to take fresh water (not like we’re going to run out of that any time soon, eh California?) and run electricity through that to produce hydrogen and more oxygen. Then you combine the hydrogen and the carbon (using even more energy) and… voila! You have fuel in the form of long chain hydrocarbons.

But before the Greens begin celebrating too much there are a few things to note about it. First of all, they’re talking about removing carbon from the atmosphere and managing a “carbon neutral process” to produce fuel. As you read each of the articles carefully you’ll note that they all specify that this only works if you power the new fuel plant exclusively with solar or wind energy. And it takes up a lot of energy, so good luck with that. If you run it off the general power grid (which is still largely driven by coal) you’ll actually put more carbon into the atmosphere as part of the process than you remove.

And how much carbon are they eliminating? The developer in Canada estimates that the plant can strip approximately one metric ton of carbon from the air per day. Not to burst anyone’s bubble here, but the atmosphere has approximately 3×10 to the 12th power metric tons of carbon. (I don’t even know how to quantify a number that large.) Also, it’s worth noting that your average acre of adult trees strips more carbon out of the air than that and they do it for free.

Oh, and those long chain hydrocarbons being produced at the end of all this? Yeah, we knew about those already. We usually call them crude oil. (But this stuff is cleaner, to be sure, since crude has a lot of other compounds mixed in with it.) But the “blue e-crude” being produced can’t just be put in your tank. It has to be blended with standard diesel just like the synthetics we get from the tar sands in Canada. Just saying…

This is some pretty cool science as I’ll be the first to admit. And if they can find a place with enough wind and solar to run a plant and they want to scrub a few hundred tons of carbon out of the air and make a few thousand gallons of synthetic diesel… hey. Who am I to judge? Have a party, pal. But let’s not pretend you’ve suddenly solved the world’s emissions problems and are about to replace oil as a fuel source.


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/11/so-now-the-green-energy-warriors-are-making-fuel-out-of-thin-air-literally/

Inconvenient Truths: 2014 Global Natural Disasters Down Massively! …No Trend In Tornado/Cyclones Since 1950!


Down Again: 2014 Catastrophe Losses Below Average

Global natural disasters1 in 2014 combined to cause economic losses of USD 132 billion, 37 percent below the ten-year average of USD211 billion. The losses were attributed to 258 separate events, compared to the ten-year average of 260. The disasters caused insured losses of USD39 billion, 38 percent below the ten-year average of USD63 billion and was the lowest insured loss total since 2009. This was the second consecutive year with below normal catastrophe losses. Notable events during the year included major flooding in India, Pakistan, China, and Southeast Europe; billion-dollar convective thunderstorm events in the United States, France, and Germany; winter storms in Japan and the United States; and widespread drought in the United States and Brazil. The top three perils, flood, tropical cyclone, and severe weather, combined for 72 percent of all economic losses in 2014. Despite 75 percent of catastrophe losses occurring outside of the United States, it still accounted for 53 percent of global insured losses, driven by a higher insurance penetration.”

According to the Red Cross data, many of the deaths were due to cold, with 505 alone occurring in one country – Peru! Among the top disasters were brutal winters in the USA and japan – hardly what one would expect from “global warming”.

90% less deaths

A total of 8186 people died in 2014 because of natural disasters. Bild reports: “2014 the number of deaths from natural disasters was almost 90 percent under the 10-year average of 76 500 deaths.” That’s hugely good news, but you’d never know it hearing the media!

Lowest in 10 years

According to the IFRC, in 94 countries there were a total of 317 floods, earthquakes, forest fires, cyclones and a number of other nature events with deaths. “But that was the lowest number in 10 years.“, BILD reports.

But the IFRC report insists that the news is bad no matter what, and warns that the good news won’t last, citing more severe weather events in the future (no date given) because of global climate change.

No Cat 3 hurricane landfall in 9 years

But data show the opposite. For example when it comes to hurricanes, the AON report writes on page 12:

The 2014 Atlantic Hurricane Season marked the ninth consecutive year in which the U.S. did not sustain a major Category 3+ landfalling hurricane, which extends the alltime record by another year. It was also the quietest season in terms of named storms since 1997.”

It’s stunning that some are actually out there screaming things are worse than ever when the opposite is the truth.

One of least active since Doppler radar began

On U.S. tornado activity it’s more of the same, with the AON report stating on page 17:

For the third consecutive year, tornado season in the United States was one of the least active since Doppler radar began being deployed in the early 1990s.”

Here’s the chart of the last 10 years – no change:


http://notrickszone.com/2015/10/10/inconvenient-truths-2014-global-natural-disasters-down-massively-no-trend-in-tornadocyclones-since-1950/

The most pessimistic climate change scientist has had a sudden change of heart
Johan Rockström, who shocked the world with a bleak prediction in 2009, has had a dramatic change of heart







The world has a better chance of saving itself from catastrophic global warming now than at any time over the past two decades, according to the scientist behind some of the most alarming predictions ever made for the planet’s future.

Johan Rockström shocked environmentalists in 2009 when he identified nine categories of Nature that were essential for life as we know it, and warned that we had already crossed into dangerous territory on three of them – including climate change.

Rockström,  an environmental science professor at Stockholm University and executive director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, has since transferred a fourth category, deforestation, to his list of “planetary boundaries” in the danger zone, which threaten irreversible, devastating consequences to the planet.

But he has had a dramatic change of heart over global warming, and is more optimistic that the worst of the threat can be contained than he has been since 1992.

His optimism is founded on the breakneck speed of innovation in wind and solar power in the past two to three years, which means that renewable energy is being deployed on a massive scale and, crucially, at a cost roughly comparable to fossil fuels. Only last week new figures showed that the cost of electricity produced by onshore windfarms in the UK has fallen so much that for the first time it is now cheaper than fossil-fuel energy.

Rapid improvements in energy efficiency are also key, along with a drive to reduce waste and increase the volume of recycled materials used in manufacturing, he says.

These developments have effectively removed the last major impediment to dramatically reducing greenhouse gases, raising the prospect that even though the planetary boundary has been crossed on global warming, the world may be able to cross back again.

“We have a paradox unique to our era. On a scientific basis there is more reason to be nervous than ever before. But at the same time there has never before been so much reason for hope,” Professor Rockström told The Independent on Sunday. “The last time I was as optimistic was in 1992, with the Rio conference .... Then we lost 20 years. Now we’re back on a much more hopeful path,” he said.

Professor Rockström is referring to the United Nations meeting in Rio de Janeiro at which world leaders agreed to limit greenhouse gas emissions to a level that would prevent dangerous climate change and set up a framework to do this.

Each year, 192 officials from around the world attend such a summit, often with disappointing results. This year’s event in Paris in December is billed as the most important ever, because world leaders have pledged to agree emissions cuts and other actions that will put the world on a pathway that will eventually limit global warming to 2C. In advance, countries have said how much they are prepared to cut emissions by 2030. While these cuts in themselves fall short of what is needed, the professor is hopeful a more comprehensive deal, involving further cuts beyond 2030, can be struck in Paris – meaning the summit will achieve its goal.

He says the situation regarding climate change is similar to that facing the stratospheric ozone layer, which protects us from the sun’s ultraviolet radiation, towards the end of last century. This was being so badly depleted by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in fridges and aerosols that the world had crossed “planetary boundaries”, threatening to dramatically increase cases of skin cancer. Then a cheaper alternative to CFCs was invented, the 1987 Montreal Protocol banned CFC use and the ozone layer recovered.

But Professor Rockström warns:“The negatives remain. The world’s coral reefs are so worryingly close to collapse, while the Arctic and Antarctic are deteriorating so rapidly they could hit tipping points that are irreversible ... it’s now or never towards tipping the world to a very costly, very devastating future, versus tipping ourselves towards a sustainable future.

“I take a sober, optimistic view.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-measures-to-combat-global-warming-are-paying-off-scientist-says-a6689211.html

The Propaganda War on Science...

The thing my little brain does not get. What is the "base" for the average temperature of the earth? The blue curve is beautiful. It goes up and down... And I see a zero line in the middle. That's cute too...

But...

Sounds like the plan a future nobel bitcointalk prize winner. If I could understand your statement, anyone can. Ask for money, as a global warming believer, to fund your study.

You can measure it directly, no need for using the moon.
NASA's CERES is doing that.

When the sun isn't striking the lunar surface but is hitting the earth, the Moon is often faintly visible from reflected light - Earthshine. 

From an orbiting ISS or satellite, one can point a telescope with sensors at the Moon.  At appropriate times, it shouldn't be a problem to measure Earthshine.  Since the lunar surface, unlike that of Earth, never changes, this gives you a direct measure of the outgoing radiation from the Earth.  Hence you can measure albedo of the planet in it's entirety and over time, figure the radiation balance and whether it is going in the direction of cooling, or warming.

Maybe that's a bit technical but I'm wondering why no one has done it....

Recent lunar eclipse reveals a sign of global cooling in the atmosphere

Guest Blogger / 3 days ago October 6, 2015

by Dr. Richard Keen, via spaceweather.com (h/t to Leif Svalgaard)

On Sept. 27th, millions of people around the world watched the Moon pass through the shadow of our planet. Most agreed that the lunar eclipse was darker than usual. Little did they know, they were witnessing a sign of global cooling. But only a little. (continued below)...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/06/recent-lunar-eclipse-reveals-a-sign-of-global-cooling-in-the-atmosphere/