Google+ Followers

Saturday, December 17, 2016

Global Warming Hoax Faces Unfathomable Cold in NH? Mount Washington, called Agiocochook by some Native American tribes, is the highest peak in the Northeastern United States at 6,288 ft and the most prominent mountain east of the Mississippi River. The mountain is notorious for its erratic weatherin New Hampshire Reached An Insane 85 Below This Week.

After liberal dullards Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore released dual climate change movies this year, the northeastern U.S. is seeing massively cold temperatures.


It was 35 degrees below zero at 6:40 a.m. with blowing snow, sustained winds of 75 miles per hour and freezing fog, according to the weather observatory atop the mountain.
The wind chill registered at 80 degrees below zero.

The only colder place in the world was Watson Lake, which is located in Canada's Yukon Territory. Temperatures there were 40 degrees below zero, though conditions were calm.
Researchers braved the cold to toss boiling water into the wind, where it froze immediately! See more in the video above.
global warming
Mount Washington, called Agiocochook by some Native American tribes at 6,288 ft , is the highest peak in the Northeastern United States at 6,288 ft and the most prominent mountain east of the Mississippi River. The mountain is notorious for its erratic weather


While many on the left are continuing to perpetrate the great global warming hoax, science and common sense have collided in the late months of 2016 to provide an alternative to the globalist-democrat narrative.  Now, with temperature in New Hampshire hitting ridiculous lows, the entire nation is beginning to understand the depth of the liberal stranglehold on the story.
“Some schools closed early Thursday and many others delayed opening Friday to avoid a bone-chilling wait at the bus stop.We’re not strangers to these sorts of bitter temperatures on Mount Washington’s summit,’ senior weather observer Mike Carmon said in the weather observatory’s blog at the highest peak in the Northeast. ‘However, over the last few winters, it’s generally late January or February before we experience this sort of polar air outbreak.’
“The wind chill was down to 85-below at the summit early Friday.
“Utility workers were prepared for power outages due to fallen trees. David Flener, field safety manager at Eversource, New Hampshire’s largest utility, said workers are well-educated on how to stay warm in the coldest weather, starting before they even arrive on a job site. They are urged to make sure they carry an emergency kit with clothing and food in case they get stranded, and once they arrive, there is a discussion about on-the-job safety.”
You read that correctly; 85 below zero.  That is a temperature that you may expect in certain locales of Siberia, and far above the arctic circle.  It is certainly not the weather you could expect in the United States during a time of “global warming”.


Thursday, December 15, 2016

Death, Suffering, And Instability In Aleppo: Obama's Disastrous Syria Policy? Obama Say That, He Trying To Save The Planet? Look That All Smoke, So Much For Trying To Save The Planet. So Climate Change ( Is Not ) Greatest Threat To Humanity, After All.

The fall of Aleppo demonstrates the grave costs of American inaction. At nearly every turn of the conflict in Syria, the Obama administration yielded the military and strategic initiative to America’s enemies. The results are now plain to see. The death toll in Syria approaches a half-million men, women, and children. Millions more have been displaced, and the largest wave of refugees to reach Europe since World War II has created a crisis on the Continent.

More Berkeley B.S Experimental Claim: Treeline may not shift upward in elevation with warming

Image result for arborist meme

Let see again, they did not ask the right person, before putting this out, may -be they should have talk to an "Arborists" First, the one , who spend there life, talking care of tree's without there in put this is all shit.

What the experiment really shows is that warming seedlings with infrared heaters was a fail.

The media release is below.
Study: Warming could slow upslope migration of trees
Berkeley Lab-led research shows some subalpine trees may have trouble gaining a foothold above the tree line
Scientists expect trees will advance upslope as global temperatures increase, shifting the tree line–the mountain zone where trees become smaller and eventually stop growing–to higher elevations. Subalpine forests will follow their climate up the mountain, in other words.
But new research published Dec. 15 in the journal Global Change Biology suggests this may not hold true for two subalpine tree species of western North America. According to the study, Engelmann spruce may not move to higher elevations as temperatures rise, and its lower-elevation boundary could recede upslope, so its overall range could shrink. And the hardy limber pine may advance upward in a warmer climate, but likely at the same slow pace as in today’s climate.
The research was conducted by scientists from the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), UC Merced, the U.S. Geological Survey, UC Berkeley, and the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Their surprising findings are based on the discovery that the two species can be harmed by warming during the earliest stages of their lives, even at the cold, high-elevation edge of forest growth. In addition, seeds from trees now growing at the upper boundary of the species’ range may not fare well at higher elevations. These insights could help scientists improve models that predict where and how fast subalpine forests will move in a warming climate.
“The assumption that trees will track their climate underestimates the challenges they face during seedling recruitment. The odds are stacked against trees at this stage, even under normal conditions, and we found that warming decreases the young trees’ odds of survival even more,” says research leader Lara Kueppers, a scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Climate and Ecosystem Sciences Division and at UC Merced’s Sierra Nevada Research Institute.
“This means there’s a real risk that climate change may outpace tree migration–some trees may not be able to keep up with their climate,” Kueppers adds. “Seedlings are the future of the forest, so it’s very important to learn how warming will affect them.”
Scientists are interested in predicting what will happen to subalpine forests as the climate warms because a shift in the boundary between forest and alpine tundra biomes holds big implications for mountain water resources, the carbon cycle, and the planet’s climate.
“Tree seedlings growing in the alpine tree line are an indicator of the early impacts of climate change on mountain habitats,” says Matt Germino, a U.S. Geological Survey ecologist who contributed to the research. “The response of tree seedlings to carefully controlled warming treatments offers a window into a warmer world for forests.”
To shed light on the future of subalpine forests, the scientists set up experiments at Niwot Ridge, an ecological research site in Colorado’s Rocky Mountains. They focused on the impacts of warming on the first four years of the trees’ lives. They also accounted for the role of localized genetic adaptation by studying seeds collected from low and high elevation areas within the trees’ ranges. Both of these factors, seedling recruitment and genetic adaptation, are not well represented in models that predict the species’ responses to warming.
The scientists planted the seeds at three sites, one at the low-elevation edge of subalpine forest, another at the high-elevation edge of the forest (the current tree line), and a third site in the alpine zone where the trees don’t grow.
At each site, they planted 20 gardens divided into four groups. One group was heated from March to November with infrared heaters. This melted the snow early and raised the soil and seedling temperatures by several degrees, mimicking the effects of climate change. A second group was heated and watered, a third group was only watered, and a fourth control group was left untouched. The researchers planted the gardens each fall from 2009 to 2013 and followed their progress through 2014.
Counter to expectations, they found that warming reduced seedling survival for both species at all three elevations during the first year of life. The scientists expected survival rates to dip at the lower elevation site, where temperatures rose above the trees’ normal climate, but not higher up, where warming was expected to help seedlings. They attribute this lower survival rate to drier conditions caused by warming, which negatively affected seedling survival.
Survival rates diverged for the two species after the first year. For the limber pine, the scientists found some benefits of warming at some sites, but not enough to reverse the negative effects from the first year. So, after four years, there wasn’t a measurable effect of warming on survival.
“From this, we infer that limber pine has the potential to persist at its current location and expand upslope into the alpine zone, but it won’t expand any faster in a warmer climate,” says Kueppers.
For the Engelmann spruce, the negative impact of warming persisted through the fourth year. In addition, no warmed seedlings survived to be 4 years old at the low-elevation site. This means warming could impede the upward expansion of the species and cause the lower-elevation edge of its range to contract upslope.
In another surprise, the scientists found that seeds collected from lower elevation areas survived better in the alpine zone than seeds collected from higher elevations. This too could slow the upslope expansion of subalpine trees, as it’s hard for lower elevation seeds to “leapfrog” over higher elevation trees and establish themselves above the current tree line.
“Overall, our findings indicate that seedlings are highly vulnerable to climate variation, which should be taken into account as we predict what will happen to subalpine forests in a warming climate,” says Kueppers.
The research was supported in part by the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory addresses the world’s most urgent scientific challenges by advancing sustainable energy, protecting human health, creating new materials, and revealing the origin and fate of the universe. Founded in 1931, Berkeley Lab’s scientific expertise has been recognized with 13 Nobel Prizes. The University of California manages Berkeley Lab for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science. For more, visit

DOE’s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, please visit

Monday, December 12, 2016

How to Win Climate Change Debate Every Time (Global Warming Hoax)

Dr Roy Spencer - 97% Concensus is Bogus

World-wide, Global Trash Fires Are The Inheritance Of All Liberals? And They Tell Us There Trying to Save The Planet? Fuuny Way Of Doing It?

 Image result for save the planet quotes

I think Democrat, Liberal, Progressive fanatics are funny.They are funny to watch melting down over Trump’s win.They are hilarious to watch as they flail and scrabble to invent the next Fake News lie to try and harm or take down their arch-enemy. It’s like in some 1941 serial cliffhanger—the heroic Captain Trump, “strange” visitor from another planet, vs The Evil Dark Scorpion.

Yes, Trump is from Earth. While the prog fanatic followers of The Scorpion are from Planet Nemesis, orbiting and lost on the border of deep space.

Nemesis is a dark world. It’s cold, and swept by black storms of ash and smoke.
But the ash is not from volcanoes. It’s trash fires.

World-wide, global trash fires are the Inheritance of all liberals. Burning, smoky, ash-blown, suffocating bon fires of trash, garbage, and human waste.
Some would say, “wasted humans.”

Because there is nothing to so-called Liberalism. It is a false construct of unreasonable dreams, phony lies, and impossible utopian “paradises,” all slopped together in a fetid tub of leaking human waste.
Wasted humans.

They are dangerous to life, liberty, and private property. They are dangerous to truth, justice, and the American way.What to do with them?Okay, we can’t “kill the liberals.”

Besides; they were just born that way.
They can’t help themselves. They didn’t ask to be liberals. No, we can’t hurt or harm them, because they are part of Humanity.

And yet, they are so dangerous as to threaten the existence of life on Earth. They are so dangerous in their flailing lashes with words and weapons, that they threaten to convert Earth to another Nemesis. They are so blinded by the blowing ash and smoke of their own occult world, that they would destroy ours.
They would destroy the hopes and dreams of sane human beings rooted in the green grass and blue seas of Planet Earth. And they would destroy America The Beautiful.

Okay, we can’t “kill the liberals.” And we can’t eat them. Both acts are illegal.
So, then…what to do about their constant, raging, brutal violence and threats? How do we counter the vicious, never-ending Fake News attacks of their world-wide propaganda machine? How do we block their destructive, mindless Jihad to obliterate America and Americans and substitute their own desiccated stench-filled world of Nemesis?

We can’t harm them. We can’t send them away in boxcars, or to camps. We can’t shoot them or imprison them. Even though theses are the things they say they want to do to us.

So…what do we do to defend ourselves—our families, our heritage, our humanity, our blue and green world—our beautiful Land of the Free and Home of the Brave?

We laugh at them.Ridicule them.Mock them.
Challenge them, call them liars, call them names of shame and blame.

But don’t—EVER—for one thin moment or instance, EVER believe them.
Take them seriously, as you would any lethal threat. Yes.

But laugh in their faces. And ignore them thereafter—ANYthing they say, print, or screen. Minimize and kick to the curb, their feverish, panicky lies, their perverted Fake News,  and their false, self-destructive, phony world of an ash-filled, burning Nemesis.

Monday, December 5, 2016

Measuring Sea Level Is a Suspect Art?

 Image result for al gore a liar

A catastrophic rise in sea level is one of the calamities anticipated by those who believe in climate change.  The believers and the skeptics can carry on a scientific discussion about this matter only if they actually know what the current sea level is and how it has been behaving.  Both sides tend to accept that data published by NASA and NOAA regarding measured year-to-year changes in sea level fit the bill.  But are those numbers accurate and scientifically credible?  Conceptual problems associated with identifying sea level combined with the technological limitations on how we go about taking measurements make that unlikely.

NOAA and NASA claim that sea level is currently rising about an eighth of an inch per year.  This is more or less equivalent to the stack height of just two quarters.  However, neither of the two measurement systems upon which estimates of sea level rely can measure so precisely.  The two measurement systems are tide gauges in coastal areas and satellite pings over the oceans.  Neither can record measurements of sea level to a level of precision any better than a few inches.

This problem of instrumental crudity is overcome by assuming that measurement imprecision is unbiased in its distribution and that a large number of measurements taken in a very short span of time can be averaged together to yield an estimate of sea level that is both more precise and more accurate than the actual data obtained from the individual instruments.

With this as introduction, consider some of the problems associated with measuring sea level.  First, the sea does not lie flat.  It never lies flat.  Waves or swells constantly vary the height of the sea surface, and that variation typically exceeds a foot or two at least a handful of times every minute.  Even when the sea appears to be calm, the subtle undulations of passing swells work the same magic.  But usually the sea is not calm, and actual sea level height at any particular point is unpredictable.

Tides are marginally more predictable, but they change the level of the sea perhaps twice as much on average as do waves and swells.  They do so at a slower pace – alternating between peaks and valleys only once or twice a day – but when trying to ascertain the global average sea level for a year, this is still an enormous amount of noise to filter out of the computation. 

The practice of averaging multiple measurements to improve instrumental precision may be appropriate, but it is not appropriate when scientists use the same approach for canceling out the effects of waves and swells and tides.  A computed average (mean) deserves credibility only if the data values are distributed normally (so as to describe the well known bell-shaped curve).  But waves and swells and tides clearly do not vary sea level according to this limitation.  Instead, they linger at the extremes (e.g., high and low tides) and quickly pass by the middle range, where the computed average is bound to fall.  

A second problem for measuring sea level is that there is no way to determine whether it is the same for different locations.  One theoretically logical way of doing so would be to express it as a specified distance from the exact center of the Earth.  But the earth is not a perfect sphere – its diameter at the equator is thirteen miles greater than its diameter measured from pole to pole – and even as an oblate spheroid the earth is less than perfect since the northern and southern hemispheres are not mirror images.

This line of abstract thought may seem unproductive, but to pursue it brings one to the realization that absolute sea level at one location is hard to compare to that of another location.  And yet, if we are to know the global average sea level, do we not need to have some credible method for making such comparisons?

A third measurement problem is that the Earth's land masses are not stationary.  Geologists believe that the Earth's crust floats on a superheated liquefied rock known as the mantle.  The viscosity of the mantle is much greater than that of water but nonetheless retains enough fluidity that the relatively rigid crust floats on it.  This means that a local alteration in the weight of the crust will cause it to float higher or settle deeper in the underlying mantle.  To complicate things, the relative rigidity of the crust means that a shift up or down in one locale inevitably triggers an opposing vertical movement in peripheral areas.

When the northern half of North America lost all its ice at the end of the last glacial period around 12,000 years ago, the weight of the underlying crust was greatly diminished.  The affected region buoyed upward many hundreds of feet over the course of the ensuing millennia.  The adjustment continues even today, although at a much slower rate than it did early on.  This is an example (albeit a dramatic one) of a process that is still ongoing in much of Europe and North America.  Consider what it means for measuring sea level. 

But ice and its disappearance are not the only way that the thickness of the crust gets altered.  In many regions – both on land and under the sea – the crust is being thickened by the forces that make mountains, and everywhere on land weathering and erosion continually operate to grade the continent back down to sea level.  In the process, the removed overburden gets transported some distance and ends up back in the ocean.  In short, the forces of geomorphology are constantly altering the thickness of the Earth's crust most everywhere. 

These additions to and subtractions from the thickness of the crust tend to concentrate in coastal areas, where the question of sea level has its relevance.  Also, the forces of uplift and mountain building can and do occur in the relatively thin crust beneath the sea, so a reconfiguration of the ocean bottom may cause a rise in sea level not due to an increased water volume.

Vertical movements of the crust do occur, and there is no system in place that can measure their direction or magnitude.  In short, even if we can very precisely measure the changing relationship between a coastline and the ocean, we usually cannot evaluate how much of that change is due to a rise or fall of the ocean and how much is due to vertical movement of the crust.

These complications (and many others) challenge the credibility of any numbers claiming to tabulate the exact amount of annual sea level change.  Those official numbers may be correct, but don't bet the farm on it.  And even if they are correct, there is no assurance that they indicate a changing amount of water in the ocean.