Global Warming: For Experts Only

[OddTrader]

Probably Unstoppable in the near future, due to majority of new users of fridges and washers have been in China and India!

What the world should have done, by yesterday?????

Never too late!!!

Q
" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_households


Country Household population (people) Households Average household size (people) Year

China 1,367,820,000 455,940,000 3.0 2012[2]
India 1,200,536,286 248,408,494 4.8 2011[3]
United States 318,857,056 133,957,180 2.6 2014[4]
United Kingdom 56,075,912 26,473,000 2.1 2011[10][11][12]"

UQ

http://www.theage.com.au/business/t...sian-might-builds-report-20171226-h0a67b.html

In 2032, three of the four largest economies will be Asian - China, India and Japan - and, by that time, China will also have overtaken the US to hold the No.1 spot.

 

[futurecurrents]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/17/new-karl-buster-paper-confirms-the-pause-and-models-failure/


here is more info on the paper...


New ‘Karl-buster’ paper confirms ‘the pause’, and climate models failure
Anthony Watts / April 17, 2017


The “uncertainty monster” strikes again

We’ve been highly critical for some time of the paper in summer 2015 by Karl et al. that claimed “the pause” or hiatus went away once “properly adjusted” ocean surface temperature data was applied to the global surface temperature dataset. Virtually everyone in the climate skeptic community considers Karl et al. little more than a sleight of hand.

No matter, this paper published today in Nature Climate Change by Hedemann et al. not only confirms the existence of “the pause” in global temperature, but suggests a cause, saying “…the hiatus could also have been caused by internal variability in the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance“.

That’s an important sentence, because it demonstrates that despite many claims to the contrary, CO2 induced forcing of the planetary temperature is not the control knob, and natural variability remains in force.

more at link...

LOL. Tony Twatts.

You seem to be allergic to any reputable source. Why is that? Can't lie using them?


Anthony Watts
Credentials

• Anthony Watts studied Electrical Engineering and Meteorology at Purdue University, but according to correspondence between Purdue University and SourceWatch, he did not graduate. [1], [2]

Background
Anthony Watts is a former television meteorologist best known as the founder and editor of the blog Watts Up With That (WUWT), which primarily publishes articles attacking climate change science and spreading misinformation. [1]

He is also the director and president of IntelliWeather Inc., a weather graphics company alternatively known as Innovative Tech Works (ITWorks) and Weathershop. Watts founded Surfacestations.org, a project with the stated purpose of documenting the siting quality of weather stations in the United States. [1], [3]

Watts previously worked as an on-air meteorologist for WLFI-TV in Lafayette, Indiana, and later joined KHSK-TV in 1987. In 2002, Watts left his position as a television weatherman to devote time to his private business, ITWorks. He returned to work part-time at KHSL in 2004, and has also been the chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM (an affiliate of Fox News) since 2002. [5], [6]

Watts admits “I'm not a degreed climate scientist” at WUWT. His primary credential appears to be an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval. This does not mean that Watts is “AMS Certified” as some sources have inaccurately claimed. The AMS Seal of Approval is a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor's or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology. [7], [8], [9]

Watts's “About” page mentions neither his Purdue attendance nor whether he graduated. Email correspondence between SourceWatch and Purdue University confirm he attended from August, 1975 to May, 1982, however Registrar staff also confirm it is safe to assume that Watts attained no qualification from the university. [1], [2]

According to leaked documents released in 2012, Watts has received funding from the Heartland Institute. [4]

 

[OddTrader]

Which nations are most responsible for climate change?
Thursday 21 April 2011

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change



Current CO2 emissions

The simplest and most common way to compare the emissions of countries is to add up all the fossil fuels burned and cement produced in each nation and convert that into CO2. According to 2011 data compiled by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the top 10 emitters by this measure are:

1. China: 9697 million tonnes (MT) or 28.6%
2. US: 5420 MT or 16.0%
3. India: 1967 MT or 5.8%
4. Russia: 1829 MT or 5.4%
5. Japan: 1243 MT or 3.7%
6. Germany: 810 MT 2.4%
7. South Korea: 609 MT or 1.7%
8. Canada: 555 MT or 1.6%
9. Indonesia: 490 MT or 1.4%
10. Saudi Arabia: 464 MT or 1.4%
See more countries


All greenhouse gas emissions

The problem with focusing purely on CO2 from burning fossil fuels is that it ignores other greenhouse gases and non-fossil-fuel sources of CO2. When these are included, the figures change considerably, with countries such as Brazil and Indonesia shooting up the list due to emissions caused by deforestation. Reliable data isn't available, but as of 2005, the top 10 emitters as measured in total greenhouse gases looked like this:

1. China: 7,216 MT or 16.4%
2. US: 6,931 MT or 15.7%
3. Brazil: 2,856 MT or 6.5%
4. Indonesia: 2,046 MT or 4.6%
5. Russia: 2,028 MT or 4.6%
6. India: 1,870 MT or 4.2%
7. Japan: 1,387 MT or 3.1%
8. Germany: 1,005 MT or 2.3%
9. Canada: 808 MT or 1.8%
10. Mexico: 696 MT or 1.6%
See all countries (free registration required)

These 5 Countries Account for 60% of Plastic Pollution in Oceans

Oct. 15, 2015

https://www.ecowatch.com/these-5-co...f-plastic-pollution-in-oceans-1882107531.html

Roughly 8 million tons of plastic is dumped into the world's oceans every year, and according to a new study, the majority of this waste comes from just five countries: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam.

It's projected that by 2025, plastic consumption in Asia will increase by an astonishing 80 percent to surpass 200 million tons. And unless steps are taken to manage this waste properly, in ten short years the ocean could contain one ton of plastic for every three tons of fish, "an unthinkable outcome," the study says.It appears that these five countries are responsible for up to 60 percent of the marine plastic entering our oceans, according to Stemming the Tide, a study released last month by the Ocean Conservancy and McKinsey Center for Business and Environment.

Microplastics? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microplastics

Microplastics are small plastic particles in the environment. While there is some contention over their size, the U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration classifies microplastics as less than 5 mm in diameter.[1] They come from a variety of sources, including cosmetics, clothing, and industrial processes.

Two classifications of microplastics currently exist: primary microplastics are manufactured and are a direct result of human material and product use, and secondary microplastics are microscopic plastic fragments derived from the breakdown of larger plastic debris like the macroscopic parts that make up the bulk of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.[2] Both types are recognized to persist in the environment at high levels, particularly in aquatic and marine ecosystems. The plastic resin beads created for use by manufactures are often called nurdles.[3]

...


Policy and legislation

With increasing knowledge of the detrimental effects of microplastics on the environment, many groups are now advocating for the removal and ban of microplastics from various products. One of the most prominent campaigns is the "Beat the Microbead" movement, which focuses on removing plastics from personal care products.[16] The Adventurers and Scientists for Conservation are running a Microplastics Project that is working to pass a national ban on microbeads in household items and cosmetics. Even UNESCO has sponsored research and global assessment programs due to the trans-boundary issue that microplastic pollution constitutes.[40] These environmental groups will seemingly keep pressuring companies to remove plastics from their products in order to maintain healthy ecosystems.[41]

Statewide action has also been taken to mitigate the negative environmental effects of microplastics as Illinois was the first U.S. state to ban cosmetics containing microplastics. New Jersey Congressman Frank Pallone proposed the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2014, which calls for a nationwide ban on the creation and sale of products that contain microbeads by 2018.[42] The Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 was enacted after being signed by the President on December 28, 2015.[43][44] It is effective from July 1, 2017 with respect to manufacturing, and July 1, 2018 with respect to introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce.

Microbead

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about plastic microspheres commonly used in cosmetics. For microbeads of varying composition that are used in research, see Microbead (research). For other uses, see Microsphere (disambiguation).

Microbeads are manufactured solid plastic particles of less than one millimeter in their largest dimension.[1] They are most frequently made of polyethylene but can be of other petrochemical plastics such as polypropylene and polystyrene. They are used in exfoliating personal care products, toothpastes and in biomedical and health-science research.[2]

Microbeads can cause plastic particle water pollution and pose an environmental hazard for aquatic animals in freshwater and ocean water. In the US, the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 phases out microbeads in rinse off cosmetics by July 2017.[3]

...

4 Banning production and sale in cosmetics

4.1 Canada
4.2 Ireland
4.3 UK
4.4 USA
4.4.1 National
4.4.2 States
4.4.3 Local
4.5 Netherlands
4.6 New Zealand

 

[OddTrader]

 

[OddTrader]

The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

So geologists and physicists and chemists are ok when they are used to prove your point.
But peer reviewed articles by geologists and physicists and chemists that refute your ridiculous claims are unacceptable. Because they aren’t ‘climate scientists’ from Global Warming U.
You are spaced bro.

imo, people should not be fully satisfied with that kind of statement for concurrence! Because it is not the same as :

" Our organisation has funded a team of full-time researchers to independently carry out a multi-year investigation and experiments regarding the issue/topic, our findings have had over 70% confidence in supporting that ... ... . Here is a list of our papers that have been peer reviewed internally by a panel consisting of more than 50 reviewers in various relevant fields in top tier institutions. The data-sets can be downloaded here for public use and verification."

Scientists should provide data and investigation from experiments, if not models or theories, rather than merely opinions. Just 2 cents!

 

[OddTrader]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbead

Environmental effects

Microbeads are washed down the drain, can pass unfiltered through sewage treatment plants and make their way into rivers and canals, resulting in plastic particle water pollution.[11] A team of researchers from Uppsala University published a fraudulent and subsequently retracted study[12] which stated that one of the various animals affected by microbeads was perch, a freshwater fish. When born into polluted environments containing high quantities of polystyrene particles they chose to eat these microbeads instead of real food like zooplankton. Plastic-eating perch demonstrated negative behavioral effects; for example, they ignored the smell of predators which left them vulnerable.[13] The beads can absorb and concentrate pollutants like pesticides and polycyclic hydrocarbons.[7][14] Microbeads have been found to pollute the Great Lakes in high concentrations, particularly Lake Erie. A study from the State University of New York, found anywhere from 1,500 to 1.1 million microbeads per square mile on the surface of the Great Lakes.[15]

Perhaps, ...

Corals reefs along the southern region were hit the hardest with up to 80% of corals showing signs of bleaching in Roatan and Utila. Photograph: Courtesy of Bleach Watch Roatan https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ng-worse-but-the-biggest-problem-is-pollution

Bleached coral reefs in Honduras. Photograph: Bleach Watch Roatán https://www.theguardian.com/environ...uran-marine-park-rangers-facing-death-threats

Key Largo, Florida. If the oceans continue to absorb CO2, the increased acidity will be fatal and coral bleaching will worsen. Photograph: Jeff Hunter/Getty Images https://www.theguardian.com/environ...coral-reef-system-disappear-climate-bleaching

 

[OddTrader]

Perhaps, ...

"Research at UC Davis shows that as some plastics degrade in the ocean, they absorb more pollutants and may be increasingly hazardous to sea animals"

ucdavis.edu
Plastics and chemicals they absorb pose double threat to marine ...

By Kat Kerlin on January 15, 2013
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/plastics-and-chemicals-they-absorb-pose-double-threat-marine-life/
The study found that the most commonly produced plastics also absorbed the most chemicals, and for longer periods of time than previously thought. Products made from the particular plastic used to make water bottles — polyethylene terephthalate, or PET — might have fewer detrimental chemical impacts than products made from other types of plastic, according to the study, published online this month in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

Rochman, who works in the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine's Aquatic Health Program, is a Ph.D. candidate in Ecology seeking a joint degree from UC Davis and San Diego State University.

Rochman’s research, conducted for 12 months at five locations in San Diego Bay, was the first controlled, long-term field experiment measuring the absorption of contaminants by the five most common plastics:

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Recycling symbol #1. Ex: Water bottles.
High-density polyethylene (HDPE). Recycling symbol #2. Ex: Detergent bottles.
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Recycling symbol #3. Ex: Clear food packaging.
Low-density polyethylene (LDPE). Recycling symbol #4. Ex: Plastic shopping bags.
Polypropylene (PP). Recycling symbol #5. Ex: Yogurt containers, bottle caps.

...

In 2007, HDPE, LDPE and PP accounted for 62 percent of all plastics produced globally, while PVC and PET represented only 19 percent and 7 percent, the study said.

...

The study was funded by the National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowship Program, with additional funding from the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, the San Diego State University Research Foundation and the Padi Foundation.

How about plastic micro-beads?

pinterest.com
The coral concern is caused by oxybenzone, a chemical which ...

popsci.com
Nano-Sized Synthetic Coral Could Suck Up Ocean's Pollutants ...

deviantworld.com
Why Earth's oceans absorbed more carbon the past decade - Deviant ...

pinterest.com
Earth's oceans absorbed colossal amount of heat in past 18 years ...

 

[OddTrader]

imo, people should not be fully satisfied with that kind of statement for concurrence! Because it is not the same as :

" Our organisation has funded a team of full-time researchers to independently carry out a multi-year investigation and experiments regarding the issue/topic, our findings have had over 70% confidence in supporting that ... ... . Here is a list of our papers that have been peer reviewed internally by a panel consisting of more than 50 reviewers in various relevant fields in top tier institutions. The data-sets can be downloaded here for public use and verification."

Scientists should provide data and investigation from experiments, if not models or theories, rather than merely opinions. Just 2 cents!

I know I could be wrong by saying this but I would venture to say that both the CO2 and the temperature are not the problems, as they are actually the measures and derivatives of the real problems.

The sources and the feedback loops regarding how the CO2 and the temperature are created to affect/impact the environment imo is the real problem that requires thorough investigation.

According to Deming, the root causes generating CO2 and heat are the actual problem(s), imo, and both the "common" and "special" sources for the root causes must be known to people in order to reduce the adverse impact of the problem.

That is the knowledge we need to learn from the experts in climate change. Not reduction targets!

"We do need knowledge for improvements, and incorrect knowledge would prolong the problem and sometimes make it even worse!", per Deming (paraphrase).

Just 2 cents!

 

[futurecurrents]

I know I could be wrong by saying this but I would venture to say that both the CO2 and the temperature are not the problems, as they are actually the measures and derivatives of the real problems.

The sources and the feedback loops regarding how the CO2 and the temperature are created to affect/impact the environment imo is the real problem that requires thorough investigation.

According to Deming, the root causes generating CO2 and heat are the actual problem(s), imo, and both the "common" and "special" sources for the root causes must be known to people in order to reduce the adverse impact of the problem.

That is the knowledge we need to learn from the experts in climate change. Not reduction targets!

"We do need knowledge for improvements, and incorrect knowledge would prolong the problem and sometimes make it even worse!", per Deming (paraphrase).

Just 2 cents!

Your two cents are duly noted and worth just that. Let us know when you publish your next climate science article in a major science publication.

 

[OddTrader]

Only this one (generated by a layman just like me) could be found today:

https://www.canva.com/templates/misc/MACjUjMMD-0-colorful-climate-change-fishbone-diagram/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishikawa_diagram

http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/cause-analysis-tools/overview/fishbone.html