False Climate Change Fear Mongering to Advance Totalitarian Agendas

[Carol Brouillet]

I had a shocking emotional discussion on Climate Change yesterday with someone who accused me of being a "climate change denier"- as if it were almost worse than being an axe murderer. So, I tried to find some sources which he might not "dismiss" and actually look at. I sent him these sources this morning:

https://clintel.org/ 

Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) is an independent foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. CLINTEL’s main objective is to generate knowledge and understanding of the causes and effects of climate change as well as the effects of climate policy. To this end:

1. The Foundation tries to communicate objectively and transparently to the general public what facts are available about climate change and climate policy and also where facts turn into assumptions and predictions...

CLINTEL wants to take the role of independent ‘climate watchdog’, both in the field of climate science and climate policy...

World Climate Declaration
The climate view of CLINTEL can be easily summarized as: There is no climate emergency. The most up-to-date version of both the Declaration and the list of signatories can be found on www.clintel.org.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Full Documentary HD

The Great Global Warming Swindle caused controversy in the UK when it premiered March 8, 2007 on British Channel 4. A documentary, by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the virtually unchallenged consensus that global warming is man-made. A statement from the makers of this film asserts that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming could very well be "the biggest scam of modern times." According to Martin Durkin the chief cause of climate change is not human activity but changes in radiation from the sun. Some have called The Great Global Warming Swindle the definitive retort to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Using a comprehensive range of evidence it's claimed that warming over the past 300 years represents a natural recovery from a 'little ice age'. According to the program, humans do have an effect on climate but it's infinitesimally small compared with the vast natural forces which are constantly pushing global temperatures this way and that. From melting glaciers and rising sea levels, The Great Global Warming Swindle debunks the myths, and exposes what may well prove to be the darkest chapter in the history of mankind. According to a group of leading scientists brought together by documentary maker Martin Durkin everything you've ever been told about global warming is probably untrue. Just as we've begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, Durkin's documentary slays the whole premise of global warming. "Global warming has become a story of huge political significance; environmental activists using scare tactics to further their cause; scientists adding credence to secure billions of dollars in research money; politicians after headlines and a media happy to play along. No-one dares speak against it for risk of being unpopular, losing funds and jeopardizing careers." Main contributors to the video: 

1. Professor Tim Ball - Dept. of Climatology - University of Winnepeg, Canada 

2. Professor Nir Shaviv - Institute of Physics - University of Jerusalem, Israel 

3. Professor Ian Clark - Dept. of Earth Sciences - University of Ottawa, Canada 

4. Dr. Piers Corbyn, Solar Physicist, Climate Forecaster, Weather Action, UK 

5. Professor John Christy - Dept. of Atmospheric Science - University of Alabama, Huntsville - Lead Author, IPCC (NASA Medal - Exceptional Scientific Achievement) 

6. Professor Philip Stott - Dept of Biogeography - University of London, UK 

7. Al Gore - Former Presidental Candidate 8. Margaret Thatcher - Global-Warming Promoter 

9. Professor Paul Reiter - IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris, France 

10. Professor Richard Lindzen - IPCC & M.I.T. 

11. Patrick Moore - Co-Founder - Greenpeace 

12. Dr. Roy Spencer - Weather Satellite Team Leader - NASA

 13. Professor Patrick Michaels - Department of Environmental Sciences - University of Virginia, US 

14. Nigel Calder - Former Editor - New Scientist 

15. James Shikwati - Economist & Author 

16. Lord Lawson of Blaby - Secretary of Energy - UK Parliament Investigator, UK 

17. Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu - Director, International Arctic Research Centre

 18. Professor Fredrick Singer - Former Director, US National Weather Service 

19. Professor Carl Wunsch - Dept. of Oceanography - M.I.T., Harvard, University College, London, University of Cambridge, UK

 20. Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen - Director, Danish National Space Centre

 21. Dr. Roy Spencer - NASA Weather Satellite Team Leader

 22. Paul Driessen - Author: Green Power, Black Death

I also sent him these links yesterday-

The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg & Understanding Private Climate Finance- A Critical Reader...

https://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/17/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/

https://www.academia.edu/6334519/Understanding_Private_Cimate_Finance_A_Critical_Reader_Institute_of_Policy_Studies_?email_work_card=interaction-paper

I did NOT try to send him this one-

THE SEQUEL TO THE FALL OF THE CABAL - PART 28: CLIMATE CRISIS?

https://www.bitchute.com/video/lIu5lvd2KAnZ/

[Because I was sure he would "fact-check" it and dismiss it outright, as it is not entirely focused on "Climate Change," makes a lot of jokes, but does make some valid points, as well, for those who have been following media manipulations over the past several decades...]

[Dana Carson]

I highly recommend everyone watch this documentary. For the same reason we should all watch "OFFICIAL STORY" documentaries about 9/11...


Dana

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sf911truth" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf911truth+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/CALtzvY9Ge9zUJQcM0rBDNy0y5aDSrKkZJLhrdME7k%2BD3D%3DgBrg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Lou Anne McKeefery]

https://www.brighteon.com/d05db3d3-009e-4052-99ac-66956c85735f

Professor Valentina Zharkova explains why solar cycles will lead to GLOBAL FAMINE for 2+ decades to come

 

Lou Anne

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/1309633464.657336.1699394402310%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Mark McDonald]

I have been reviewing material which promotes the idea that climate change is not as simple as we have thought. 

I do believe something has changed in the short life span I have been watching and observing, but it is possible there are other factors at play. 

Carbon in the air-mass I believe has an understandable impact on climate. Carbon reduction in soils after centuries of capitalist driven soil abuse is also a factor. There are less plants….the plants are smaller…they process less carbon and produce less oxygen. This also contributes to air-borne carbon on a planet scale. 

M

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/CANJH31MA_vPoN1og8sCuOi0ntNd-zwyS3si3V6NeCLDvNt2qZw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dana Carson]

I agree with your supposition that there is more at play than just the burning of carbon in engines. But deforestation and destruction of wetland carbon sinks and other things you mention are ALSO examples of humans causing a catastrophic increase in atmospheric carbon. And no matter what other cycles are at play increasing or decreasing average temperatures, the superimposition of such a dramatic increase in the Earth's primary long-term greenhouse gas is all but guaranteed to obliterate those ongoing cycles.

Call the current increase in CO2 anything you like, but the one thing it is NOT is part of ANY CYCLE.



dc

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/4F149B5A-D31F-438D-9BDD-28A8E5F3EF6D%40earthlink.net.

[ric...@sciencetools.com]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2023, 'Dana Carson' via sf911truth wrote:
>
> I agree with your supposition that there is more at play than just the
> burning of carbon in engines. But deforestation and destruction of wetland
> carbon sinks and other things you mention are ALSO examples of humans
> causing a catastrophic increase in atmospheric carbon. And no matter what
> other cycles are at play increasing or decreasing average temperatures, the
> superimposition of such a dramatic increase in the Earth's primary long-term
> greenhouse gas is all but guaranteed to obliterate those ongoing cycles.
>
> Call the current increase in CO2 anything you like, but the one thing it is
> NOT is part of ANY CYCLE.
>
>
>
> dc
>

All agreed here but for one minor point. In this part:

> greenhouse gas is all but guaranteed to obliterate those ongoing cycles.

To substitute "obliterate" with "overwhelms in scale" would be a more
accurate choice.

That is, whatever, for example, the cyclic change in solar radiance is
over any given cycle, since someone brought that up, is "dwarfed" by the
influence of CO2.

By the way, some call solar radiance solar irradiance because they're more
focused on the effect side rather than the cause side, but that's just a
linguistic artifact and doesn't mean a thing and only serves to confuse
some people.

However, note that whichever term you care to use, the variation in the
roughly 11 year cycle has been only about 0.1% in recent cycles.

Further, the known variation from that range since the 17th century is
about 0.05%.

Therefore, firstly, the variations are quite small. And this is true not
only in its own terms but also in comparison to other variations. But
variations in cycles aren't driving what's happening anyway. What's going
on is FAR outside what's happened in Earth's past and has absolutely
nothing worth discussing to do with cyclic effects, though surely they
play a small scale role - both temporally and in their own terms.

Secondly, anyone who's claiming huge effects cause by changes in the sun's
radiance in anything like a pertinent timescale for discussing human
caused climate change is just silly. Anyone who does make such claims
either doesn't have a clue what they're talking about OR is intentionally
trying to mislead.

The reality is that while "we've seen this before" can be said about
absolute numbers in various measurements one can make today, that
absolutely CANNOT be said about the rate of change.

That is, SURE, we've had this much CO2 in Earth's atmosphere in the
distant past, we've NEVER had the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere change
THIS fast. Not even close. We're talking about oh, maybe it's three orders
of magnitude faster at the present time than at any time in the past.

Therefore, this global climate change we are seeing now is something
completely new to Earth. NEVER since at least the establishment of life on
this planet has the rate of change been so great.

Simply put, the planet will be fine, life will continue, but most of the
life forms we know today simply will not be able to change fast enough to
adapt to these changes in climate and will go extinct and a new biosphere
will emerge. And we won't be a part of it.

If that's what you want, full steam ahead! If not, the shortest
description of what to do is to do everything you personally can to help
us all not add yet more carbon to the atmosphere, or at least reduce
emissions, wherever possible.

It truly is as simple as that.

Best wishes,
Richard

[Dana Carson]

Thank you Richard. I’m taking the opportunity to make sure your comment reaches everybody. Not that it’s wasted on me!

Dana

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 8, 2023, at 9:13 PM, ric...@sciencetools.com wrote:
>
> 

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sf911truth" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf911truth+...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/cc3b11a3-cd38-bea2-b30f-6d740a1ece09%40sciencetools.com.

[Richard]

On Wed, 8 Nov 2023, 'Dana Carson' via sf911truth wrote:
>
> Thank you Richard. I’m taking the opportunity to make sure your comment
> reaches everybody. Not that it’s wasted on me!
>
> Dana
>

Sure, and thanks Dana.

It occurred to me after "I hit send" that I should have mentioned that I'm
pretty sure that some time back I whacked the head of the mole called
"Climate Intelligence" or CLINTEL, and I whacked it so hard, well... I
guess only the audience then got it, though.

I don't particularly care to whack that mole again. However, for those who
may be tempted to believe them, I'd like to point out the rather CIA-esque
name. ... GENUINE climate science types are FAR too nerdy to pick a name
like that. We tend to go for very un-catchy, overly cerebral names. That
one's much more the MILC crowd's style.

Of course that alone proves nothing. But I've wasted enough time already
reading their crap and debunking it.

I'll point out, though, that they are skilled at capturing the attention
of people who are unsure. This is the right-wing's greatest skill,
actually - the use of half-truths and lying-by-omission... Sure makes 'em
sound good if you don't know any better. -ugh!-

OK, on to other things!

Best,
Richard

[netw...@aol.com]

https://youtu.be/9T_9tR1BfzE?si=-2a97CKp1UrJF8i2

If you think that Cummings is cherry picking, then watch the full presentation he links to.

Cummings refers to the Rockefeller Brothers funding of climate "science" at one point, this is their fully documented desire to use fear of "climate change" to drive the world to a system of global governance, along with fear of "pandemics".  I provided a link to the Swedish researcher who fully documented this scheme previously.

Seventy years of very intense propaganda.

We've had weeks of gorgeous warm weather here, but it's about to get quite cold in San Cristobal, NM.

Much LOVE always and be well

John

[Peter Gill]

I have really come to believe that all of the supposed effects of climate change have mostly been brought about by deliberate weather modification which is now being weaponized...

https://www.britannica.com/technology/weather-modification

 

 

Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2023 at 9:05 PM
From: "Mark McDonald" <cath...@earthlink.net>
To: sf911...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: SF911Truth: False Climate Change Fear Mongering to Advance Totalitarian Agendas

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/4F149B5A-D31F-438D-9BDD-28A8E5F3EF6D%40earthlink.net.

[Lou Anne McKeefery]

Sorry, sent too soon.

She explains, and I've heard from other scientists, that the changes here on earth happened on all planets in our solar system.

It's all about the SUN.  The government's story is a lie.

[Dana Carson]

That is one of the most discredited talking points of them all. The notion that the Sun has just suddenly switched to a new regime that has raised the Earth's temperature by more than one degree Celsius timed perfectly with the onset of the Industrial Revolution when humans started burning carbon and overwhelming the long-term carbon cycle is just plain...I'll be polite here...WRONG. That discredited and ridiculous hypothesis requires of the Universe a coincidence that would make all the coincidences from 9/11 combined pale in comparison.

Humans (including ME) have caused the level of atmospheric carbon to increase a spectacular FIFTY FREAKIN PERCENT, timed with the onset of burning and forest destruction. And all after a million years of relative CO2 stability.

People are always claiming that "this has all happened before". Two comments about THAT ridiculous talking point: First, The only reason we know anything about "what has happened before" is because of SCIENTISTS painstakingly studying the Earth's rock, ice, tree and coral records. The vast majority of them have been government funded; they must all be LIARS, right? Why should we believe anything they say? Well if you're a Creationist....

Second, This HAS NOT HAPPENED BEFORE. The only destruction of the Earth's biosphere and atmosphere that even compares in the rapidity of the process is the end-Cretaceous meteorite impact that took out the giant reptiles. But that's probably a HOAX too, right?

When people understand atmospheric physics they talk about Heat and Energy.

When they understand very little about it they talk about Temperature,

And when they understand nothing at all they talk about Money and Agendas.



Dana

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/CANJH31ONBKcqjr9yUSPbPN-qJBmT4UAd%2B%2BbwQorMk61kf-40wA%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Richard Tamm]

They did talk about the temperature going up about 1 degree for a year or two because of that huge underwater volcano last year which threw up so much steam and water vapor into the upper atmosphere and stratosphere that it caused and will continue to cause a rise in the temperature for a period of time.

Yes, the planet HAS heated up in the last year, but much/all of it is from "the historic, record-shattering Hunga Tonga volcanic eruption of 2022" that you never heard about. Great article, below, by Jeff Childers. "The short version is an underwater Pacific Ocean volcano named Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai,  490 feet under the waves, massively erupted, bigger than any other modern eruption, even bigger than Mount Pinatubo.... the erupting lava instantly vaporized fantastic, unimaginable amounts of sea water, which billowed into the atmosphere, changing the water composition of Earth’s atmosphere and heating it up for years. In only a few days, the superheated water from the Hunga Tonga eruption blanketed the globe, pole to pole, East to West."

This was Jeff Childer's whole piece on climate change:

🗞💬 WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY 💬🗞

🔥 Let’s talk about the new climate psyop. Sometimes I wonder whether the powers that be were encouraged by how well the covid psyop worked on a whole lot of people, some of whom are still wearing masks and whining that we aren’t. These unfortunate souls were so susceptible to the government’s psychological suggestions that they would be happier staying masked forever. They have found meaning and a complete life purpose in the CDC-supplied goal of mask Nirvana, a kind of salvation-by-works religious conviction.

Surely you’ve seen all the climate hysteria lately, and probably seen lots of counter argument. But there are some things they haven’t been telling us, that are in themselves complete explanations for any increased world temperatures we might be living through this summer. It’s not carbon dioxide, as crypto-marxist, faux protest group “Extinction Rebellion” wants you to think:

Ready to learn something? Let’s meet the historic, record-shattering Hunga Tonga volcanic eruption of 2022, which I bet you never heard of. Back in January 2022, you were probably distracted by covid mandates or maybe by Biden calling himself “Senator” again. The short version is an underwater Pacific Ocean volcano named Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai,  490 feet under the waves, massively erupted, bigger than any other modern eruption, even bigger than Mount Pinatubo.

You never heard about it since it was underwater and nobody died. But the erupting lava instantly vaporized fantastic, unimaginable amounts of sea water, which billowed into the atmosphere, changing the water composition of Earth’s atmosphere and heating it up for years. In only a few days, the superheated water from the Hunga Tonga eruption blanketed the globe, pole to pole, East to West.

The eruption was so big it could be clearly seen from space.

Here’s an August 2022 headline about the eruption, straight from the NASA website:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere

“Unprecedented” is accurate but doesn’t do it justice. Here’s how the rocket-slash-climate experts at NASA described Hunga Tonda as one of the most dramatic events in modern history:

When the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano erupted on Jan. 15,  it sent a tsunami racing around the world and set off a sonic boom that circled the globe twice. The underwater eruption in the South Pacific Ocean also blasted an enormous plume of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere – enough to fill more than 58,000 Olympic-size swimming pools. The sheer amount of water vapor could be enough to temporarily affect Earth’s global average temperature.

The  not only injected ash into the stratosphere but also large amounts of water vapor, breaking all records for direct injection of water vapor, by a volcano or otherwise, in the satellite era. …The excess water vapor injected by the Tonga volcano … could remain in the stratosphere for several years. This extra water vapor could influence atmospheric chemistry, boosting certain chemical reactions that could temporarily worsen depletion of the ozone layer. It could also influence surface temperatures … since water vapor traps heat.

“We’ve never seen anything like it,” said Luis Millán, an atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California.

Over the next year it would turn out that NASA badly underestimated the amount of water Hunga Tonga vaporized into the atmosphere. Current estimates are three times higher than the original: scientists now think it was closer to 150,000 metric tons, or 40 trillion gallons, of super-heated water instantly injected into the atmosphere. Talk about a greenhouse. Water vapor — humidity — is a much more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

A new study published in April this year analyzed the 1-year aftereffects:

With a year’s hindsight, the 2023 researchers also concluded that Hunga Tonga was one of the most remarkable climate events in modern history, and its effects are expected to last for years:

[D]ue to extreme altitude reach of the eruption,  volcanic plume circumnavigated the Earth in only one week and dispersed nearly pole-to-pole in three months. The observations provide evidence for an unprecedented increase in the global stratospheric water mass by 13% as compared to climatological levels. As there are no efficient sinks of water vapour in the stratosphere, this perturbation is expected to persist several years. The eruption has also led to a 5-fold increase in the stratospheric aerosol load, the highest in the last three decades yet factor of 6 smaller than the previous major eruption of Mt Pinatubo in 1991.

The unique nature and magnitude of the global stratospheric perturbation by the Hung eruption ranks it among the most remarkable climatic events in the modern observation era.

But I bet you never heard anything about Hunga Tonga, did you? Thanks, media. Better late than never, though. And if I’m doing my job right, you’re starting to think, hey, maybe the hot summer weather this year might have something to do with this historic volcanic eruption last year? If so, you aren’t the only one. Here’s another study, from April this year:

Say hello to the “global warming” plume most completely ignored by corporate media. These researchers were even more direct in connecting the “historic heat wave” to Hunga Tonga:

We find that the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai eruption produced the … largest perturbation of stratospheric water vapour observed in the satellite era. … fter two weeks, due to dilution, water vapour heating started to dominate the top-of-the-atmosphere radiative forcing, leading to a net warming of the climate system… This is the first time a warming effect on the climate system has been linked to volcanic eruptions, which usually produce a transient cooling.

The story made the science news, which makes it even more surprising that corporate media somehow found a way to successfully ignore the story. Here’s an EOS headline from March of this year:

See that? Hunga Tonga warming could last five more years. At this rate, the plume will likely outlive Joe Biden.

Corporate media isn’t ignoring the story because it lacks for dramatic graphs and charts. Here’s a chart I found showing how atmospheric water vapor increased recently compared to the prior twenty years. The atmosphere’s water concentration is off the chart:

See that? For the first time since tracking began, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is pegged out at the maximum, across the board.

Here’s why corporate media is ignoring the most dramatic climate even in modern history: because you can’t legislate underwater volcanoes. You can try, but they won’t listen. So what’s the fun in that? Corporate media only exists to further political ends. Since volcanoes aren’t subject to politics, why bother?

“Okay Jeff,” you say, “nice volcano theory, but does anything back it up?” Well, yes, I’m glad you asked. The Ethical Skeptic, who has done so much great work crunching covid mortality figures the last few years, recently turned his attention to the climate. He’s been noting another startling fact that you probably never heard of: for some reason, worldwide ocean surface temperatures have bafflingly jumped rapidly this year — much too fast for any cause to have been atmospheric.

First, although Antarctic ice has just very recently started melting quickly, and a lot, it is during a record cold winter in Antarctica right now, which is why you haven’t heard about it. The melting is pretty dramatic:

Ethical’s theory is that the oceans are heating up due to increased activity in the Earth’s molten core. Like the kind of activity that could cause giant underwater volcanoes to erupt. Various data support his theory. One study he often cites found dramatically increased water temperatures at abyssal depths — deep, deep underwater, where increased air temperatures have little or no effect.

In other words, Ethical is suggesting that the water is heating the air — instead of the other way around. And the Earth’s core is heating the water.  It’s a theory that explains everything.

Meanwhile, “science” is baffled. From just a month ago, in mid-June:

See? But though scientists are baffled, corporate media and its repulsive allies are busily blaming ocean warming on carbon dioxide — a ludicrous notion. Here’s one example from Vice News (a promoted tweet!). In a clip showing ocean water bubbling around, attached to an article about rising Red Sea temperatures, Vice doesn’t quite claim carbon dioxide is heating the water, but it sure strongly implies it:

I’ve run these next headlines before, but they are worth repeating. The following 2023 stories all show scientists have lately been discovering deep-sea “hydrothermal vents” that are “hot enough to melt lead”:

That’s pretty hot. What causes boiling-hot, deep-ocean vents? Volcanic activity. Magma from the Earth’s core is heating up the water, which is venting out, raising ocean temperatures and putting even more water vapor into the atmosphere, which heats the air through greenhouse effects.

It has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.

Hysterical corporate media articles about global warming ignore all these facts. They ignore Hunga Tonga. They ignore rapidly melting Antarctic sea ice. They ignore abyssal water heating and related deep-sea data. They only want to show you the summer heat map and run clips of cantankerous teenage climate propagandist Great Thunberg whining that your SUV is literally killing everybody’s grandma and will eventually burn the Earth into a pile of hot ash.

Don’t you believe it. “Science” has only the barest notion of what heats and cools the Earth, and they even refuse to grapple with the evidence they do have. The climate has been changing ever since God created the World. It is the pinnacle of human hubris to believe that we know what the optimal global climate is, or to think we can somehow freeze that optimal climate into place without breaking everything else.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/1845343762.1587904.1699552095779%40mail.yahoo.com.

--

Richard Tamm

Co-Chair of The Voting Rights Task Force

Former Treasurer of the Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club

[Richard]

Thanks Dana.

What you might be able to blame for this is the utter lack of COMPETENT
primary education on technical matters such as physics and engineering.
Given the dramatically increased complexity of the modern world over that
found in, say, 1900, it in my view demands we teach EVERY citizen to at
least SOME basic level how to understand these truly not very difficult
matters. However...

We have LOCAL school funding and local school CONTROL and that means the
know-nothing parents demand that little Johnny has to be able to get
straight As, etc, and don't WANT their kids being edicated beyond THEIR
education level.

(Think that's not the case? I've overheard parents talking ... But I
digress.)

The issue here isn't the sun, or the weaponization of weather, it's the
gullibility of the easiy suggestible such as we have replying here.

That gets me, though, is that while there ARE agendas afoot that work
against We, The People, the GENUINE targets are ignored? I guess the too
obvious, right in front of your noses theft of your quality of life via
ordinary, every day means is too hard of a problem, so better to speculate
and rail about some fantasy issue. How about getting involved in your
local politics and keep the damned ultra-rich at bay?

How about some INVESTMENTS in our local infrastructure? And NO, I DON'T
mean a new friggen stadium! But, again, these are too unexciting, I guess,
even though they're something we CAN bite into and understand and DO
SOMETHING ABOUT that affect our collective quality of life... Instead,
it's some fantasy about the sun or weaponization of weather.

I guess people have to dream...

I wish they'd spend their time digging into the CLAIMED citations such as
we saw in some of those emails. I SERIOUSLY DOUBT that the supposed
contributor list is genuine. But it takes TIME and EFFORT to prove it's a
lie and people just DO NOT, as a rule, follow the citations! MAYBE they go
so far as to see that such a person exists? MAYBE.

On that point, some astute person did a genuine study on this and showed
that only something like one tenth of one percent of people actually check
ANY citation, but if there are NO citations, oh, it must be a fake! So,
fakers give REAMS of citations. ... One person even went after that woman
politician from the south... ...Um... I'm drawing a blank on her name. But
they showed how the sources she cited actually were saying the OPPOSITE of
what she claimed! But since she knew her audience, that they wouldn't even
check, she got away with it for years.

This noise is too time consuming, thanks for paying attention to it,
though, Dana. And you, Dana, were quite kind in your reply.

RT

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQThe Great Global

[Peter Gill]

I will only say what I have said before which is that any and all science is wasted on me either fer or agin. I have no possible way to evaluate any of it. I am left have to decide based on other criteria. Peter

--
Sent from my Android phone with mail.com Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/1845343762.1587904.1699552095779%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Dana Carson]

Um. Two questions:

Whom exactly are you accusing of “never having heard of the Hunga Tonga volcano”? Perhaps those of us who have been following the story from day one? Maybe those of us who understood that it would contribute to both ocean Heat and atmospheric trapped water vapor?

And are you thereby ADMITTING that greenhouse gases are a major source of heat retention? (just not the one virtually all atmospheric physicists agree on?)

And are you REALLY going to claim that we have a sudden new episode of heat escape from the Earth’s mantle? Geophysicists have created detailed maps of heat loss and gravitational variations of much of the planet. Pretty amazing that those maps miss this new phenomenon that coincides so well with the Industrial Revolution. Better contact the American Geophysical Union dontcha think?

The heat loss at spreading centers like the Mid Atlantic Ridge has been known about for decades. Ditto for areas like the Salton Trough and most of the Basin and Range terrains.

And where do you derive the confidence to make the definitive (but ABSURD) claim that it “has nothing to do with carbon dioxide”?

And finally: Isn’t it interesting that the only people with a financial agenda are the scientists and “THEM”? I mean, obviously the OIL COMPANIES don’t have an economic incentive for keeping us all addicted to gasoline. So who’s trying to con us and why?

Dana


Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 9, 2023, at 2:01 PM, Richard <Ric...@sciencetools.com> wrote:
>
> 

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sf911truth" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf911truth+...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/8821b70b-25d3-f478-1b11-eb6ff562c4b8%40ScienceTools.com.

[Richard]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023, Peter Gill wrote:

> Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2023 23:08:58 +0100
> From: Peter Gill <pbg...@mail.com>
> Reply-To: sf911...@googlegroups.com
> To: sf911...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Re: SF911Truth: False Climate Change Fear Mongering to Advance
> Totalitarian Agendas
>

> I will only say what I have said before which is that any and all science is
> wasted on me either fer or agin. I have no possible way to evaluate any of
> it. I am left have to decide based on other criteria. Peter
>

Thanks Peter,

I'll hand it to you for honesty. Of the folks I've encountered who feel as
you do, NONE have been willing to be so clear about it. And I appreciate
that.

I shaln't interfere with your path on the matter again - not knowingly
anyway.

Cheers,
Richard

[Mark McDonald]

I thought it was widely accepted that as the ice polar regions melt there is more water which absorbs solar heat better than ice. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/CAKP0_e1hxC0Sj_r%3DskLGJ3fq6pV5yCYqa7YOUspDXCdo8d80JQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dana Carson]

Yes that is correct.  But the phenomenon of ice melting absorbs heat without raising temperature.  When the open water is thereby exposed, the water absorbs heat, but that does raise temperature in the ocean.

DC

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 10, 2023, at 12:52 PM, Mark McDonald <cath...@earthlink.net> wrote:

I thought it was widely accepted that as the ice polar regions melt there is more water which absorbs solar heat better than ice. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/8260649C-0CDB-4CCC-A65B-77D72CC1A6A2%40earthlink.net.

[Lou Anne McKeefery]

Mark, their point is that the deep water is warming, too deep to be warmed by the sun or from the environment.  Thus supporting the idea of the earth's magma coming to the surface.

Lou Anne

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/8260649C-0CDB-4CCC-A65B-77D72CC1A6A2%40earthlink.net.

[Richard]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Mark McDonald wrote:
>
> I thought it was widely accepted that as the ice polar regions melt there is
> more water which absorbs solar heat better than ice. 
>

Yes, Mark this is not just accepted, it's fact. (And anyone who says otherwise
is simply not educated in VERY basic physics.)

It's called "albedo" and what happens is that the electromagnetic waves we call
light transit very nearly 100% transparently through our atmosphere and if they
then strike a reflective surface, like ice, they're reflected.

A VERY high percentage of the solar energy that's reflected in this way - by
ANY reflective surface - is reflected right back out into space.

However, if instead of a reflective surface it strikes any non-reflective
surface, it's absorbed and re-emitted as a new photon. The frequency of
that "new" photon's energy depends on a lot of things, primarily based on
the amount of energy is just absorbed. And this is precisely what gives
rise to the colors we see - not just from sunlight but all light behaves
this way. (Note that what we see as color is a larger topic than a
paragraph can convey; this description is incomplete.)

However, some of the energy is reemitted at wavelengths we can't see, and, for
the most part in this particular situation it's infra-red, what we otherwise
call "heat," though that we call it that is unfortunate because it confuses
people.

There are, in fact THREE aspects to this energy that are worth understanding so
one doesn't trip over linguistic artifacts: First, in this particular example,
we have the raw energy, first as light. Once it strikes something and ISN'T
reflected, it can then either be fairly fully absorbed OR partially absorbed
and re-emitted, and thus converted to a longer wavelength after some energy is
lost, thus becoming infrared radiation. However, once full absorbed it's then
the root cause of the phenomena we know as a change in temperature.

Importanty, while our atmosphere is very nearly 100% transparent to the
energy from our sun, it's NOT 100% transparent to all other frequencies,
most notably "heat" - infrared. And the primarly reason it's not
transparent to infrared is due to carbon molecules in the atmosphere. And
thus, "heat trapping."

Lay-people tend to apply the word heat in a VERY different way than those who
are physicists, climatologists, or otherwise work in a scientific endeavour.
And this causes all sorts of issues for people trying to grasp the literature
on the global warming topic.

Hope this helps,
Richard

P.S.

For those who want to know more about this, there's a DELIGHTFUL, thin, easy to
read book called QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, by Richard P Feynman that's
PERFECT for those new to the subject. It explains light energy in simple, easy
to understand, and yet sophisticated ways so that, unlike so many technical
texts, it's actually easy to understand without it being dumbed-down, as some
authors do.

This book explains every-day features of light we see, such as a rainbow of
colors on the surface of a puddle of water that has a drop of oil on it, or the
double reflections along with transparency we see when looking through a
store-front window when out window-shopping. It explains what gives rise to our
perceptions of color, and so much more.

I used to give these away as gifts, but when I gave away a copy around 1997 or
so and went to get another one, I found they'd gone out of print!

I just did a web search and found a different, more scientific text by Feynman
that's in print now. But I haven't seen, much less read it an suspect it's for
a different audience. Still, you might find a used copy of this little
paperback somewhere. ... Back in the 90s it was around $15.

RT

[Lou Anne McKeefery]

Dana, when you counter attack begins most paragraphs with "And are you.. " are personal attacks and not conducive to intelligent explanations or productive conversations.

We're in the dawn of a new social structure that is not designed for the golden age but instead the dark ages of ignorance and biased "science".

What could have been a conversation that yielded solid ideas instead degraded into a shit fest.

If intelligent and well read people can not have civil conversations it really doesn't matter what happens to society because it will be worse than we live now.

The sun flips its poles every 11 years, the coming pole shift is faster than typical. https://youtu.be/2kmqESB4_hg?si=51xSCY04lUEsb6Oa&t=35  2 minute video. 

Lou Anne

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/1329FE37-FA55-420D-B86A-9EEF42B15337%40yahoo.com.

[Lou Anne McKeefery]

Dana, please explain how temperature changes on other planets is from our industrial revolution? 

Lou Anne 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/trinity-308b5fec-7f3c-4e85-b1da-f678fce539de-1699567738700%40msvc-mesg-gmxus007.

[Richard]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, 'Dana Carson' via sf911truth wrote:
>
> Yes that is correct.  But the phenomenon of ice melting absorbs heat without
> raising temperature.  When the open water is thereby exposed, the water
> absorbs heat, but that does raise temperature in the ocean.
> DC
>

Yep, it's called "latent heat", the energy flowing one way to make ice and
the other way to melt it, and in both cases the energy seems to be
mysteriously unaccountable ... Until, that is, you factor in what's called
the "state change" (slightly more correctly caled a "phase change") as the
water transitions between a solid and a liquid.

But once again, this is easily confusing people who don't get it...

I was taught this stuff in New Orleanian Public Schools in my Sophomore
year... Why people are lost on this stuff is a bit of a mystery to me!

RT

[Dana Carson]

There are new studies demonstrating that warmed water near the surface has been stirred thoroughly by hurricanes, taking warm water all the way to the bottom, where it can stay warm for very long durations.  Which makes perfect sense, since all that spinning in the atmosphere can set up cyclonic currents in the water as well, and these could easily penetrate and disrupt the ocean’s natural layering.  There have been no studies showing any dramatic changes to heat coming from within the mantle.

And as I mentioned earlier (and of course nobody acknowledged), there are heat escape and gravity maps that anyone can look up.  But if anyone has contrary evidence that suggests a large change in the speed of tectonic plates that would result in an increase of volcanism, there are several Geophysics Departments in the region that would be very interested.

Ocean heat waves are probably among the most dangerous phenomena scientists are just beginning to understand.  And it’s very unlikely that the heat is coming from below.  The vast majority of the ocean bottom is abyssal plain, and I suggest everyone take a good look at Google Earth’s rendering of the oceans.  It’s really fascinating, and you can easily tell where the volcanic areas are, as well as the spreading centers, fracture zones and subduction zones, seamounts and the like.

And since the vast majority of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cannot stay in the atmosphere, and is in fact known to be dumped in the ocean, where better than the deep water?

Gotta say, the greenhouse gas theory of heat trapping really dots it’s “I’s” and crosses its “T’s”.  It paints a very compelling narrative.

(I realize that’s boring and dissatisfying and disappointing)

DC

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 10, 2023, at 7:49 PM, Lou Anne McKeefery <lou...@mckeefery.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/CANJH31O7t6%2BiqweBCpkGz%2B3%2BnMPNOqbdXsCjB92wf7bNaiv8yA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dana Carson]

The issue of what’s happening to the climate is almost certainly the most threatening phenomenon humanity (the entire world) has ever faced together, other than nuclear war, which might never happen.  There is an enormous effort (mostly from oil companies) to DISINFORM the public worldwide on the phenomenon, using among other things, pseudoscience.  And pseudoscience is usually very convincing unless people understand REAL science.

I never meant any personal attacks, but I’ll aggressively attack pseudoscience.

But if people insist on seeing an “AGENDA”, why not look at the most obvious one:  oil companies (knowingly) damaging the atmosphere but making a WHOLE LOTTA MONEY and lying to the public to protect their business model?  Of all entities, THEY have the strongest incentive imaginable to LIE about this issue.  Governments wanting to “control everyone” should be far down the list of agendas compared to THAT.  Especially when corporations aspire to control governments so THEY can control us.

Michael Ruppert’s book “Crossing the Rubicon”, all about 9/11, lays the motive right at the feet of the desire to perpetuate oil dependency (in his view it was about peak oil).  Why would we as a group start taking their side?  And why would we impugn governments researching the climate if the very thing they’re trying to do is protect the planet from OIL COMPANIES?

Even at the base level of “conspiratorial thinking” that doesn’t make sense.  But most of all what’s frustrating is that people who don’t trust “solutions” (that includes me, by the way), search high and low for an EXCUSE to not trust THE SCIENCE ITSELF.  Even when it’s as spectacularly compelling as the greenhouse gas theory.

I strongly recommend putting the Horse of science before the Cart of conspiratorial thinking.

Dana

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 10, 2023, at 10:03 PM, Dana Carson <danaw...@yahoo.com> wrote:

There are new studies demonstrating that warmed water near the surface has been stirred thoroughly by hurricanes, taking warm water all the way to the bottom, where it can stay warm for very long durations.  Which makes perfect sense, since all that spinning in the atmosphere can set up cyclonic currents in the water as well, and these could easily penetrate and disrupt the ocean’s natural layering.  There have been no studies showing any dramatic changes to heat coming from within the mantle.

[Richard]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, 'Dana Carson' via sf911truth wrote:


...snip...

>
> I strongly recommend putting the Horse of science before the Cart of
> conspiratorial thinking.
>
> Dana
>

Very strong post, Dana, and spot on... Just one quibble - it's in the bit
I left above:

NO, there _IS_ a conspiracy here. FINE, don't understand the science. You
wanna focus on a conspiracy GO FOR IT. It's just that this one is not very
well hidden:

THE F-ING OIL COMPANIES AND OTHER FOSSIL-FUEL INTERESTS are behind LYING
to us all. And, they snare the gullible who don't have the scientific
background, patience or whatever else it takes to spot their charade.

WHY NOT REALIZE THE OBVIOUS CONSPIRACY RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR F-ING NOSE?!

There, rant done. However, I've made this point several times in the past,
just as you have. A significant number of the posters in this group
appear dead set on ignoring the obvious.

Richard

[Scott Page]

Chris Morrison
The Daily Sceptic
 09 Nov 2023

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/11/09/claimed-99-consensus-on-climate-change-demolished-by-new-report/

New report demolishes the claimed '99% consensus' on climate change

- - - -

Excerpt:

'This work matters. The claims of a 99% consensus, along with an earlier 97% figure, are widely used in political and media circles to shut down debate over anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Skeptical scientists - even those as distinguished as last year's Nobel Physics Prize winner Dr. John Clauser - can be dismissed as cranks and deniers. Of course consensus is not proof, which is notably lacking in the model-driven climate science field. However the Israeli authors observe a consensus claim is "influential in bolstering the reception of a particular thesis within the broader public sphere". This leads to "less quantifiable statements", such as humanity is facing an imminent climate crisis, and is followed by global calls for action. Not to put too fine a point on it, the collectivist Net Zero project relies on a fake scientific consensus that crumbles when exposed to the most basic scrutiny. "

- - - - cont

[Peter Gill]

As a very long time, out and proud conspiracy theorist I am perfectly aware that oil corporations may possibly be twisting the climate change debate. I take that likelihood into full account when studying the issue. Thanks. Peter

--
Sent from my Android phone with mail.com Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sf911truth" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf911truth+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/ca7f7ee7-a15a-bb2e-3f29-8e5756f6d029%40ScienceTools.com.

[Richard]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, 'Dana Carson' via sf911truth wrote:
>
> There are new studies demonstrating that warmed water near the surface has
> been stirred thoroughly by hurricanes, taking warm water all the way to the
> bottom, where it can stay warm for very long durations.

That's quite plausible, though there aren't hurricanes or cyclones over
all Earth's oceans, so that method of distributing the heat is going to
take a while before it reaches all the seas - the Arctic Ocean will likely
never get all that warm unless we TRULY screw up our atmosphere - which,
admittedly, we seem bound and determined to do, what with people thinking
it's weaponized weather and therefore NOT taking any F-ING ownership and
responsibility for THEIR contributions to the problem!

HOWEVER the cyclonic mixing of surface to deep water sets another "time
bomb" to ticking: methane hydrates. At this point, it looks like we won't
be able to prevent them from melting and joining our atmosphere... And at
that point, it'll be bye-bye to industrialized civilization in fairly
short order.

We're now at around 186 feet from the highest sea level that's ever been
known to have occurred... Just think about what that'd mean to today's
human civilizations... The USA will lose the Floridian peninsula, we'll
have an inland sea extending the gulf north - how far, I'm not sure ...
Jackson MS, perhaps further? The SF bay area will be mostly bay again, SF
might be an island or close to it. New Orleans, New York, W. D.C., Seattle
and many other such cities will be under water. Etc, etc, etc.

Think it can't happen? It HAS happened! Just not in a very long time.

People'd better WTF up. We don't have much time left to prevent VASTLY
worse disaster than most humans can even conceive of.

At least the North American Indian nations have a tradition they call
"seven generations" where all decisions made today need to be thought of
from the perspective of what a 7th generation descendant will think of
them, and how such decisions will affect their lives... So maybe the end
of industrialized civilization will teach humanity a thing or two .. but
somehow I doubt it. We seem, as specie, hell bent on stupid.

I'd bet some who read this think I'm engaging in scare-mongering. -shrug-

Keep up the good fight,
Richard

[netw...@aol.com]

Caltech climate scientist throws a wrench in the dire warnings of those pushing climate models that are more often wrong ...

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sf911truth" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf911truth+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/768D35A6-0390-4326-8AE8-D14061D73F8D%40gmail.com

.

[Lou Anne McKeefery]

I think the reason the controllers want and need to have humans be the reason for climate change is to implement carbon credits as the new measuring stick.  Spraying the sky to block the sun yields carbon credits.  Companies will be tied to their carbon usage and purchase carbon credits earned by spraying the skies by the commercial airlines. We'll be able to locked down on "spare the air" days. Their systems of shaming humans are already in place.  Now to convince us we deserve the punishment and beg for it.

Lou Anne

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/trinity-174d53fb-3179-45ac-ac7b-e1b0fed695ba-1699733643037%40msvc-mesg-gmxus001.

[Richard]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Lou Anne McKeefery wrote:

> Dana, please explain how temperature changes on other planets is from our
> industrial revolution? Lou Anne 

Lou Anne,

please explain how temperature changes on other planets is pertinent to the
changes in OUR climate, especially given how tiny the variation in solar
radiance is?

I already cited it and it's quite easy to check. The solar radiance variation
of the most recent cycle was 0.1% and the known variation between cycles since
about the year 1700 is 0.05%.

Note; whatever you may think about the 0.1% variance's impact on climate may
be, note that a 0.05% variation since 1700 or so does not a 2 degree F change
make.

Keep it grounded. Don't be drawn in by fake BS.

Regards,
Richard

[Richard]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Lou Anne McKeefery wrote:
>

> Dana, when you counter attack begins most paragraphs with "And are you.. "
> are personal attacks and not conducive to intelligent explanations or
> productive conversations.
>
> We're in the dawn of a new social structure that is not designed for the
> golden age but instead the dark ages of ignorance and biased "science".
>
> What could have been a conversation that yielded solid ideas instead
> degraded into a shit fest.
>
> If intelligent and well read people can not have civil conversations it
> really doesn't matter what happens to society because it will be worse than
> we live now.
>
> The sun flips its poles every 11 years, the coming pole shift is faster than
> typical. https://youtu.be/2kmqESB4_hg?si=51xSCY04lUEsb6Oa&t=35  2 minute
> video. 
>
> Lou Anne
>

Hi Lou Anne,

NOT speaking for Dana here... I am a technical guy and thus a member of a
group who's known for not having well polished social graces. Speaking for
myself only, should I offend, it's unintentioned and usually just a result
of my "telling it like it is" - as I see it, of course. And I expect to be
treated identically, when warranted.

In this case, I _am_ an Earth Scientist. I'm not presently funded by NASA
(HQ), NOAA, the NSF, the ASF SAR facility, NASA Ames, or any of the other
dozen-ish agencies who've funded my work. But I've been funded by all
those and more and I led the first well funded team (45 people, involving
5 major earth science disciplines and over a dozen major institutions) to
study what we know today as global climate change driven my global
warming. (That project began in 1995.)

Therefore, I DO find it curious when you use a turn of phrase as this:

> We're in the dawn of a new social structure that is not designed for the
> golden age but instead the dark ages of ignorance and biased "science".

The reason I find it curious is that it seems to me that darned near 100%
of the non-Dana, non-Ken Jenkins posts of this group on the topic of
global warming are posted by people profoundly ignorant of the topic who
are drawn in my people trying to manipulate them - successfully,
apparently.

In my view your remark was ... remarkable!

We ARE, as I find apparent here, on this e-list, are not just entering but
have _already_ entered a dark age of ignorance and biased "science." And,
I might add, "science" funded by fossil-fuel interests and their helpers.
Heaven knows I've been TRYING to burst through that ignorance without much
apparent success.

If you think I'm biased because I've been funded by that evil abhorrent
government, well, you're lost: About 95% of science of every description
and about 98% of the genuine climate science that gets done is funded by
governmental agencies, historically over 99% of which was funded by the US
federal government, though that's been changing over the last 15 years or
so. Certainly nobody on this list that I'm aware of is as qualified to
comment on it as I am (either the science or the funding of it), and I
cite NOT journals but primarily simple physics, which isn't and can't
realistically be biased. ANY of you should easily have it in your capacity
to follow up my strongest assertions and catch me on any errors, if you
wish. Darned near 100% of the physics I assert is EARLY high-school level.
Yet, I'm dismissed as not worthy of being listened to by many here - as is
readily apparent by their ignoring pretty much everything I write here. As
the old saying goes, "the silence is deafening."

You want a cogent, thoughtful dialogue?

I'm ready...

Richard

P.S.

Regarding Dana's post, again not speaking for him, but I, too, was miffed
by the posting in question. The poster had obviously, erroneously and
rather rudely presumed "the other side" of his argument was ignorant about
the cited eruption. Perhaps, as is often the case in communications, the
other party shares some part in the reaction they got?

Just asking.
RT

[Peter Gill]

Good point Lou Anne. There are possible conspiracies on both sides. Peter

--
Sent from my Android phone with mail.com Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/CANJH31NC-uj5c%2B0kwnZti1ie8K6s2VEuhP_LC%2BPFJXQaupQm%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Richard]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Lou Anne McKeefery wrote:

> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 17:10:04 -0800
> From: Lou Anne McKeefery <lou...@mckeefery.com>

>
> Mark, their point is that the deep water is warming, too deep to be warmed
> by the sun or from the environment.  Thus supporting the idea of the earth's
> magma coming to the surface.
> Lou Anne
>

On this point, Lou Anne,

I just happened to have been co-principal investigator on a five year
investigation to study the waters of the Pacific and my Co-PI on the
project was Victor Zlotnicki of JPL. Our work was about El Nino versus La
Nina and mostly about surface waters as that's the primary interaction
interface between ocean and atmosphere. But it was clear the deeper waters
were vital to understand.

Therefore, he and I had good cause to connect with researchers who focused
primarily on deep ocean currents. We both got deep into the subject - he
was already well ahead of me, but I got there, too.

It turns out that there are HUGE volumes of water that move from the
surface down and from the bottom up. In general it's called convection,
but it is far more complex than most might realize. What waters are going
down and what's coming up depend on a lot of factors. However, this effect
is global and accounts, for example, for the incredibly productive
fisheries along the north west coast of South America as deep water brings
nutrients from the deepest parts of the Pacific to the surface waters.

In addition, sea floor spreading and many other undersea sources of heat
energy entering oceans have long been - since oceans first formed on this
planet - an already ongoing and phenomena, of course. However, what most
lay-people don't apparently grasp is the enormity of the volume of water
that's absorbing and spreading this energy.

In short... the folks you're referring to attempting to blame global
warming on volcanism are "all wet."

RT

[Dana Carson]

When one gets tired of playing whack-a-mole with science deniers endlessly bringing up their ONE GUY who disagrees and has a Ph. D., it’s time to bring in the Grateful Dead.

From the song “Scarlet Begonias”:

“…The wind in the willows played tea for two;
The sky was yellow and the Sun was blue…”

I just love that bit of delightful absurdity. It’s actually quite difficult to imagine. But there’s another reason why it’s absurd, isn’t these, Truth-seekers? Anyone care to name it? Richard? Scott? John? Anyone?

Dana

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 11, 2023, at 1:13 PM, Richard <Ric...@sciencetools.com> wrote:
>
> 

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sf911truth" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf911truth+...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/46ace5a8-e115-d4fd-470f-977e2d8a9657%40ScienceTools.com.

[Richard]

Since people seem to need a little help spotting the bullshit, here, I'll
help on this one:

In an excerpt of the excerpt, let's focus on this trope:

"Of course consensus is not proof, which is notably lacking in the
model-driven climate science field.

I call bullshit on this because the GENUINE issue is so friggen simple
it's beggars belief why everyone doesn't get it. (Well, we KNOW why, it's
the disinformation campaign of Fossil Fuel Interests - FFI! They throw
HUGE amounts of money at people and WOAH?! They say what the FFI wants
them to say!)

The science behind the trapping of heat in the atmosphere by carbon
dioxide, in particular, has been known since the middle of the 1800s, and,
I believe, proven beyond doubt circa 1870.

Further, it hardly needs proving we're pumping gigatonnes of the stuff
into the air that was previously "sequestered" - another word for "long
term storage".

Just ask yourself: What is the likely effect of this behavior?

The only real questions are "what's the slope angle look like, in terms of
parts per million (or whatever useful units) of CO2 in the atmosphere and
its effects in terms of temperature?"

ANY OTHER CONCLUSION IS JUST PLAIN IGNORANCE.

Oh, and cherry picking a guy with great credential IN A DIFFERENT FIELD is
YET another trope of the Fossil Fuel Industry.

However, I've read what his objections are and he doesn't quibble about
the fundamentals, just the timing and that at present there's no crisis.
He has a few other remarks about it, but that's the short of it. You might
be hard pressed to find the core of his objections, though, because they
get glossed over, buried under stories about his talk being delayed to the
IMF.

[Dana Carson]

You will not find anyone more ADAMANTLY opposed to spraying stuff in the sky than me. It doesn’t solve the problem at all, it’s dangerous as HELL, and it robs humanity of one of the most beautiful things in our birthright: blue skies and dark starry skies. Furthermore, carbon credits should be awarded for reducing carbon, not reducing sunlight.

But the reason “The CONTROLLERS” (WETF THAT is) want us to believe that humans are responsible for the climate crisis is because humans have increased atmosphere carbon di in an extremely short time by FIFTY PERCENT (and counting very fast).

Dana

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 11, 2023, at 2:37 PM, Dana Carson <danaw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> When one gets tired of playing whack-a-mole with science deniers endlessly bringing up their ONE GUY who disagrees and has a Ph. D., it’s time to bring in the Grateful Dead.

[Lou Anne McKeefery]

Magma Close to Surface in Iceland: Eruption Within Hours Or Days: A Geologic Review

Supports the magma changes story.

https://youtu.be/OD6qjf-jcn4?si=NjRWnDNbodU0iZd-

Lou Anne

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/trinity-1f41b100-0cf5-40d4-ad52-95075b381c41-1699737094296%40msvc-mesg-gmxus004.

[Richard]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2023, Thomas McAfee wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> Just wondering if you’re familiar with Dr. Guy MacPherson’s studies of
> the phenomenon of global dimming/ aerosol masking, and your thoughts on
> the likelihood that switching away from fossil-fuel based particulate
> pollutants (coal, diesel, etc.) in favor of solar, wind, etc. will
> dramatically hasten the warming of the planet?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom McAfee
>

Hi Tom,

I want to THANK YOU for a good, solid, GENUINE question. So, I'll take the
time to give you a genuine answer!

It just so happens that in my work I've had the good fortune to be present
when two of the at least then top experts, active in the field, on this
topic were discussing some of the more intricate details of what was then
known and debating the importance of various aspects of this and what the
important gaps are in our knowledge - or were at the time.

Here it's important to note that for convenience, and ONLY convenience in
dealing with the lay-public, aerosols and ultra-fine particulate matter
are intentionally conflated because it was felt that while these are two
very different entities - one being typically gaseous, and sometimes a
liquid (and thus a fluid in either case) and the other a solid - their
effects are quite similar, trying to discuss them as two separate topics
with the general public was seen as, in the words of one I heard, "just
plain stupid."

So, here, we consider them as one thing.

For those who are unclear, the fine particulate matter we're talking about
have a fine example in pumice, the ultra-fine particulate matter that's
ejected by volcanoes. Some of that is typically lofted by larger eruptions
far up into the stratosphere and is thus in a position to act as some
aerosols. (And, of course, volcanoes also tend to eject sulfur dioxide,
which IS an aerosol.)

A perfect example of this conflation is up on NASA's web site right now
where they write:

"Aerosols are small particles or droplets..."

on this page:

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3271/aerosols-small-particles-with-big-climate-effects/

And it really annoys at least some actual scientists that whoever it is
who's creating their web pages has taken this conflation to heart, in
effect changing the very definition of aerosols, at least in the minds of
the public.

Notably, particulate matter tends to fall out of the atmosphere over time,
while some genuine aerosols never do. However, some aerosols have
interactions with either solar radiation or other high-atmosphere
molecules and react chemically and so also fade, either by combining and
becoming heavier and falling out, possibly by becoming transparent, or by
becoming disassociated altogether.

BUT, that's noise here, I just wanted to point out that TECHNICALLY, the
fine particulate matter that can, by whatever mechanism, find its way to
our upper atmosphere has approximately the same EFFECT as genuine
aerosols...

However, for convenience, I, too, will just use aerosols as otherwise
conversations get awkward to have, especially when the distinction isn't
pertinent.

OK, end digression!

I dare say all of us who are serious about this topic are aware of the
disturbing but likely quite correct research that tells us that the
elimination of coal, in particular, has actually made our problems worse
by eliminating some of these aerosols.

An important point needs to be made here; this is JUST about coal. Other
fossil fuels are NOT (so far as I've seen) shown to be contributors to
these high-lofted particles, one key reason likely being that while some
other fossil-fuel exhaust is similar, coal is typically VERY much more
contaminated with other materials and its exhaust is universally pumped as
high as possible via tall exhaust stacks.

There's some serious talk about intentionally replacing the aerosols from
coal so we can get the benefits WITHOUT getting the CO2 OR adding
significantly to the accumulating heat, which some scientists have noted
may well become, all on its own, a major problem in a few hundred years -
maybe as soon as two.

Ignoring the accumulated heat issue for now, intentionally changing the
albedo of Earth, writ large, is genuine terraforming. On the other hand,
it's been reasonably pointed out that we're terraforming right now already
with all this fossil fuel use screwing with the atmosphere, it just isn't
intentional on the part of the fuel users, though there's PLENTY of
evidence it HAS BEEN intentional on the part of the fossil-fuel providers
- the big ones, anyway.

And, it's been pointed out that firing up the coal plants that have been
closed for this purpose is abjectly stupid since it's cheaper to just
spread aerosols with ultra-high flying aircraft...

And it's not lost on me the irony of pointing this out, as a scientist, to
THIS conspiracy-rabid group; chem-trails anyone? BY THE WAY, commercial
jet liners DO NOT FLY HIGH ENOUGH to do this. So, a swing and a miss by
those particular conspiracy theorists!

The chem-trails noise is just that, noise. However, there IS a potentially
useful effect of doing something like this but here are just some of the
issues:

1) Whatever the choice is for what we loft up there to have this change in
albedo effect it MUST be temporary in nature, if not, we shouldn't even
think about it.

2) It must be cheap.

3) It must not emit a lot of GHG in the act of lofting it.

4) The material lofted needs to be safe in other regards, such as being
inert to life as we know it and non-reactive chemically that might
cause other, unforeseen problems.

These are non-trivial, but likely surmountable, given sufficient funding.

Some ideas have been proposed that seem quite plausible to me. For
example, lofting satellites to disperse materials into the upper
atmosphere, but only at specific latitudes and not over the entire upper
atmosphere.

A variation on that theme I actually like is that we drag near-Earth
asteroids over and use solar energy to power a shredding device that
creates pumice that's then ejected down into the upper atmosphere from
above. It's controllable, it'll fall out of the atmosphere over time, the
mass spread isn't lofted via chemical rockets and thus not contributing to
the GHG problem, etc. ... If we're going to do this, that's how I'd do
it... Maybe we get Musk to expend a couple of his Starships for this
purpose? It's NOT crazy! And he can reuse the boosters!

Some ideas seem crazy but should be investigated such as using chemicals
as aerosols that can have a dramatic increase in our planets albedo but
where we can potentially remove them via lasers at a particular
wavelength, etc. But those are, in my view, the riskiest and least
appropriate paths. ...However, some suggest they may be our ONLY method of
removing any genuine aerosols that don't break down on their own...

There simply hasn't been enough funding of this science to know a lot more
at this point. ... Lots of bright ideas that nobody really knows are going
to work well abound. So, in my view, this is a top priority for upcoming
scientific funding.

If you want to chat more about this, lets do it "offline." You can email
me - just put my first name in front of the at sign and add
ScienceTools.com.

Rgds,
Richard

[Dana Carson]

For those unfamiliar with the story of Iceland (and Hawaii for that matter), please note: Iceland is effectively the top of a huge ridge that began to develop about 200 million years ago when Africa, Europe, North America and South America (Pangea 2) had acted like a huge thermal blanket over the upper mantle, trapping enormous amounts of heat. When the breakup began, and the continents began moving apart, that heat buildup was finally freed. Volcanism has been virtually continuous since then along a many thousand miles long ridge that mimics the shape of the continental margins on either side. Again LOOK AT GOOGLE EARTH. Iceland is believed to sit (coincidentally??) on a mantle hot spot, but is really just part of that ridge. Iceland is continually splitting apart just like the entire length of the ridge, and there are distinctive canyons there that are not caused by river erosion but by the land splitting along fissure volcanoes that parallel the volcanic activity underwater everywhere else along the ridge. Entire ecosystems have developed along the volcanic ridge tops, fed by thermochemical energy and not solar. Much too dark for that.

Iceland is growing, but the growth is from new volcanism in the interior of the island as the island grows in an east-west direction.

Hawaii, by contrast, sits in the open ocean and is constantly being renewed at the east end by new volcanism, while the western islands are sinking and disappearing. Look at Google Earth and see how the real Hawaii extends all the way to the Aleutian Islands as a series of old seamounts.

Iceland and Hawaii are related in the following way. The dominant feature on the planet is the Atlantic Ocean, with a single, very long lasting volcanic ridge that develops as the ocean expands, but with virtually no consequential subduction zones on either side. That means the entire rest of the world must contract to accommodate the Atlantic expansion. Hence the preponderance of subduction zones on the opposite hemisphere. The Pacific Plate is moving ~northwest while Hawaii just sits in the same place through it all.

Any “NEW” volcanism in these areas is really nothing but a continuation of the volcanism that has been going on all along. To see the remnants of the original volcanism associated with the beginning of the breakup, go to New York State and look at the “Palisades”.

As fascinating as (I think) all this is, it is not a serious contributor to any significant modern changes to the climate.

Dana


Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 11, 2023, at 6:40 PM, Richard <Ric...@sciencetools.com> wrote:
>
> 

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sf911truth" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf911truth+...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/be5fedd4-9464-0e2a-1917-214bb019922f%40ScienceTools.com.

[Mark McDonald]

Thanks Richard…..I also wanted to point out that in our lifetimes there have been at least 3 episodes where emissions from big gas guzzling engines caused problems that mitigation measures were developed to reduce pollution levels. California….and particularly Los Angeles with it’s basin geography was notorious for smog…..fog & carbon pollution…where air quality hit dangerous levels….folks couldn’t put clothes out to dry as they came in dirty….and the usual health issues….asthma…lungs…allergies ...cancer etc. This was the reason California initiated emission controls on vehicles…still the most strict in country.  The results were obvious and dramatic improvement....despite the steady increase in number of vehicles. 

   In Mexico City smog pollution became so intense that private vehicles entered an odd-even system….where on one day vehicles with a license plate ending with an odd number could operate and the next day only even number vehicles. 

    In Tokyo and other Japanese cities air quality got so bad that one could use air booths….like phone booths …for a payment get purified air for a moment. I believe emission controls helped here too. 

These are just some examples of policy helping with an environmental issue involving carbon emitting vehicles….M

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/CANJH31O7t6%2BiqweBCpkGz%2B3%2BnMPNOqbdXsCjB92wf7bNaiv8yA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dana Carson]

Thanks for making the excellent point that when humanity tries to address pollution problems (which is exactly what excessive CO2 really is), GOOD THINGS HAPPEN. Sometimes not even the things the changes were intended to make.

D.C.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/C5743FBE-99EA-4C1B-8F0A-84097030EA91%40earthlink.net.