Thursday, December 29, 2016
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.
|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.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”.
“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.”
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.
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.
Monday, December 12, 2016
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?
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.
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
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.