The discovery of the molten carbon is real...
It had receded to cover about 1/4th of the lake.
Pic below ....
Pic below ....
While I do not agree with the "humans cause global warming" fanatics, I do think we need better knowledge on the earths climate, without fudging numbers and making stuff up like the NOAA just got busted for doing.
Understanding and preparing for climate change is a good thing. Pretending to alter it through decreased freedom and increased taxes is helping nothing.
Anony Mouse's Link
Glaciers once covered much of north America having carved out the Great Lakes. Today, they are gone leaving the fresh water seas of Michigan, Superior, Huron, Ontario and Erie.
Glaciers have come and gone without man's contribution on the total span of history. Even today, as some glaciers shrink, other glaciers have grown.
The problem with political gorbalims is that all of their predictions are based on computer models which are constantly being modified to prove an assumption (ass-u-me). The Climategate revelations and that of recent NSA/NOAA data manipulations and even the recent UN admission that AGW is primarily an economic meme only give credence to all doubts from the theories of the church of man-caused global warming.
I can just tell you that things in SE Ak are changing fast. Boots on the ground see it. We call it 'the new weather' or 'get use to it' ....
I didn't post those pics to prove anything for or against or what is causing current climate change. You would have to ask my daughter about that ... she graduated from Davidson Honors at U of Montana with a Global Warming degree.
I posted those pics because I thought someone that don't see ice fields, like we do, would enjoy it. We even witness isostatic rebound over time. The town of Hyder use to be on a big dock built on pilings and the tide would come up under town. Some of the old pilings are still there. The tide water never get that high at all any more. Not because the sea-level has changed but the land is raising in elevation. There is so much weight from the Glacier Ice I guess it shoves the land down. When the Ice melts it rises. Just look at that last 2016 pic and see the plants growing in right behind the Glaciers retreat. Won't be long and it will be Bear Valley with a forest.
Lots of stuff is changing rapidly in SE Ak besides the snow fields melting. Even though this has been a pretty good winter we have just had 5 record breaking warm winters in a row. SE is a Hemlock / Spruce forest. We are now seeing Douglas Fir trees seeding in on the mainland in the most southern part. That tells me the Doug Fir dominate forest is marching north. We are also seeing new plant species even on the Islands. Also more common sightings of bird species that weren't here normally if ever.
Those are some of my observations.
Oh Mouse......What have you done :>)
With the Arctic warming faster than anywhere else on Earth, a new scientific paper is proposing a radical scheme to thicken the ice cap: millions upon millions of autonomous ice machines.
Specifically, between 10 and 100 million floating, wind-powered pumps designed to spray water over sea ice during the winter.
“These are expensive propositions, but within the means of governments to carry out on a scale comparable to the Manhattan Project,” reads the paper published in the Jan. 24 edition of Earth’s Future, a journal published by the American Geophysical Union.
The plan would be one of the most expensive single projects in world history, an endeavour on the scale of the International Space Station, the entire U.S. auto industry or a major world conflict such as the Iraq War.... (continued)
Hey...we can afford it. Let the taxpayer add this bill to that of funding imported koranderthals, free health care for all, free college tuition, free...
By Dennis T. Avery
The Democrats are devastated by their recent lost elections. They will be even more devastated as we learn the details of their massive global warming fraud.
Dr. John Bates, a former high level NOAA scientist, set off a furor by revealing that a recent NOAA paper, which claimed global warming hadn’t “paused” during the past 20 years, was fraudulent. The paper was timed to undergird Obama’s signing of the hugely expensive Paris climate agreement.
This is only a tiny fraction of the climate fraud.
Fortunately, high-tech research has finally sorted out the “mystery factor” in our recent climate changes—and it’s mostly not CO2. Even redoubling carbon dioxide, by itself, would raise earth’s temperature only 1.1 degree. That’s significant, but not dangerous.
CERN, the world’s top particle physics laboratory, just found that our big, abrupt climate changes are produced by variations in the sun’s activity. That’s the same sun the modelers had dismissed as “unchanging.” CERN says the sun’s variations interact with cosmic rays to create more or fewer of earth’s heat-shielding clouds. The IPCC had long admitted it couldn’t model clouds--and now the CERN experiment says the clouds are the earth’s thermostats!
In 2000, for example, the sun was strong, and few cosmic rays hit the earth. Therefore, skies were sunny, the earth warmed and crops grew abundantly. The Little Ice Age sun was far weaker and its heavy overcast clouds deflected more of the solar heat back into space. The earth went cold and the weather became highly unstable. Huge numbers of both humans and animals starved, due to extreme droughts, massive floods and untimely frosts.
We haven’t seen the likes of that extreme weather in the past 150 years!
The Old Masters paintings in the world’s museums are mute testimony to this cycling. The Medieval Warming’s paintings show mostly sunny skies. The Little Ice Age skies are shown as heavily overcast. London held ice fairs on the Thames—and once an elephant was led across on the river’s ice!
Henrick Svensmark, a Danish astrophysicist, proposed the cosmic ray-cloud connection in 2008, after ultraviolet light quickly produced huge numbers of tiny cloud seeds in his “cloud chamber.” The climate modelers dismissed Svensmark, saying his cloud seed particles were too small, and would just evaporate in the open air.
Now, CERN has unraveled the earth’s cloud chemistry--and confirmed Svensmark’s theory--with their Large Hadron Collider producing the “cosmic rays.” CERN found that the climate modelers totally failed to understand the interaction of electrically charged cloud particles created by the cosmic rays, which produced one or two orders of magnitude more clouds. The ionized clouds also reflected more heat back into space—and lasted longer. CERN’s lead author, Ken Carslaw, said in the CERN Courier (December 2016) that all the projections of the climate models should thus be revised downward.
But what about the Ice Age predictions of the 1970s, and the “parboiled planet” forecast by James Hansen in 1988? And why the “pause” over the past 20 years? Those events were produced by another, shorter, natural cycle that’s embroidered over the thousand-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle. The Pacific Oscillation is only 60 years long, but it fooled us—and supposedly NOAA—into thinking each of those 30-year segments was a new permanent trend. Our media were supposed to give us a longer perspective, but didn’t.
CERN’s preliminary findings about the cloud/cosmic ray interaction were even published in the London Express in October of 2015. However, the rest of the world’s media ignored the story. They preferred scare headlines about polar bear extinction and New York City under water.
NOAA is guilty of publishing the “pausebuster study” by suddenly-retired Tom Karl. His paper adjusted top-quality new sea surface data from 3,800 ARGO floats to match poor data from ship’s “preheated” engine intakes. (Karl, Science, June 2015) It was rushed out just before Obama signed the Paris treaty. The IPCC is guilty of ignoring any and all science that contradicted the CO2 theory. The UN is guilty of giving the IPCC a mandate to find a “human cause” for the “unprecedented warming.” They all ignored an earlier “unprecedented warming” from 1915–1940—a warming too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2.
All of this is all relatively new science. The Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle wasn’t understood until the Greenland ice cap was cored in 1983. The satellites, with their more complete temperature coverage, didn’t fly until 1979. The Pacific Oscillation wasn’t recognized until 1996. The high-quality sea temperature data from the Argo floats—which Karl dismissed in his paper—has only been gathered since 2000.
But can we forgive the 25-year hyping of a CO2 theory based on a tiny fragment of time that ignored all the weather extremes of the past “Little Ice Ages”? NOAA didn’t tell us about the key Pacific Oscillation, even after it was recognized. Now evidence is emerging that the official climate statistics have been fraudulently altered all over the developed world, to make the past seem colder than it was. That “justified” the recent string of “hottest years.”
This was all created by the political Left. which so famously “cares more” about people. A U.K. Member of Parliament told us 20 years ago that he was astounded to have constituents demanding that he rise their taxes “to save the planet!” The Left has ridden that tax-gathering horse literally to death. Meanwhile:
Europe overpays for Russian gas, and so is burning more coal than ever. London’s new smog is created by burning wood pellets instead of natural gas,because gas prices have tripled to pay “renewable” subsidies. South Australia has suffered five recent electrical black-outs because it closed its last coal-fired power plant. (Their wind turbines don’t turn when the wind dies.) One blackout caused $1 billion in losses; molten steel hardened in the suddenly-dead furnaces. Millions of Third World women die from tending open fires in their huts, for lack of kerosene or electricity. Their governments are denied financing for urgently needed coal-fired power plants when the world has ample coal.
The climate modelers made a perhaps-honest mistake by assuming a warmer world would hold more moisture in its atmosphere, thus amplifying the greenhouse effect. That’s how those guesses about radical future warmings were created. But NASA data have shown no increased atmospheric moisture. Nor did the government-sponsored modelers correct their mistake.
Instead, perhaps lured by big headlines and lavish government “research” grants, they continued to claim overheated disaster lay ahead. A skeptical House Science Committee subpoenaed Karl’s research data right after the fraud was published, but President Obama’s Commerce Secretary blocked the subpoena.
That’s unlikely to happen with Donald Trump in the White House. He’s already expressed his doubt about the CO2 theory, and his administration will likely pursue the Karl fraud even as it extols CERN’s new high-tech climate change findings.
The Left has demanded we pay proper attention to the science. Now it’s their turn.
All that's really certain is that the earth's climate has been changing every nano-second since the earth has existed.
I'm flying to Florida this coming Saturday for a two week hiatus. There, I'll probably suffer from the 80°F temps after wearing long underwear virtually everyday for the past 4 months straight. And then there's that sunburn factor. Sheeesh..... ;^)
They look at the fossil record and other geologic evidence. There will be no humans on the planet in another 2.5 million years so it doesn't really matter.
Harde, 2017 Abstract: Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.
Conclusion: Climate scientists assume that a disturbed carbon cycle, which has come out of balance by the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change, is responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years. While over the whole Holocene up to the entrance of the Industrial Era (1750) natural emissions by heterotrophic processes and fire were supposed to be in equilibrium with the uptake by photosynthesis and the net oceanatmosphere gas exchange, with the onset of the Industrial Era the IPCC estimates that about 15 – 40 % of the additional emissions cannot further be absorbed by the natural sinks and are accumulating in the atmosphere.
The IPCC further argues that CO2 emitted until 2100 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1000 years, and in the same context it is even mentioned that the removal of human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence) (see AR5-Chap.6-Executive-Summary).
Since the rising CO2 concentrations go along with an increasing greenhouse effect and, thus, a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is a necessary prerequisite for all future climate change predictions. In their accounting schemes and models of the carbon cycle the IPCC uses many new and detailed data which are primarily focussing on fossil fuel emission, cement fabrication or net land use change (see AR5-WG1-Chap.6.3.2), but it largely neglects any changes of the natural emissions, which contribute to more than 95 % to the total emissions and by far cannot be assumed to be constant over longer periods (see, e.g.: variations over the last 800,000 years (Jouzel et al., 2007); the last glacial termination (Monnin et al., 2001); or the younger Holocene (Monnin et al., 2004; Wagner et al., 2004)).
Since our own estimates of the average CO2 residence time in the atmosphere differ by several orders of magnitude from the announced IPCC values, and on the other hand actual investigations of Humlum et al. (2013) or Salby (2013, 2016) show a strong relation between the natural CO2 emission rate and the surface temperature, this was motivation enough to scrutinize the IPCC accounting scheme in more detail and to contrast this to our own calculations.
Different to the IPCC we start with a rate equation for the emission and absorption processes, where the uptake is not assumed to be saturated but scales proportional with the actual CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (see also Essenhigh, 2009; Salby, 2016).
Something to watch however. The gorbalists would freak out as there would be no reason to cut CO2 emissions as we would be creating "fuel" and the entire AGW movement would have to find another evil source--perhaps the sun!
Viv Forbes
Viv has a degree in Applied Science Geology and is a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy .jpg)
There was a time when true environmentalists strove to protect wild things. Now the green shirts have become enemies of the environment by pushing green energy and demonising the building blocks of life - carbon and carbon dioxide.
Wind turbines and their cobweb of connecting roads and transmission lines have destroyed native trees and grasses, scarred and uglified wild hilltops, and littered continental shelves with naval and aerial obstacles. They create wind and rain shadows and decimate resident and migratory birds and bats.
California wastelands
Industrial-scale solar is no better, stealing sunlight from every plant that tries to live in the shadow of the panels. Solar-thermal arrays have the additional trick of roasting any birds, bats and insects which fly through their focussed rays of heat.
These green energy toys produce piddling amounts of unreliable weather-dependent energy at great economic and environmental cost.
Greens also promoted diesel to replace cleaner petrol in vehicles. Thank them for more urban pollution.
Their promotion of ethanol and bio-diesel has caused the widespread conversion of cropland and clearing of natural vegetation and forests to grow industrial crops like corn and palm oil. This has also reduced food supplies, increased food prices and forced some poor people to poach in parklands.
And the stupid promotion of burning wood for power and home heating has taken some cities back sixty-five years to the era of London smogs. Forests are again being cleared and wood smoke is again choking urban communities.
None of these expensive and destructive activities will have any measurable or beneficial effect on global temperature.
So, what is the real agenda?
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quick google and there are studies of WTG (wind turbine generators) friction.
Blade Bearing Friction Estimation of Operating Wind Turbines
Aerodynamics of Wind Turbines: Drag
This one has real math and formulae!!!
However, I did not find any studies WRT the amount of heat generated by WTG blades. Open field for you inquisitive minds!
Anony Mouse's Link
Anony Mouse's Link
We need to fly helicopters using fossil fuel to scrape ice off of a WTG (wind turbine generator) which accumulated such while being out of service (not generating).
