Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Channel Catalog


Channel Description:

"Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" - Jacob Bronowski. "Fake and vulgar" climate news from Germany in English - by Pierre L. Gosselin

older | 1 | .... | 3 | 4 | (Page 5)

    0 0
  • 05/16/16--15:48: By: Buddy
  • If the case goes to court, the parties surrender control to a judge, and the cost will be much higher. You will be glad to know that you have recourse; this is the United States, where everyone has rights. In such a case, it is more reasonable to demand the person responsible for the accident to pay off the bills.

    0 0

    I'd like to find out more? I'd want to find out more details About Pierre Gosselin . http://4989.co/wp-content/img/Cigarettes-22.html http://4989.co/wp-content/img/Cigarettes-22.html

    0 0
  • 07/26/16--13:47: By: kiluhewa.weebly.com
  • It's impressive that you are getting thoughts from this piece of writing as well as from our dialogue made at this place.

    0 0
  • 08/03/16--12:11: By: Dan Pangburn
  • Pierre, After your response to my twitter comment on politics I finally got motivated to find out more about you. Not too surprising, I discovered we are both Mechanical Engineers and our efforts in climate change are not funded. My excuse is curiosity which is not unlike your “fun, learning”. I am currently retired in Phoenix. Thanks for posting my comments on your blog. I am currently working on an update/superseding blog to http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com exploiting Eschenbach’s essay on precipitable water.at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/25/precipitable-water . My perception is that increased water vapor is adding warming which is compensating for the cooling expected from declining sunspot numbers and net declining ocean surface temperatures. I’m getting an R2 of 0.98 1895-2015. The bad news is the migration to fossil fuels high in hydrogen (such as methane) in place of carbon (coal) which will make matters worse. The worse would be increased flooding. It’s still a bit early, could be including a lot of random scatter. I plan to go public anyway and then update it as more info appears. My HTML skills are nonexistent but I have some EXCEL files that might interest you. If you are interested, my email is pangburndan at gmail.com Keep up the good work, Dan Pangburn

    0 0
  • 08/15/16--21:01: By: Zelma
  • Some really great info, Sword lily I noticed this.

    0 0
  • 09/14/16--08:03: By: Anonymous
  • Hello, I think your website might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your blog site in Firefox, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, terrific blog!

    0 0
  • 10/17/16--20:27: By: cast nets
  • Wow, awesome blog format! How long have you ever been running a blog for? you make running a blog look easy. The total glance of your website is magnificent, let alone the content material!

    0 0
  • 11/15/16--03:31: By: emergency dentist
  • This information is worth everyone's attention. Where can I find out more?

    0 0
  • 01/11/17--06:51: By: tom0mason
  • I don't know where else on your blog to put this but you and others may like to know ... For the avid readers out there I’ve stumbled upon a strange site (and sight) with some really good links… 100 Legal Sites to Download FREE eBooks and Literature from http://theglobalelite.org/100-legal-sites-download-free-ebooks-literature/ <b> and for all you science and computer types there’s http://techbooksforfree.com/science.shtml </b>

    0 0
  • 03/19/17--09:47: By: Ferdinand Engelbeen
  • Pierre, I have finished my response to the article by Dr. Hermann Harde about the influence of humans on the CO2 increase. It is now sent to him as an open letter as I like to discuss it openly. If you are interested, please give me some email address where to send it, you have mine...

    0 0
  • 03/19/17--09:53: By: P Gosselin
  • http://notrickszone.com/contact/#sthash.4y8pA1ps.dpbs

    0 0
  • 03/19/17--15:23: By: Kenneth Richard
  • Ferdinand, I see that you ultimately decided to ignore my questions again about the total lack of correlation for the 16 ppmv/K conceptualization for the Holocene that you believe in as fundamental to your positions, probably because you would prefer to not have to bother with contradictory evidence. The CO2 record for the Holocene shows that although temperatures declined by multiple degrees C after about 8,000 years before present, including through modern times, the CO2 concentration rose rather than fell, as shown here: http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Holocene-CO2-10500-0-R.jpg You also made the claim that the 6 ppm drop in CO2 during the 1600s was caused by a drop in temperature, but then, contradicting yourself, you claimed that the rise in CO2 over the last 8,000 years was not caused by temperature changes, but by humans (with<em> some</em> human causation during the Holocene, but then nearly 100% since the year 1882, when CO2 levels were 290 ppm). So it is apparently your claim that CO2 only changes via temperature variations when temperatures cool, but when temperatures warm, humans did it. This is not remotely consistent. I have challenged you on this multiple times, and each time you fail to specifically respond.

    0 0
  • 03/21/17--03:55: By: Ferdinand Engelbeen
  • Kenneth, I have repeatedly sent the references that several scientists think that the increase of CO2 and CH4 in the late Holocene is caused by humans, because of the transition of hunting-gathering towards agriculture and cattle herding for the increasing population density. These figures are not included in the industrial era, where fossil fuel use kicked off around 1850 with the use of coal i.s.o. wood for steam engines and blast furnaces. So the part of the human caused emissions as result of land use changes (clear cutting / burning of forests, CH4 emissions from rice culture, cattle herding,...) are additional to what I used as base for the industrial emissions. You are bickering about +/- 10 ppmv over a period where temperature wasn't measured and we have to rely on proxies, while in recent years the exact measured CO2 increase is 90 ppmv and temperature, including tampering, increased less than 1 K, good for about 10 ppmv extra in the atmosphere, that is all. If you have a reliable source which can explain the CO2 increase from natural causes without any violation of any observation and at the same time explain where human emissions at twice the increase in the atmosphere get, I am all ear. Hermann Harde's work doesn't apply, as it violates a few physical laws...

    0 0
  • 03/21/17--15:38: By: Kenneth Richard
  • <blockquote>Ferdinand Engelbeen: "Kenneth, You are simply hopeless."</blockquote> Yes, it is quite apparent that you don't like it when someone challenges you by pointing out how flagrantly contradictory your beliefs are. A real skeptic would welcome challenges to his positions, or when someone points out the contradictions/inconsistencies in a particular conceptualization he espouses You, on the other hand, prefer to dismiss challenges and insist your are certainly right. You claim that the geological record supports the 16 ppmv/K conceptualization, and that this includes the narrow-resolution 6 ppm drop in CO2 during the 1600s, which you say was caused by a temperature change. But then you turn around and say the temperature record is unreliable, that I'm only "bickering" about a "+/- 10 ppmv" difference...when I point out how<a href="http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/20/50-inverted-hockey-sticks-scientists-find-earth-cools-as-co2-rises/"> the rest of the Holocene doesn't support your position</a>. So when it suits your purposes, a narrow-resolution 6 ppm change and the non-instrumental temperature record is reliable and accurate. When it <em>doesn't</em> suit your purposes, a 20 to 50 ppm change during the Holocene and a <em>wrong sign</em> change in temperature of multiple degrees are immaterial and worthy of dismissal. Again, we're talking about a 50 ppm change (increase) between 8,000 ka and 1910, when temperature <em>declined</em> by 3 K (or more). The 16 ppmv/K conceptualization you claim is accurate would have it<em> rising</em> by 3 K. That's a discrepancy of 6 K that you are here trying to dismiss as immaterial. This is what you wrote: Ferdinand Engelbeen: <blockquote>"<strong>I said that the CO2 drop was caused by the temperature drop</strong>."</blockquote> This quote is what I'm talking about. You claim the 6 ppm drop in CO2 during the 1600s was caused by a temperature change. But then you claim that the 50 ppm change between 8 ka and 1910 was <em>not</em> caused by temperature. So short-term/small-resolution CO2 changes are caused by temperature changes when it suits your purposes, and they are not caused by temperature when it doesn't suit your purposes. You wrongly assume that I fully agree that the Hermann Harde version of the "truth" is accurate. I don't. As I have written multiple times, I am agnostic on this subject. I fully accept that it could be possible that most of the increase in CO2 concentration is due to anthropogenic activity. However, I am not convinced, as there are giant holes in the position you are stumping for, including the gross inconsistency with the geological record, as well as the conceptualization that there is a "natural steady state" for CO2 of 290 ppm, which is also inconsistent with the geological record. Your certainty is unbecoming of a true skeptic. How about a little more humility and expressing a little less certitude that you've got this all figured out?

    0 0
  • 03/22/17--01:27: By: Ferdinand Engelbeen
  • Kenneth, You simply don't understand what I wrote, that is why I didn't respond anymore, as that is a waste of time. 1. The 16 ppmv/K is rock solid, established over 200 years ago by Henry and confirmed by over 3 million seawater samples. 2. The 16 ppmv/K is for the composition of the oceans and atmosphere over the past few million years, not for geological periods with extreme differences in CO2/minerals/pH of the oceans. 3. The 16 ppmv/K is the setpoint, that is what the natural equilibrium strives to reach, not what it is at any moment of the day or the millennium. 4. It takes a lot of time to reach that equilibrium: 5000 years from an ice age to an interglacial, with a change of 0.02 ppmv/year. 5. That means that in shorter periods of time CO2 can't follow short term changes in temperature or short term changes in CO2 release (whatever the source) and therefore the change in the atmosphere is different from the "target" 16 ppmv/K 6. Any source (volcanoes, humans) that adds more than 0.02 ppmv/year to the atmosphere will increase the CO2 levels, as the response of nature is not fast enough to remove the extra CO2 in the same year as added. 7. That is the case for the period 8000 - 165 years ago, where humans probably added small amounts of CO2 from agriculture and cattle herding. 8. The response to temperature changes still is faster than to CO2 injection changes, that is why you still see a dip of ~8 ppmv in the LIA, within slightly increasing CO2 levels. 9. That is the case for the industrial revolution since about 165 years ago, when humans started to use increasing quantities of fossil fuels, which emissions can't be removed by nature in the same year as injected. I have no problem at all for real scientific challenges with what I write (as is the case with Bart). The problem I have with your objections is that you don't understand the basic principles of a simple process like the solubility of CO2 in seawater, which is never instantaneous but needs lots of time to equilibrate, while the disturbances are faster than what nature can cope with. Before you start quibbling about point 8.: The 16 ppmv/K is for the ocean surface. That is in fast equilibrium with the atmosphere (seasonal CO2 follows ocean surface T in a few months). A change in temperature at the surface needs ~1000 years to get a change in the deep oceans and ~5000 years to fully equilibrate. That is why CO2 over ice ages changes so slow. Over centuries, like between the MWP and LIA (and back), the CO2 change in the atmosphere is the response to a mix of ocean surface and deep ocean temperatures.

    0 0
  • 03/22/17--21:40: By: Kenneth Richard
  • <blockquote>"The 16 ppmv/K is rock solid, established over 200 years ago by Henry and confirmed by over 3 million seawater samples."</blockquote> And yet despite restating this again and again and again, 16 ppmv/K conceptualization/model <em>does not work</em> for the last 10,000 years. You've insisted that it<em> does</em> work, as exemplified by the 6 ppm decline during the 1600s that corresponded to an -0.8 K drop in temperature. You even said that the -6 ppm CO2 change was <em>caused</em> by this -0.8 K drop in temperature (even though you deny this cause-effect works in the other direction. And then, further contradicting yourself, you dismiss the fact that temperatures <em>declined</em> by 2 to 3 K for 8,000 years while CO2 concentrations rose by 50 ppm, which is the exact <em>opposite </em>of what the 16 ppmv/K conceptualization/model says should happen (temperatures should have<em> risen</em> by 3 K). In other words, when the observations don't fit the model, ignore the observations and restate that the model is correct anyway. That's what you've done. <blockquote>"The 16 ppmv/K is for the composition of the oceans and atmosphere over the past few million years, not for geological periods with extreme differences in CO2/minerals/pH of the oceans."</blockquote> If you now claim that 16 ppmv/K applies to millions-of-years periods, then why did you insist that the 16 ppmv/K conceptualization <em>does</em> work for the Holocene, and in fact also works for centennial-scale periods, such as the 6 ppm drop in CO2 during the 1600s that you claim was caused by the temperature decline during that short period of time? If it doesn't work for the Holocene at all, then why have you continually insisted that it does, contradicting yourself? <blockquote>"The 16 ppmv/K is the setpoint, that is what the natural equilibrium strives to reach, not what it is at any moment of the day or the millennium."</blockquote> This has become amusing now. So you're saying that because the 16 ppmv/K conceptualization failed miserably at representing the last 10,000 years, therefore you're now reduced to saying that, well, it <em>should</em> have worked, that CO2 "strives to reach" the expectation of models, and therefore this is enough to verify the concept as "truth" anyway. How is this any different than restating one's religious beliefs? It isn't. <blockquote>"It takes a lot of time to reach that equilibrium: 5000 years from an ice age to an interglacial, with a change of 0.02 ppmv/year."</blockquote> And yet, contradicting yourself again, you have said that the 6 ppm drop in CO2 was directly caused by the decadal/centennial-scale drop in temperatures (-0.8 K) during the 1600s (Maunder). When one post facto explanation fails, try another, right? <blockquote>"That means that in shorter periods of time CO2 can’t follow short term changes in temperature or short term changes in CO2 release"</blockquote> So if it "can't" follow short term changes in temperature, why did you say the 6 ppm drop in CO2 during the 1600s was caused by the short term drop in temperature (-0.8 K)? Do you really not realize how self-contradictory your attempts to explain the past are? <blockquote>"Any source (volcanoes, humans) that adds more than 0.02 ppmv/year to the atmosphere will increase the CO2 levels, as the response of nature is not fast enough to remove the extra CO2 in the same year as added."</blockquote> Termites emit twice as much CO2 as humans do per year. And there are more termites now than there were in the 1970s due to the large global-scale increase in biomass/greening since the 1980s. How can we be certain that termites haven't out-emitted us more than we've out-emitted them? We can't be certain. This is guesswork. I'm OK with uncertainty. You aren't, obviously. <blockquote>"That is the case for the period 8000 – 165 years ago, where humans probably added small amounts of CO2 from agriculture and cattle herding."</blockquote> Again with the claim that the Holocene increase in CO2 since 8,000 ka was caused by humans, and yet you turn around and say that the 6 ppm drop in CO2 was caused by temperature. So, according to you, temperature causes CO2 changes only when the temperatures are cooling. When temperatures are warming, humans cause the increase in CO2, and the temperatures do not. Is there any consistency here? <blockquote>"The response to temperature changes still is faster than to CO2 injection changes, that is why you still see a dip of ~8 ppmv in the LIA, within slightly increasing CO2 levels."</blockquote> This is, once again, nothing more than a rather weak attempt to provide an after-the-fact explanation for why the 16 ppmv/K conceptualization fails miserably for the Holocene. The temperature change since 1998 has been less than 0.1 K. The CO2 change since 1998 has been almost 40 ppm. There was no temperature change between 1850 and 1930 (according to NASA). There was a 30 ppm increase in CO2 during that time. So as long as you cherry pick your results, you can "explain away" anything to fit your presuppositions. Again, that's exactly what you've done. <blockquote>"That is the case for the industrial revolution since about 165 years ago, when humans started to use increasing quantities of fossil fuels, which emissions can’t be removed by nature in the same year as injected."</blockquote> But yet this explanation doesn't fit with the observation that CO2 concentrations rose while human emissions stayed flat... http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Anthropogenic-Emissions-vs-CO2-Rise-Non-Correlation.jpg

    0 0
  • 03/23/17--16:14: By: Peter Ravenscroft
  • G'day Pierre, Very impressed with your work, thanks on behalf of one and all. I have likewise been at this lot for over a decade, mostly from the angle of maps and geomagnetics, which I am fairly sure is the main driver of the regional changes we are seeing. My background so you know the biases is geology oceanography and social anthropology, mainly comparative religion, so I know a new one when I see it, even though personally a devout atheist. I have done 40 different ways of earning a buck as part of the anthrop field work, but mainly geology and am a lifelong radical green, once an FOE director in South Africa. Denise and I have our own rainforest we have been restoring for 30 years (Google ravenswoodwildlifesanctuary for the incriminating evidence, if interested, Denise is the photographer , anti war, anti the new global aparthate (my preferred spelling) and am now having a go at reviving the old 17th century English leveller and digger movement. So, a scatterbrain. But I have done a 3,000 page report, all self-funded, on the causes of climate change. The Heat is from Hell”Gratis, public domain, and I think it can be emailed. Or, its 70-page summary can be, if you or anyone wants it. So far, zero takers. It grades from a one word report geomagnetics” to others, for all readers from bright kids to not-so-bright-now climatology profs. “So far zero takers. Geomag is very obscure, academia does not do it well or use it. The only way in is via the military, which tries idiotically to blanket it in secrecy – or via mining exploration. I did the latter, and still do. Am totally opposed to wasting valuable fossil fuels by burning them, and pro geothermal, as we have the technology to go as deep as we like and very cheaply by combining nineteenth century cable tool drilling, reverse circulation chip return, and multiple drill power heads, diamond, plasma, whatever. The heat is tidal, huge molten metal ocean getting warmed daily, and so will go forever and is everywhere under foot, we are just a bit, this century. As you have noticed. From this climate game I have found - stumbled on - that we can predict el Ninos and la Ninas with exact precision, as far out as we like, since the earth-moon-sun barycentre's heat-generating track, sideways and vertical is neatly marked by solar and lunar eclipses. Ditto for Indian Monsoon failures. When the barycentre goes below India, just before the SW monsoon, it fails. Also that hot rocks put out hot water that spreads on the sea surface, where the NOAA (polar-orbiting military in reality ssta satellites see it to perfection. That gives us about half of all serious earthquakes, weeks to months to a year in advance. But, try telling seismologists that rocks get hot before they squeal? They go peer-review stone deaf. Half the time the rocks heat but the quake does not happen, plus where the sea is hot all the time, it is not that easy to spot the anomalies. Fishtrack.com now is a help, as where they think they can kill lots of large fish, they use the NOAA data but at a far better resolution. So, for me, all the confusion has been of great value. Story of all science, I guess. Have you noticed, GISS uses zero stations from the Greenland icecap itself, two from the Antarctic one, zero from Tibet, and I think just five from the Amazon Basin. So, how can we guess how fast the icecaps will melt and the sea rise? Get back you or your readers if so minded. Email: p.s.ravenscroft@gmail.com Phone: 617 3289 4470 (Australia) Regards anyway. Peter Ravenscroft 24 March 2017 Ravenswood, Closeburn, Queensland, Oz.

older | 1 | .... | 3 | 4 | (Page 5)