Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (3537)	1/8/2014 4:06:12 PM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Recommended By longnshort Maurice Winn Respond to of 4326

Air Temperatures One of the earliest and most important predictions was presented to the US Congress in 1988 by Dr James Hansen, the “father of global warming”: Figure 3: Hansen’s predictionsvi to the US Congress in 1988, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellitesvii. Hansen’s climate model clearly exaggerated future temperature rises. In particular, his climate model predicted that if human CO2 emissions were cut back drastically starting in 1988, such that by year 2000 the CO2 level was not rising at all, we would get his scenario C. But in reality the temperature did not even rise this much, even though our CO2 emissions strongly increased – which suggests that the climate models greatly overestimate the effect of CO2 emissions. A more considered prediction by the climate models was made in 1990 in the IPCC’s First Assessment Report:viii Figure 4: Predictions of the IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites. It’s 20 years now, and the average rate of increase in reality is below the lowest trend in the range predicted by the IPCC. Ocean Temperatures The oceans hold the vast bulk of the heat in the climate system. We’ve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since mid-2003, when the Argo system became operational.ix,x In Argo, a buoy duck dives down to a depth of 2,000 meters, measures temperatures as it very slowly ascends, then radios the results back to headquarters via satellite. Over three thousand Argo buoys constantly patrol all the oceans of the world. Figure 5: Climate model predictionsxi of ocean temperature, versus the measurements by Argoxii. The unit of the vertical axis is 1022 Joules (about 0.01°C). The ocean temperature has been basically flat since we started measuring it properly, and not warming as quickly as the climate models predict. Atmospheric Hotspot The climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming; the most prominent change they predict is a warming in the tropics about 10 km up, the “hotspot”. The hotspot is the sign of the amplification in their theory (see Figure 1). The theory says the hotspot is caused by extra evaporation, and by extra water vapor pushing the warmer wetter lower troposphere up into volume previously occupied by cool dry air. The presence of a hotspot would indicate amplification is occurring, and vice versa. We have been measuring atmospheric temperatures with weather balloons since the 1960s. Millions of weather balloons have built up a good picture of atmospheric temperatures over the last few decades, including the warming period from the late 70’s to the late 90’s. This important and pivotal data was not released publicly by the climate establishment until 2006, and then in an obscure place.xiii Here it is: Figure 6: On the left is the data collected by millions of weather balloons.xiv On the right is what the climate models say was happening.xv The theory (as per the climate models) is incompatible with the observations. In both diagrams the horizontal axis shows latitude, and the right vertical axis shows height in kilometers. In reality there was no hotspot, not even a small one. So in reality there is no amplification – the amplification shown in Figure 1 does not exist.xvi ......... Message 27974366 Message 29281629

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (3537)	1/8/2014 4:41:49 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Recommended By Hawkmoon Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4326

That's not actually true: <The reason that you can't have in-ground outhouses in big cities is because the unnatural human density is more than the land can process.> It's true of dense apartment building cities such as Hong Kong where there is no land. But most cities and houses involve some land around them. Soil around nearly all houses can easily absorb daily human waste, though not of course they huge flow of water used to flush toilets. Composting manure is easy. We used to collect large amounts of horse dung to help fertilize the garden [my parents 50 years ago]. A bit of human poop, sterilized if necessary to avoid risk of disease spread, which I doubt would actually be possible, could easily be composted along with horse poop. All that's needed is a sensible and convenient design for on-site disposal of human waste. An evaporator could easily reduce urine to nothing much at all. Poop could be disposed of by combustion to air or by dry waste disposal even in large apartment buildings. Mqurice

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (3537)	1/8/2014 5:20:59 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4326

I quite like unchecked growth and have been promoting it for decades and doing it myself, putting a LOT of effort into the process. In fact, I have another grandson due to be born next month and a wonderful thing it is that he'll be born. <All of the negative things that are perceived in our societies are reactions to the unnatural and unchecked growth of the population. The progressive big government movements want to double down on the things that facilitate unchecked growth while at the same time dismantling the things that are needed to support it.> Governments are one of my major problems though. I certainly don't want them deciding for me that my grandchildren are undesirable. If they don't like their's then they should check their own growth. If they think there are too many people, they should do the decent thing. Economically too, I'm for unchecked growth. If I can produce a $gazillion in value with a flick of my little finger, all to the good. If somebody else can do that instead of me, thank you very very much. I appreciate your effort [small though it might be]. Look at the $trillions in value that have been created just this century by maybe 1 million Cyberspacoid Geeks. Heck, it takes only a few tens of them to create hundreds of $billions in value [Skype, Facebook, Google, bitcoin, Twitter]. People who dislike economic growth limit their imaginations to "Imagine if all the people in China and India drive around on vast freeways in dirty great SUVs like us". They then think OMG the air will be polluted and the world's resources will run out. Doom will be upon us. But economic growth is not a function of SUVs and freeways. Mqurice