Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
It is the sun stupid!
Potsdam Institute (PIK) now warning of a mini ice age!
Below excerpts is Google translated:
http://www.berliner-kurier.de/news/...iszeit---im-miniformat-24312668?dmcid=sm_fb_p
Scientists warn Europe threatens another ice age - in miniature
This conclusion solar physicist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research have come who have dealt with the solar activity. In the coming years this will always continue to decline.
Positive effects on global warming will not have the threat of cold weather, the scientists predict. The low solar activity and the cold would reduce the force that warming of 0.3 degrees Celsius by the year 2100, it is said of the climate researchers from Potsdam.
Potsdam Institute (PIK) now warning of a mini ice age!
Below excerpts is Google translated:
http://www.berliner-kurier.de/news/...iszeit---im-miniformat-24312668?dmcid=sm_fb_p
Scientists warn Europe threatens another ice age - in miniature
This conclusion solar physicist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research have come who have dealt with the solar activity. In the coming years this will always continue to decline.
Positive effects on global warming will not have the threat of cold weather, the scientists predict. The low solar activity and the cold would reduce the force that warming of 0.3 degrees Celsius by the year 2100, it is said of the climate researchers from Potsdam.
To be a good soldier in the obongo admin, you have to believe in the global warming con and deviant sex.
Senator: Navy Evaluates Commanders
Based On Climate Change Views
Daily Caller, by Michael Bastasch Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 7/1/2016 10:30:54 AM Post Reply
Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse recently told people gathered in New York City that global warming “denial” hurts U.S. soldiers in the field and that the “main problem” with the military is its reluctance to join the climate crusade. “The problem has been that the uniformed military has been reluctant to put its voice into – or its image into this fight,”
U.S. Military to Allow
Soldiers to Crossdress
Breitbart Big Government, by Thomas D. Williams, PH.D. Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 7/1/2016 10:26:52 AM Post Reply
Military personnel who wish to dress as the opposite sex may now do so, according to an announcement from Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter.
Senator: Navy Evaluates Commanders
Based On Climate Change Views
Daily Caller, by Michael Bastasch Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 7/1/2016 10:30:54 AM Post Reply
Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse recently told people gathered in New York City that global warming “denial” hurts U.S. soldiers in the field and that the “main problem” with the military is its reluctance to join the climate crusade. “The problem has been that the uniformed military has been reluctant to put its voice into – or its image into this fight,”
U.S. Military to Allow
Soldiers to Crossdress
Breitbart Big Government, by Thomas D. Williams, PH.D. Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 7/1/2016 10:26:52 AM Post Reply
Military personnel who wish to dress as the opposite sex may now do so, according to an announcement from Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter.
The Inspector General who outed this conspiracy will soon be out of a job, I predict. Hell hath no fury like a liberal conspiracy revealed.
Federal Lab Ignored Environmental
Data Manipulation For YEARS
Daily Caller, by Ethan Barton Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 7/9/2016 11:38:57 AM Post Reply
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) officials knew about environmental data manipulation for years before they stopped the manipulation or notified scientists who may have used phony information, a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation has found. A USGS analyst resigned while under investigation for data manipulation from 1996 to 2008, but another analyst continued that distortion until 2014. But agency officials learned data was manipulated as early as 2004 when scientists found “test results did not make sense” and “were not accurate,” according to a Department of the Interior inspector general (IG) audit published 11 years later. “Our office wasn’t aware of......
Federal Lab Ignored Environmental
Data Manipulation For YEARS
Daily Caller, by Ethan Barton Original Article
Posted By: JoniTx- 7/9/2016 11:38:57 AM Post Reply
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) officials knew about environmental data manipulation for years before they stopped the manipulation or notified scientists who may have used phony information, a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation has found. A USGS analyst resigned while under investigation for data manipulation from 1996 to 2008, but another analyst continued that distortion until 2014. But agency officials learned data was manipulated as early as 2004 when scientists found “test results did not make sense” and “were not accurate,” according to a Department of the Interior inspector general (IG) audit published 11 years later. “Our office wasn’t aware of......
LOL....The Daily Caller! What's next, Mad Magazine?
The Daily Caller is a conservative news and opinion website founded by Tucker Carlson in 2010. Similar to the left-wing Huffington Post, the website covers current events both political and offbeat, as well as human interest topics such as education, "guns and gear", and technology, with plenty of clickbait to go around. Select articles from the site are regularly reprinted on Yahoo! News, be forewarned.
[edit]"Journalism"
The Daily Caller takes a denialist stance about global warming.[1]
On June 15, 2012, during a press conference by President Barack Obama announcing executive actions on immigration law regarding children brought illegally to the U.S., Daily Caller reporter Neil Munro heckled Obama with leading questions like, "Why do you favor foreigners over Americans?"[2]
Shortly before the US Senate election day in New Jersey, the website published a story titled "Women: Sen. Bob Menendez paid us for sex in the Dominican Republic."[3] Established news sources like ABC and even the tabloid New York Post avoided reporting on these accusations due to questionable credibility.[4][5] The story blew up in the Caller's face when it turned out that one of the accusers was a paid liar,[4] and the FBI found no evidence to back up the accuser's story either.[6]
[edit]Bigotry
The site defended Vice magazine co-founder Gavin McInnes for transphobic remarks that claimed that transgender people are "mentally ill...nuts trapped in a crazy person's body" along with words like "fag" sprinkled in, because McInnes was "willing to expose the mechanics of our P.C. outrage culture."[7] But it's totally not outrage for the Daily Caller to post ten articles a day to spark online outrage over something some libtard left winger said on MSNBC, is it not?[8]
The site has stories that basically deliver a message, black people/gay people/insert-outgroup-here evil. On October 17, 2014, the Caller published a story with the racially charged headline "Black males are viciously beating people at random at the University of Illinois" that was later retitled "Gang Of Men Is Viciously Beating People At Random At The University Of Illinois"; the original title still shows up in the URL, showing that at some point the article had that title in the header.[9] Hypocritically, the Caller criticized Salon.com five days later for posting an article about "white menaces" to society following riots at Keene State College in New Hampshire during the college's "PumpkinFest".[10] The site also posted a story "Same-sex rape in the military on the rise" with the undertone that don't ask, don't tell is harmful to the US military.[11]
Don't expect any substantive, enlightening discussions in the comments section, with plenty of anti-racist is a code word for anti-white to go around, as well as ignorant broad brush remarks about liberals or anyone who isn't a True American(TM).[12]
Global Cloud Coverage Shifting in Ominous Sign of Climate Change
"...Clouds are tricky because they do two things at once. All that puffy whiteness blocks solar energy from reaching the ground, bouncing it back to space, which provides a net cooling effect. But clouds also act like a blanket, capping and trapping heat in the lower troposphere, which is where people who aren't on the International Space Station live. That ambiguity makes it difficult to simulate with desirable precision how much and how fast the planet is warming, leaving a big mystery floating lazily over our heads.
Some of that uncertainty was lifted Monday, and the news isn't good. A new study inNature analyzes almost 30 years of weather observations to show that clouds and cloudiness are changing in the way scientists would expect in a warming world. Continental storm tracks—think jet stream—are shifting poleward, leaving populous subtropical latitudes uncovered. And the clouds that are forming more often aren't the low-lying, reflective ones that cool the planet—they're the huge cottony anvils that rise high in the sky, trapping more heat.
"Cloud changes most consistently predicted by global climate models are currently occurring in nature," the authors write. "As cloud tops rise, their greenhouse effect becomes stronger."
Also, as the poleward shift continues, heat from the tropics expands further away from the equator, an unsettling development for already arid cities in places like the U.S. southwest. Less light is reflected away from the hot middle of the Earth, and increased cloud cover toward the poles creates a thickening blanket that warms the world...."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ge-shifting-in-ominous-sign-of-climate-change
"...Clouds are tricky because they do two things at once. All that puffy whiteness blocks solar energy from reaching the ground, bouncing it back to space, which provides a net cooling effect. But clouds also act like a blanket, capping and trapping heat in the lower troposphere, which is where people who aren't on the International Space Station live. That ambiguity makes it difficult to simulate with desirable precision how much and how fast the planet is warming, leaving a big mystery floating lazily over our heads.
Some of that uncertainty was lifted Monday, and the news isn't good. A new study inNature analyzes almost 30 years of weather observations to show that clouds and cloudiness are changing in the way scientists would expect in a warming world. Continental storm tracks—think jet stream—are shifting poleward, leaving populous subtropical latitudes uncovered. And the clouds that are forming more often aren't the low-lying, reflective ones that cool the planet—they're the huge cottony anvils that rise high in the sky, trapping more heat.
"Cloud changes most consistently predicted by global climate models are currently occurring in nature," the authors write. "As cloud tops rise, their greenhouse effect becomes stronger."
Also, as the poleward shift continues, heat from the tropics expands further away from the equator, an unsettling development for already arid cities in places like the U.S. southwest. Less light is reflected away from the hot middle of the Earth, and increased cloud cover toward the poles creates a thickening blanket that warms the world...."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ge-shifting-in-ominous-sign-of-climate-change
from your study...
The corrected data should help improve their confidence in cloud studies, which currently isn’t very high. The 2013 science overview put out by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that although independent sets of cloud observations are similar, “substantial ambiguity and therefore low confidence [remain] in the observations of global-scale cloud variability and trends.”
The corrected data should help improve their confidence in cloud studies, which currently isn’t very high. The 2013 science overview put out by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that although independent sets of cloud observations are similar, “substantial ambiguity and therefore low confidence [remain] in the observations of global-scale cloud variability and trends.”
I put this study on the same level as the study you just cited with its corrected data... but no details...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/09/lets-cook-limestone-to-raise-atmospheric-co2-to-1000ppm/
Lets Cook Limestone to Raise Atmospheric CO2 to 1000ppm
The world has a CO2 problem – there is not enough free CO2 in the atmosphere, to maximise food production, alleviate world hunger, green deserts, and to attempt to hold off the next ice age. But if my calculation is correct, raising CO2 to a safer level would be surprisingly affordable.
Although a lot of nonsense has been written about CO2 harming plant growth, the reality is commercial greenhouse growers maintain elevated CO2 levels of around 1000ppm, because one of the most effective means of promoting plant growth is to make sure plants get enough CO2 – enough being defined as a significantly higher concentration than is currently available in the atmosphere.
The world is also almost certainly teetering on the brink of the next glaciation. I’m not suggesting it will start tomorrow, but interglacials, of the kind we are currently experiencing, typically only last 10-15,000 years. We are well past the Holocene Climatic Optimum, the peak of our current interglacial. Without serious anthropogenic intervention, it is all downhill from here. There is no guarantee raising CO2 will prevent or mitigate the slide into the next glaciation period, but given the catastrophic consequences the coming ice age will have on human civilisation, it has to be worth a try.
How much energy would be required to raise atmospheric CO2 to 1000ppm?
According to Wikipedia, cooking a kilogram of Limestone in a regenerative kiln takes around 3.6MJ / Kg.
Calcium has an atomic weight of 40, Carbon has an atomic weight of 12, Oxygen has a molecular weight of 16. Burning Limestone produces Calcium Oxide (Quicklime) and Carbon Dioxide.
CaCO3 + heat => CaO + CO2.
So burning 1Kg of Limestone releases:
(12 + 16 + 16) / (40 + 12 + 16 + 16 + 16) * 1Kg = 0.44Kg of CO2.
The atmosphere, at 400ppm of CO2, contains 400ppm x 2.3Gt / ppm = 920Gt of CO2.
To raise CO2 to 1000ppm, we need another 600ppm * 2.3Gt / ppm = 1380Gt of CO2.
This will require burning 1380Gt / 0.44Kg CO2 per Kg Limestone = 3136Gt of limestone.
This would require the expenditure of 3.6MJ / Kg * 3136Gt or limestone = 1.1289 x 10^19 joules of energy.
The total global energy budget is 3.89 x 10^20 joules per annum, so if the energy expenditure was spread out across say a decade, we’re talking about 1.1289 x 10^19 / 3.89 x 10^20 = 0.3% of global energy expenditure.
At around $30 / MWh (source Wikipedia), or $30 per 1,000,000 x 3600 joules = 3.6×10^9 joules, the total cost would be:
1.1289 x 10^19 / 3.6 x 10^9 * $30 = around $100 billion dollars.
Obviously there are additional costs for building the kilns and mining the limestone, but even if these additional costs drive the price up to $300 billion, the return on investment would be tremendous – slightly milder winters and substantially improved farm productivity on a global scale. Spread over 10 years, a cost of $300 billion is $30 billion per year – a lot of money, but in the context of previous vast expenditures such as President Obama’s Trillion dollar Stimulus Package, $300 billion would be affordable, for all the good it would deliver.
In addition, I haven’t considered that a lot of the heat for cooking limestone would likely be delivered using fossil fuel – so the amount of limestone which would have to be cooked to achieve this goal would likely be less than the amount indicated by the calculation.
One final issue would be what to do with the approx. 1500Gt of Quicklime which would be produced by burning the limestone. The obvious solution would be to dump it into the ocean, where as Calcium Hydroxide it could counter any ocean acidification caused by the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, and would hopefully not promote rapid re-absorption of the released CO2.
Update (EW) – h/t daveburton, Leonard Weinstein – unfortunately my calculation was way off, so this scheme is currently impractical. However in a hundred years, let alone a millennium, mankind’s engineering capability will be far greater than we currently enjoy (think Wright Brothers to Apollo Moon Landing). Engineering projects such as this one should become feasible well before our civilisation is endangered by the coming glaciation.
Update 2 (EW) – higley7 and Miso Alkalaj pointed out that rapid ocean absorption of the released CO2 would make it difficult to maintain the desired atmospheric concentration.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/09/lets-cook-limestone-to-raise-atmospheric-co2-to-1000ppm/
Lets Cook Limestone to Raise Atmospheric CO2 to 1000ppm
The world has a CO2 problem – there is not enough free CO2 in the atmosphere, to maximise food production, alleviate world hunger, green deserts, and to attempt to hold off the next ice age. But if my calculation is correct, raising CO2 to a safer level would be surprisingly affordable.
Although a lot of nonsense has been written about CO2 harming plant growth, the reality is commercial greenhouse growers maintain elevated CO2 levels of around 1000ppm, because one of the most effective means of promoting plant growth is to make sure plants get enough CO2 – enough being defined as a significantly higher concentration than is currently available in the atmosphere.
The world is also almost certainly teetering on the brink of the next glaciation. I’m not suggesting it will start tomorrow, but interglacials, of the kind we are currently experiencing, typically only last 10-15,000 years. We are well past the Holocene Climatic Optimum, the peak of our current interglacial. Without serious anthropogenic intervention, it is all downhill from here. There is no guarantee raising CO2 will prevent or mitigate the slide into the next glaciation period, but given the catastrophic consequences the coming ice age will have on human civilisation, it has to be worth a try.
How much energy would be required to raise atmospheric CO2 to 1000ppm?
According to Wikipedia, cooking a kilogram of Limestone in a regenerative kiln takes around 3.6MJ / Kg.
Calcium has an atomic weight of 40, Carbon has an atomic weight of 12, Oxygen has a molecular weight of 16. Burning Limestone produces Calcium Oxide (Quicklime) and Carbon Dioxide.
CaCO3 + heat => CaO + CO2.
So burning 1Kg of Limestone releases:
(12 + 16 + 16) / (40 + 12 + 16 + 16 + 16) * 1Kg = 0.44Kg of CO2.
The atmosphere, at 400ppm of CO2, contains 400ppm x 2.3Gt / ppm = 920Gt of CO2.
To raise CO2 to 1000ppm, we need another 600ppm * 2.3Gt / ppm = 1380Gt of CO2.
This will require burning 1380Gt / 0.44Kg CO2 per Kg Limestone = 3136Gt of limestone.
This would require the expenditure of 3.6MJ / Kg * 3136Gt or limestone = 1.1289 x 10^19 joules of energy.
The total global energy budget is 3.89 x 10^20 joules per annum, so if the energy expenditure was spread out across say a decade, we’re talking about 1.1289 x 10^19 / 3.89 x 10^20 = 0.3% of global energy expenditure.
At around $30 / MWh (source Wikipedia), or $30 per 1,000,000 x 3600 joules = 3.6×10^9 joules, the total cost would be:
1.1289 x 10^19 / 3.6 x 10^9 * $30 = around $100 billion dollars.
Obviously there are additional costs for building the kilns and mining the limestone, but even if these additional costs drive the price up to $300 billion, the return on investment would be tremendous – slightly milder winters and substantially improved farm productivity on a global scale. Spread over 10 years, a cost of $300 billion is $30 billion per year – a lot of money, but in the context of previous vast expenditures such as President Obama’s Trillion dollar Stimulus Package, $300 billion would be affordable, for all the good it would deliver.
In addition, I haven’t considered that a lot of the heat for cooking limestone would likely be delivered using fossil fuel – so the amount of limestone which would have to be cooked to achieve this goal would likely be less than the amount indicated by the calculation.
One final issue would be what to do with the approx. 1500Gt of Quicklime which would be produced by burning the limestone. The obvious solution would be to dump it into the ocean, where as Calcium Hydroxide it could counter any ocean acidification caused by the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, and would hopefully not promote rapid re-absorption of the released CO2.
Update (EW) – h/t daveburton, Leonard Weinstein – unfortunately my calculation was way off, so this scheme is currently impractical. However in a hundred years, let alone a millennium, mankind’s engineering capability will be far greater than we currently enjoy (think Wright Brothers to Apollo Moon Landing). Engineering projects such as this one should become feasible well before our civilisation is endangered by the coming glaciation.
Update 2 (EW) – higley7 and Miso Alkalaj pointed out that rapid ocean absorption of the released CO2 would make it difficult to maintain the desired atmospheric concentration.