US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by boatman61

What.. nothing about the bogus studies that Big Pharma has funded over the decades..

Do you mean the big pharma companies who make Covid Vaccines? The same ones who buy most of their chemicals from Communist Chinese companies ??The same Chinese companies who sell and ship Fentanyl to the Mexican Crime cartels who smuggle it into the USA across Bidens open borders to kill Americans at a rate of 100000 per year? Those people??

[hedgeworth]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Do you mean the big pharma companies who make Covid Vaccines>

I wouldn’t use the Covid vaccines as an example, no. If it was just a drug company telling me that the drug is safe and effective and there were other independent groups saying that it wasn’t I would be very careful by taking that drug. That’s what happen with statins and opioids for example. Also cigarettes, sugar, in the use of fossil fuels.

On the other hand, if a drug came along that was approved by multiple governments, any number of independent universities and hospitals, and had been put into billions of people and the results studied, with the only ill effects being that right wing nattering nabobs got their panties in a bunch, I would probably take it.

[geoleo]

I just received my Covid test kits. They are "Made in China"

[Kd9truck]

Originally Posted by hedgeworth

Yes money does corrupt science. That was lake’s point when he talked about the bogus studies that the oil companies were funding. Same with the bogus studies the cigarette companies funded when they denied that those things were bad for your health. You are absolutely right about this. But you’re looking at it from the wrong end of the binoculars

Respectfully I counter, I make no distinction, money and power regardless of the motivation will corrupt.

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Who claims that the atmospheric CO2 measurements, taken at the Mona Loa Observatory, are corrupted by the nearby volcano?
Are the USGS & NASA just spewing the "party line"?

According to NASA, and the USGS [for instance], the measurements of the amount of atmospheric CO2, made at the Mauna Loa Observatory, are accurate and uncontaminated by any emissions from the volcano.
The measurements show a steadily increasing trend of CO2 concentrations in the air, a trend that is confirmed by many measurements made elsewhere.

NASA ➥ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/bl...oa-co2-record/

USGS ➥ https://www.usgs.gov/observatories/h...nized-landmark

Mauna Loa is the largest active volcano on the planet. It last erupted in 1984, when a lava flow came within 7.2 km (4.5 mi) of Hilo, the largest population center on the island.

The Mauna Loa Observatory [MLO] protrudes through the strong marine temperature inversion layer, present in the region, which separates the more polluted lower portions of the atmosphere, from the much cleaner free troposphere. The undisturbed air, remote location, and minimal influences of vegetation, and human activity, at MLO, are ideal for monitoring constituents in the atmosphere, that can cause climate change.

The carbon dioxide data from the Mauna Loa Observatory constitute the longest record of direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. They were started by C. David Keeling, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in March of 1958 at a facility of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA started its own CO2 measurements in May of 1974, and they have run in parallel with those made by Scripps since then.

The Mauna Loa Observatory baseline CO2 concentrations agree very well with flask measurements, taken at a similar latitude around the world, which confirms that the volcanic CO2 does not affect our final results. These measurements all show significant increases in CO2 over the last few years.

More ➥ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...keeling-curve/

And ➥ https://realitydrop.org/myths/7

I've been to the volcano peak, National Volcano Laboratory, and viewed hundreds of pages of raw data.

The "average" 400 parts per Million Co2 measured is hand massaged to remove the 10,000 parts per million or better spikes each time the volcano burps.

The volcano Co2 spikes remain for hours to days depending on wind speed, and direction.

Not all C02 is emitted by the main crater. There are a dozen active volcanoes on that island, and hundreds of cracks, fissures, and vents that release Co2 constantly. Which means you can never remove all Volcano emissions from the data.

The Kona volcanoes are entering an active phase, and I've personally seen the increased emissions. ( I owned a house on the Mona Loa volcano until recently).

I don't see how these volcano Co2 spikes can ever be eliminated even by other Co2 monitoring stations downwind on the trade currents.

How will this data be "massaged" from another island monitoring station that doesn't have the benefit of knowing there was just an eruption to remove the spikes that after traveling a few thousand miles will be more of a broad hump.

https://earthscience.rice.edu/wp-con...MG075_Ch11.pdf

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/37/e2014701118

And yes, I know there are thousands of "news" articles on how volcanoes are much more efficient now, and only release a fraction of the Co2 they released just a decade ago, and "man now emits a hundred or thousand times more Co2 than any volcano".

The PPM of Co2 emitted by any source is irrelevant. The magic number is How many cubic feet?

I've just scanned dozens of pages on volcanoes, and not a single one mentions anything about volume, only concentration, and the single sentence, "humans emit more co2 than volcanoes".

Arguably true during periods of little or no volcanic activity, provably false during higher volcanic activity.

ONE volcanic eruption disturbs regular weather patterns for several years. Recently we've had dozens of large eruptions.

I don't see how anyone can separate the effects of billions of tons of ash, and dust from a single volcanic eruption, from a steady Co2 from human power generation.

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by captmikem

oK, I will explain it to you simple like, influential people, and people in power can make BILLIONS of dollars exploiting fears. Al Gore is the perfect example.

If you do not understand this, well send your money to good old Al, he can use it for another mansion or another Jet.

Dont forget Nancy Pelosi's stock trading on insider information. She far exceeds Warren Buffet - Having made over one hundred thirty Million dollars profit doing this in past 20 years.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Solyndra commited fraud. And even including money lost to Solyndra, that investment program netted a profit to the US government. But truth is irrelevant to some...

Source?

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Solyndra commited fraud. And even including money lost to Solyndra, that investment program netted a profit to the US government. But truth is irrelevant to some.



Another classic lie. Gore is conventionally wealthy (stocks, directorships, etc). His fees etc from any climate-related speaking go into his nonprofit.

Funny- I read Gore made $98000000 from his movie. Gore was also a huge prop for the Solyndra fraud.

[hedgeworth]

The oil industry is nearly $2 trillion a year. Even if Al Gore made $1 billion off of his movie which is just a lie, it wouldn’t hold a candle to even a few hours of what the oil industry has at stake.

Why are you so willing to give big oil such a moral pass? Do you feel the same way about tobacco and big Pharma? Or have you spent your career being a shill for the oil industry?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by geoleo

HHHHHHMMMMMMMMM why arent these spread evenly?? dont see any in Atlantic or china??

Now you do.


BTW- CO2 is a very well mixed gas globally.



The WMO Global Atmospheric Watch network for CO2.

[captlloyd]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Funny- I read Gore made $98000000 from his movie. Gore was also a huge prop for the Solyndra fraud.

Very few movies have ever profited that much money, and certainly not “ Inconvenient Truth”. The movie catered to open-minded audiences which very limited it’s exposure. I fear you have been watching way to much Glen Beck.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by captlloyd

Very few movies have ever profited that much money, and certainly not “ Inconvenient Truth”. The movie catered to open-minded audiences which very limited it’s exposure. I fear you have been watching way to much Glen Beck.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0497116/

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

I've just scanned dozens of pages on volcanoes, and not a single one mentions anything about volume, only concentration, and the single sentence, "humans emit more co2 than volcanoes".

Did you scan this one?

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2011EO240001

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Funny- I read Gore made $98000000 from his movie. Gore was also a huge prop for the Solyndra fraud.

You read wrong.

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/In...An#tab=summary

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Funny- I read Gore made $98000000 from his movie. Gore was also a huge prop for the Solyndra fraud.

You read wrong! [sorry, Jack]

According to the Financial Post:

Al Gore’s best-selling climate books, “Earth in the Balance,” “An Inconvenient Truth” and “The Assault on Reason,” haven’t contributed to his wealth. Gore has long pledged any book and film money to his nonprofit, the Climate Reality Project, created in 2011 from two advocacy groups Gore founded a year earlier.

Since leaving office, Al Gore earned;
An estimated US$70-million, for his 20% stake in the Current TV network, which he helped to start in 2004, when was sold to Qatari-owned Al Jazeera Satellite Network.
about US$30 million, on his Apple options and shares of restricted stock.

How Gore achieved this is as much about timing and luck as it is about business skills. His Apple board tenure has coincided with a 5,900% increase in its stock price. Current TV was a moribund “fixer-upper” when Al Jazeera stepped in to buy it at “a huge valuation”.

Back in 2000, about US$750,000 of his net worth was tied to two homes he and his then-wife Tipper owned in Virginia and Tennessee.
Most of the rest had been recently inherited, including an undisclosed number of shares of Occidental Petroleum Corp. left to him by his late father, Senator Albert Gore Sr., and valued at between US$500,000 and US$1-million, according to disclosure forms.

Much more ➥ https://financialpost.com/news/how-a...dential-defeat