friendica.eskimo.com
Bombshell! Last Week’s Record High Temperatures Were FAKED!
Recent reports of skyrocketing #record #temperatures across Europe were terrifying but guess what — they were also inaccurate. #News programs reported on surface temperatures rather than air temperatures — the latter are what we’re used to hearing but surface temperatures can be significantly higher, and more frightening.
Recent reports of skyrocketing record temperatures across Europe were terrifying but guess what — they were also inaccurate. News programs reported on surfac...YouTube
I'll tell you why they are lying, it is the SAME reason they lie about every environmental catastrophe from global cooling in the 70's to peak oil in the 80's to the ozone layer farce in the 90s, then global warming, and now climate change, the reason is ALWAYS financial, creating artificial scarcity of supply drives up prices and hence profits.
The ozone layer scam for example, first, the only places the ozone layer was/is thinning was in the arctic and antarctic. How many people live there? Near zero. And given the extreme angle of the sun at those latitudes how much UV makes it through? Near zero. And these so called holes were a reduction of around 10%, so you affect UV by a similar amount, do you really think that's going to be a major issue for the half dozen people that live in those regions? Do you spend a lot of time outside when it's 60 below zero? Fuck no.
And they told us it was our refrigerators and auto air conditioners, and so we had to switch to different chemicals that didn't harm the environment. That's BS right there, do you know how heavy freon is compared to air? Damned heavy, it sinks right to the ground, it doesn't go up in the stratosphere. But you know what forms of chlorine do? Solid rocket motors like the type they used on the Space Shuttles and also many military missiles back at those times, but the space shuttle has been retired, and the rockets today either tend to run liquid oxygen as an oxidizer and methanol, diesel, or hydrogen as the fuel.
The real motivator thus for banning all of these useful chlorofluorocarbons was the fact that Duponts patents had expired and they needed to sell new patented stuff and 10x the cost.
Now I'm not saying we shouldn't try to move towards more sustainable energy sources,
because the nature of extractive technology is that whatever you extract you go for the easy to get to cheapest form first, and then go to more expensive sources, so while we might not "run out" of fossil fuels, they will eventually not be cost effective.
But we need resources that provide reliable power, wind and solar do not do this. They can contribute by reducing the amount of gas we have to burn when they are available but always we need this baseload capacity to deliver reliable electric power.
Two ways we can increase baseload capacity with existing technology are nuclear and geo-thermal. In the United States mainland, we have this huge untapped geo-thermal resources known as Yellowstone. And we should be doing whatever we can to cool off and solidify that magma pool because if Yellowstone ever blows with a major eruption again, it's good bye civilization.
Nuclear done right is the other option, boiling water or pressurized water reactors aren't the write solution for all the reasons I outlined in an earlier post, molten
salt breeder reactors are. They address nuclear safety concerns, proliferation of weapons concerns, and waste concerns all in one package. Russia has been operating some for 30 years. China and India are starting to build them. But done right means we need to come up with a standardized modular design that can be manufactured on a large scale and then deployed. With a standard design the licensing is
simplified, and they're a lot cheaper if we don't to re-invent the wheel on each
iteration. Safety fixes can be applied to all existing reactors when they come
about.
I agree. I worked in the A/C business when they were switching from R22 to R410, due to CFC reduction. Has it helped? No one knows, but certainly not according to the temperature, which doing that was supposed to help, but it didn't.
The insanity of people that believe that human actions can change the climate is ridiculous. That is to make it warmer, or, the even more insane idea that through government actions, the earths climate can be changed for the better, to suit us specifically.
Instead of adapting to natural climate cycles. And, they are natural, no matter what the alarmists say. They would rather experiment.
What happens when the experiment is run and after ten years the temperatures are still rising. But, we all now are living much worse lives due to lack of adequate energy, the backbone of civilization. Then what?
Environmentalism is smart, climate alarmism, is not. People like @arnst@diasp.eu just stick with the media, and their alarmism.
@Dwayne Parsons @arnst I would not argue that man doesn't have SOME effect on the climate, I would argue that it pales in comparison to natural variability. The Climate Alarmist will take a chart of the CO2 levels and temperature for the last 100 years and with some cooked data produce the famous hockey stick (the last twenty years temp hasn't risen significantly if you use uncooked data), but there is about a 1C increase over the last 100 years.
Now if you look at the amount of input power CO2 forcing represents, about 1 watt / sq meter, compare that to the variability caused by the Milankovitch cycle where the variability over the Northern hemisphere is about 230 watts / square meter, and you can get an idea of the degree of our contribution.
And during the peak inter-glacial period during these cycles the polar ice disappears completely, but Polar Bears have so far survived six of them. They seem to survive warm just fine, it's being shot at they have a problem with. And since they've made that illegal their numbers have increased by five times.
An even more absurd aspect is the concept of a tipping point, the idea that once CO2 surpasses a level the Earth is going to become Venus. Venus is Venus primarily because of it's orbital position where it receives 2300 watts / square meter of solar input where as the Earth only receives about 1500 watts (give or take a small amount depending upon it's orbital position).
As you can see from this graph, 400 million years ago the Earth's CO2 level was over 2000 PPM, and yet it didn't tip. And if you go back to the beginning, 4.5 billion years ago it was almost 100% CO2. Most of the time during the Jurassic (dinosaur era) it hovered between 1000 and 2000ppm and yet, here we are. The truth of the matter, the 280ppm that we had just before the start of the industrial revolution was a historical low for the Earth, and if we hadn't come around and raised it, and the shell fish of the world had continued to sequester it, plant life would have died out and with the all life save perhaps for some hydrogen-sulfide eating bacteria near black smoker thermal vents.
It really doesn't matter if man has contributed, which I don't argue. But, as you've said it pales in comparison. It's been much hotter, there has been much higher everything, it's been much lower.
The Greenland ice core data is one of the best records of past climate there is. Tree ring data is much less accurate. The core data shows the same endless variability in temperature data. But, it also shows a steady upward swing for 12k years now.
The trick of showing surface temperatures verses air temperature is a slimy trick. The appeal to authority people love that kind of manipulated statistics.
Solid reasoning. 🤨 You must be unable to process information. @arnst@diasp.eu
Maybe try.