-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Global Warming & Climate Change Myths
- Thread starter TychoMonolyth
- Start date
lol another thread for the true believers. oras i like to call ya's
have you all seen the latest scare mongering from the IPCC
give up the heater in winter, stop eating meat and phase out all coal
or we're all going to enjoy some nice weather,
its the middle of spring here, still to cold for gunja to go outside, be another 3 weeks, same as the last 30 years lol lol
at the moment, coal is kind of phasing itself out
it's become expensive compared to natural gas
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
In all of these discussions I haven't seen a lot about the steady migration north of harmful insects. Lime desease is almost common here now. I'm convinced I'm immune to them (Not really). After planting season, I must have had 5 tick that were sunk into me. And another 50 that were on me. I never saw a tick until about 6 years ago.
Black widow spiders are here now too. I mean WTF man!
Zika? .... everyone say Hello.
Black widow spiders are here now too. I mean WTF man!
Zika? .... everyone say Hello.
Monty Zoomer
Member
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
It's too bad you had to hide from any criticism of all your claims in the other thread.
The climate hasn't changed one whit since the French first calculated the base climate parameters for the planet in 1864.
Nearly 90 years later after WWs I and II the entire world agreed the climate hadn't changed, and adopted the International Standard Atmosphere globally.
In 1976 the Americans published the American Standard Atmosphere which was a re-assertion the values first calculated and published by the French in 1864,
with additional computer calculated data going up another couple of hundred thousand feet, for the entire world to use in assessing climate accurately in orbital flight.
If the climate were changing we'd know. We have to calibrate all our flight and thermal sensing data against known-good temperature, pressure, humidity etc values and those published by the French in 1864 remain effectively, identical today.
The climate hasn't changed one whit since the French first calculated the base climate parameters for the planet in 1864.
Nearly 90 years later after WWs I and II the entire world agreed the climate hadn't changed, and adopted the International Standard Atmosphere globally.
In 1976 the Americans published the American Standard Atmosphere which was a re-assertion the values first calculated and published by the French in 1864,
with additional computer calculated data going up another couple of hundred thousand feet, for the entire world to use in assessing climate accurately in orbital flight.
If the climate were changing we'd know. We have to calibrate all our flight and thermal sensing data against known-good temperature, pressure, humidity etc values and those published by the French in 1864 remain effectively, identical today.
Last edited:
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
The people telling you the atmosphere heats the planet are also the ones who didn't teach you how to calculate the temperature of the planet according to science:
instead teaching you a temperature that comes up 33 degrees short of the actual International Standard Atmosphere.
This is how the average temperature of the global Atmosphere is actually calculated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDOJUTv3bLk
Since none of you know anything about the actual Atmosphere, about 19:00 is where he explains to you that
we know the temperature of the planet, because if we didn't, our aviation age would crash to the ground. Here and on the planet you think magic makes it several hundred degrees hotter than the laws of physics say it had better be, Venus. We've robotically landed more than a dozen spacecraft on Venus we know the temperature there,
just like we know the temperature of Earth here. And knowing the temperature correctly is critical because at 19:00 where they talk to you about 'rho, or density,' they show you it's a direct function of temperature.
So much for ''The Atmosphere making less energy reach and warm Earth make more than 100% of available energy come out, by letting less come in,"
and telling you that "Calculating the temperature of the planet wrong and coming up 33 degrees short, is the same as calculating it right."
No, we know how to actually calculate the temperature of the Atmosphere and it's not we in the electronic space age business end of it who are wrong, it's the people who told you there is such thing as a known-bad warm time since life began.
Matter of fact biologists actually coined the word "Optimum" for these globally optimal conditions for biodiversity.
https://goo.gl/rnw3Az
those periods of "Global Biodiversity Optimum" are the very few pink and red points in that very large, very blue graph.
The actual fact is that 94% of Earth's history has been spent in deadly cold. Anyone telling you warmth is bad and cold is good is a bald faced liar and con man.
The word "Optimum" defined: note how it's expressly stated the word was coined as a noun to denote best conditions for life.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/optimum
Also note since scientific frauds are crawling around claiming "Optimum" has nothing to do with warmth of climate
note what the English Etymology dictionary says about the actual invention of the word, "Optimum."
https://www.etymonline.com/word/optimum
optimum (n.)
1879, from Latin optimum, neuter singular of optimus "best" (used as a superlative of bonus "good"), probably related to ops "power, resources" (in which case the evolution is from "richest" to "the most esteemed," thus from PIE root *op- "to work, produce in abundance.") or to ob "in front of," with superlative suffix *-tumos. Originally in biology, in reference to "conditions most favorable" (for growth, etc.). As an adjective from 1885.
Note what this word historian and every other one, says about the history of the term "Optimum" because it's the truth not baseless name-calling fraud:
"History of optimum
According to merriam-webster.com, scientists in the mid-19th century needed a word to describe the most favorable point, degree or amount; the best condition for the growth and reproduction of an organism. They took “optimus” from Latin to create the noun optimum.
It filled the scientific need, and optimum eventually gained use beyond the scientific community to broadly imply the best or most desirable.
A few decades later, optimum was being used as an adjective as well as a noun. That’s when optimal was coined to serve as an adjective, but the distinction is either not understood or not accepted by everyone. A popular resource for writers, Garner’s Modern American Usage, prefers “optimum” as the noun and “optimal” the adjective."
Every lying syllable about warmth potentially being bad for global biodiversity is fraud. Every single one. We're actually on the cool side of the point where life conditions can be called an "Optimum." That's why when you look at the 94% NON OPTIMUM parts of Earth history we're right down there on the edge of it being too cold to have the kind of global biodiversity we do today.
The key is low ice. Low ice allows warm water with living krill in it to circulate throughout the planet's polar & near-polar oceanic basins.
Without krill the numerous species inhabiting northerly and southerly regions of the globe would be wiped out. The numerous creatures living in the polar oceans are very heavily dependent on good global thermo-haline circulation resultant from low ice.
This global conveyor is called the thermohaline or ''heat/salt'' related circulation and is responsible for the warmth brought to the polar areas creating the biodiversity whereby ALL polar ocean-going creatures live.
"History and Etymology for thermohaline
therm- + Greek hal-, hals salt"
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ocean-conveyor-belt/
"The Conveyor Belt
Scientists have long understood how nutrients move from the ocean’s surface to its depths. As phytoplankton die, they sink and collect on the ocean floor. But if nutrients are continually sinking to the depths of the ocean, how are surface waters replenished with nutrients? Scientists discovered that in certain regions of the ocean, the nutrient-rich deep water was upwelling, or rising to the surface.
Scientists realized that the ocean was slowly turning over from top to bottom in a continuous global loop. Like a conveyor belt, thermohaline circulation moves nutrients from one part of the ocean to another."
Thermohaline circulation being heat created, and critical to global biodiversity: the real science of Earth's life, and why it's able to be all over our planet.
People claiming heat can disrupt this are as purely fraudulent as those claiming heat's not necessary for climate to be at an optimum.
Heat CREATES global biodiversity through this circulation.
https://goo.gl/EKoShm
instead teaching you a temperature that comes up 33 degrees short of the actual International Standard Atmosphere.
This is how the average temperature of the global Atmosphere is actually calculated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDOJUTv3bLk
Since none of you know anything about the actual Atmosphere, about 19:00 is where he explains to you that
we know the temperature of the planet, because if we didn't, our aviation age would crash to the ground. Here and on the planet you think magic makes it several hundred degrees hotter than the laws of physics say it had better be, Venus. We've robotically landed more than a dozen spacecraft on Venus we know the temperature there,
just like we know the temperature of Earth here. And knowing the temperature correctly is critical because at 19:00 where they talk to you about 'rho, or density,' they show you it's a direct function of temperature.
So much for ''The Atmosphere making less energy reach and warm Earth make more than 100% of available energy come out, by letting less come in,"
and telling you that "Calculating the temperature of the planet wrong and coming up 33 degrees short, is the same as calculating it right."
No, we know how to actually calculate the temperature of the Atmosphere and it's not we in the electronic space age business end of it who are wrong, it's the people who told you there is such thing as a known-bad warm time since life began.
Matter of fact biologists actually coined the word "Optimum" for these globally optimal conditions for biodiversity.
https://goo.gl/rnw3Az
those periods of "Global Biodiversity Optimum" are the very few pink and red points in that very large, very blue graph.
The actual fact is that 94% of Earth's history has been spent in deadly cold. Anyone telling you warmth is bad and cold is good is a bald faced liar and con man.
The word "Optimum" defined: note how it's expressly stated the word was coined as a noun to denote best conditions for life.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/optimum
Also note since scientific frauds are crawling around claiming "Optimum" has nothing to do with warmth of climate
note what the English Etymology dictionary says about the actual invention of the word, "Optimum."
https://www.etymonline.com/word/optimum
optimum (n.)
1879, from Latin optimum, neuter singular of optimus "best" (used as a superlative of bonus "good"), probably related to ops "power, resources" (in which case the evolution is from "richest" to "the most esteemed," thus from PIE root *op- "to work, produce in abundance.") or to ob "in front of," with superlative suffix *-tumos. Originally in biology, in reference to "conditions most favorable" (for growth, etc.). As an adjective from 1885.
Note what this word historian and every other one, says about the history of the term "Optimum" because it's the truth not baseless name-calling fraud:
"History of optimum
According to merriam-webster.com, scientists in the mid-19th century needed a word to describe the most favorable point, degree or amount; the best condition for the growth and reproduction of an organism. They took “optimus” from Latin to create the noun optimum.
It filled the scientific need, and optimum eventually gained use beyond the scientific community to broadly imply the best or most desirable.
A few decades later, optimum was being used as an adjective as well as a noun. That’s when optimal was coined to serve as an adjective, but the distinction is either not understood or not accepted by everyone. A popular resource for writers, Garner’s Modern American Usage, prefers “optimum” as the noun and “optimal” the adjective."
Every lying syllable about warmth potentially being bad for global biodiversity is fraud. Every single one. We're actually on the cool side of the point where life conditions can be called an "Optimum." That's why when you look at the 94% NON OPTIMUM parts of Earth history we're right down there on the edge of it being too cold to have the kind of global biodiversity we do today.
The key is low ice. Low ice allows warm water with living krill in it to circulate throughout the planet's polar & near-polar oceanic basins.
Without krill the numerous species inhabiting northerly and southerly regions of the globe would be wiped out. The numerous creatures living in the polar oceans are very heavily dependent on good global thermo-haline circulation resultant from low ice.
This global conveyor is called the thermohaline or ''heat/salt'' related circulation and is responsible for the warmth brought to the polar areas creating the biodiversity whereby ALL polar ocean-going creatures live.
"History and Etymology for thermohaline
therm- + Greek hal-, hals salt"
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/ocean-conveyor-belt/
"The Conveyor Belt
Scientists have long understood how nutrients move from the ocean’s surface to its depths. As phytoplankton die, they sink and collect on the ocean floor. But if nutrients are continually sinking to the depths of the ocean, how are surface waters replenished with nutrients? Scientists discovered that in certain regions of the ocean, the nutrient-rich deep water was upwelling, or rising to the surface.
Scientists realized that the ocean was slowly turning over from top to bottom in a continuous global loop. Like a conveyor belt, thermohaline circulation moves nutrients from one part of the ocean to another."
Thermohaline circulation being heat created, and critical to global biodiversity: the real science of Earth's life, and why it's able to be all over our planet.
People claiming heat can disrupt this are as purely fraudulent as those claiming heat's not necessary for climate to be at an optimum.
Heat CREATES global biodiversity through this circulation.
https://goo.gl/EKoShm
Last edited:
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
The reason this fraud is so vulnerable to being exposed as utterly fake and it's proponents have to hide as soon as someone starts showing evidence about the Earth's real natural history and chemistry,
is because it's based in a specific form of mathematics fraud, called 'Inversion Fraud' where
basic values - the Atmosphere's unmistakable cooling of the planet by 29% as the very first step in resolving global temperature,
- is simply claimed to be inverted and doing the opposite of what actually took place.
There is no such thing as any % less energy into any object, making more than that limiting reduction's mandate allows, come back out.
End of story.
When someone tells you " X % less in, made Y % more come out," every single word after that will be seen to be transparent, and crass fraud, when someone just comes along and points it out.
is because it's based in a specific form of mathematics fraud, called 'Inversion Fraud' where
basic values - the Atmosphere's unmistakable cooling of the planet by 29% as the very first step in resolving global temperature,
- is simply claimed to be inverted and doing the opposite of what actually took place.
There is no such thing as any % less energy into any object, making more than that limiting reduction's mandate allows, come back out.
End of story.
When someone tells you " X % less in, made Y % more come out," every single word after that will be seen to be transparent, and crass fraud, when someone just comes along and points it out.
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
Here is the International Atmosphere being taught to people entering pilot school for the first time. At 12.00 the instructor shows you the Standard Atmosphere chart and down on one side he notes that "T = Temperature" and you see pressure, etc as well,
and as you see this SOLE METRIC being emboldened he says [paraphrased] "we have several parameters for calculating the atmospheric model of a real atmosphere and with experience we have learned to use Temperature as the degree of freedom we choose,'' -
because it's important to have the right values & be physically accurate."
Later on he will have been using a 'p' for pressure and then he'll start making this second p looking letter. That's the letter ''Rho'' and it's written like a P is and when you're writing that letter long-hand like that, you make a small p, but you sorta curve and trail the tail of it down.
Because he's talking to people who are going to have their lives and others, and millions in property ultimately, in their hands, they're expected to know why he's putting down 'p' twice, then saying out of nowhere, 'RoW' lol for no apparent reason.
Note the entire discussion involves solving for density or ''rho'' that long-tailed P. Rho's the Greek letter used in real science, for density.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rho
He doesn't waste much ink but he does in fact make his rho longer and also have some curve to the tail.
https://youtu.be/DDOJUTv3bLk?t=720
Do you know why he never mentions some sort of magical ''as less comes in, more comes out till the atmosphere has made the planet hotter than if there were no atmosphere?
Because he's teaching people real atmospheric science.
His calculations aren't going to come up 33 degrees short.
Notice at 14.00 minutes he says, ''In order to be physically correct, the temperature has to obey those two laws." (The second other law he's referring to is Force = mass times gravity)
See any mention of EITHER of those laws at "more comes out every time less goes in" websites?
They don't use those laws.
That's why they come up 33 degrees short.
That's also because the chart ''part II'' of that FIRST law - the Chart of Specific Heats of Gases -
has the sub-chart 'R' in it,
the only one on Earth assigning Atmospheric gases their Energy Constants. ''R''.
assigning CO2 the lower energy constant - by name.
While also naming Air - assigning it the higher energy constant.
and as you see this SOLE METRIC being emboldened he says [paraphrased] "we have several parameters for calculating the atmospheric model of a real atmosphere and with experience we have learned to use Temperature as the degree of freedom we choose,'' -
because it's important to have the right values & be physically accurate."
Later on he will have been using a 'p' for pressure and then he'll start making this second p looking letter. That's the letter ''Rho'' and it's written like a P is and when you're writing that letter long-hand like that, you make a small p, but you sorta curve and trail the tail of it down.
Because he's talking to people who are going to have their lives and others, and millions in property ultimately, in their hands, they're expected to know why he's putting down 'p' twice, then saying out of nowhere, 'RoW' lol for no apparent reason.
Note the entire discussion involves solving for density or ''rho'' that long-tailed P. Rho's the Greek letter used in real science, for density.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rho
He doesn't waste much ink but he does in fact make his rho longer and also have some curve to the tail.
https://youtu.be/DDOJUTv3bLk?t=720
Do you know why he never mentions some sort of magical ''as less comes in, more comes out till the atmosphere has made the planet hotter than if there were no atmosphere?
Because he's teaching people real atmospheric science.
His calculations aren't going to come up 33 degrees short.
Notice at 14.00 minutes he says, ''In order to be physically correct, the temperature has to obey those two laws." (The second other law he's referring to is Force = mass times gravity)
See any mention of EITHER of those laws at "more comes out every time less goes in" websites?
They don't use those laws.
That's why they come up 33 degrees short.
That's also because the chart ''part II'' of that FIRST law - the Chart of Specific Heats of Gases -
has the sub-chart 'R' in it,
the only one on Earth assigning Atmospheric gases their Energy Constants. ''R''.
assigning CO2 the lower energy constant - by name.
While also naming Air - assigning it the higher energy constant.
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
[iframe1]5jVZKw521HU[/iframe1]
troutman
Seed Whore
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
This is a very good representation of the last glaciation as we know it, and also a very clear explanation of the type changes that happen during such partial glaciation.
https://youtu.be/5jVZKw521HU
The last one [glaciation] is considered to be one that reveals a lot about ice ages in general.
The colder it gets, the more the ice flows toward the equator.
The never-ending calving of icebergs interrupts flow of life both North and Southward, causing the base nutrient producing lower life forms to be chilled, and killed, to plummet downward into the oceanic floor.
This is a very well known mechanic in tracking ice ages.
In the 1800s plant biologists led the creation of the term optimum as a lower-case noun for conditions in rearing a given species and later, paleo studies associated with widespread hydraulic mining - the stripping of entire swaths of land on either side of a flowing river, USING the river as a high pressure spray hose - men who were also plant specialists, since plants predominated wherever the ice and overlying soil were removed, led the way in naming the interglacials, 'Global Climate Optima'
because it became clear everywhere around the world, that retreating ice, always showed warm lush growth conditions that couldn't have possibly existed where ice did.
1800s microscope usage led to understanding of comparing the ratio of pollen amid the fossils to estimate the plant counts in those times.
Mammoth & other animals all had average resident pollen counts in their fur that can be compared to those occurring in the pelts of animals living today, and the record was made a lot more robust this way.
The last glaciation's mild nature is considered of great benefit in understanding what happened in past ones, most of them quite a bit more limiting to global biodiversity.
Past glaciations' presence obscured the landscape across most of the temperate parts of the globe.
Being able to differentiate between this last, mild glaciation
and the interglacials normally punctuating several, much harsher glaciations,
really created the modern paleo record as we know it.
The real science of global evolutionary biodiversity predicted that sediments found where the previous glaciations extended, would show evidence of these tropical flora and fauna, that support all life, being killed and subducted - sunk, flowing downward with cold waters that killed them, to the ocean floors in great numbers, and late 19th century and subsequent 20th century drilling for oil verified that in fact modern biodiversity theory in relation to climate is correct.
Cold kills, leaving bands of life around the equator out toward the temperate regions, varying distances.
Warmth creates more globally optimal conditions by allowing the base nutrients for almost all ocean eco-systems to flow much farther north and south. Entire ecologies spring up from this making life along the shorelines very much more possible. Many important fish species live on marine invertebrates when they're small, a lot of them brought into colder regions borne along with the warmer water that nourishes the food sources and young of species dependent on that food.
A very good video and one that is quite revealing about what a partial, mild glaciation leaves revealed about ice ages and interglacials, in it's tracks.
https://youtu.be/5jVZKw521HU
The last one [glaciation] is considered to be one that reveals a lot about ice ages in general.
The colder it gets, the more the ice flows toward the equator.
The never-ending calving of icebergs interrupts flow of life both North and Southward, causing the base nutrient producing lower life forms to be chilled, and killed, to plummet downward into the oceanic floor.
This is a very well known mechanic in tracking ice ages.
In the 1800s plant biologists led the creation of the term optimum as a lower-case noun for conditions in rearing a given species and later, paleo studies associated with widespread hydraulic mining - the stripping of entire swaths of land on either side of a flowing river, USING the river as a high pressure spray hose - men who were also plant specialists, since plants predominated wherever the ice and overlying soil were removed, led the way in naming the interglacials, 'Global Climate Optima'
because it became clear everywhere around the world, that retreating ice, always showed warm lush growth conditions that couldn't have possibly existed where ice did.
1800s microscope usage led to understanding of comparing the ratio of pollen amid the fossils to estimate the plant counts in those times.
Mammoth & other animals all had average resident pollen counts in their fur that can be compared to those occurring in the pelts of animals living today, and the record was made a lot more robust this way.
The last glaciation's mild nature is considered of great benefit in understanding what happened in past ones, most of them quite a bit more limiting to global biodiversity.
Past glaciations' presence obscured the landscape across most of the temperate parts of the globe.
Being able to differentiate between this last, mild glaciation
and the interglacials normally punctuating several, much harsher glaciations,
really created the modern paleo record as we know it.
The real science of global evolutionary biodiversity predicted that sediments found where the previous glaciations extended, would show evidence of these tropical flora and fauna, that support all life, being killed and subducted - sunk, flowing downward with cold waters that killed them, to the ocean floors in great numbers, and late 19th century and subsequent 20th century drilling for oil verified that in fact modern biodiversity theory in relation to climate is correct.
Cold kills, leaving bands of life around the equator out toward the temperate regions, varying distances.
Warmth creates more globally optimal conditions by allowing the base nutrients for almost all ocean eco-systems to flow much farther north and south. Entire ecologies spring up from this making life along the shorelines very much more possible. Many important fish species live on marine invertebrates when they're small, a lot of them brought into colder regions borne along with the warmer water that nourishes the food sources and young of species dependent on that food.
A very good video and one that is quite revealing about what a partial, mild glaciation leaves revealed about ice ages and interglacials, in it's tracks.
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
Come on now... even Trump has changed his mind about that.
For you guys, it's not about truth or myth. It's about the lifestyle hurt that's on the horizon. And you know, it's too late for the fix to be painless right? It's gonna hurt even if we start taking stuff like the Paris Accord seriously and follow it to the letter. We haven't been brushing our teeth and visiting the dentist, so now they ALL have to get pulled. Get used to the dentures dude.
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
You sound like those people who kept screeching "Pot's like heroin because guvurmint fellurs sed so, and that settles it.''
Am readed somewhere that even those 3 coriums that weight 60,90,70 tonnes
from Fukushima that sunked in ground under NP gives significant heat output
and add to global warming trend...
now if you know that uran burns at 5000 C and that still they didnt estinguish
those fire after 7 years things doesnt look so much unbelivable..
climate change is real but humans are mostly ignorant specie that adore
dangerous technology that they dont know to use properly..
faster than climate changes am expecting we will made mass extinction event
on self,auto suicide,..but with a polution and dangerous new technology...
Just look at Japan.. so much developed but in same time so much blind as
they build nuclear plants on seizmic fault.. in area where most strongest
earthquakes happends..
from Fukushima that sunked in ground under NP gives significant heat output
and add to global warming trend...
now if you know that uran burns at 5000 C and that still they didnt estinguish
those fire after 7 years things doesnt look so much unbelivable..
climate change is real but humans are mostly ignorant specie that adore
dangerous technology that they dont know to use properly..
faster than climate changes am expecting we will made mass extinction event
on self,auto suicide,..but with a polution and dangerous new technology...
Just look at Japan.. so much developed but in same time so much blind as
they build nuclear plants on seizmic fault.. in area where most strongest
earthquakes happends..
Stickybred420
Member
myth or not,(I believe its real) whats wrong with giving a shit about the environment and taking care of the planet. not like theres a lot to lose there. ha
St. Phatty
Active member
You mean, less ice-skating, more Hurricane Wind-surfing ?
That hurts.
.
.
Attachments
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
Honestly, I should be a denier.why? Because Canada is one of the few countries that will benefit from the warming. A Longer growing season is only one of the benefits.
So open more coal fired plants dude. Knock yourself out.
So open more coal fired plants dude. Knock yourself out.
