MIT Scientist Debunks Global Warming Hysteria

[ding]

It was a chance to trace the basinal brines that lead to the emplacement of the deposits. As simple as that. That's the kind of stuff one does for graduate work.

The idea was that overlying some of these deposits the kerogen that was dispersed in the shales may show signs of successive pulses of hot basinal brines. This should show up in paths of higher thermal maturity. In my case I was mostly looking at the various indicators of thermal maturity (increased C=C bonds in the IR or loss of C-H functional groups). There are other means as well that have been utilized, like illite crystallinity.

The goal is to determine what mechanisms were in place to account for the Pb Zn mineralization. One of the coolest papers I found was looking at the changes in galena crystallography as different fluids pulsed in with different chemical features causing a change in added layers of galena on galena crystals in these formations.

It's a neat application of organic geochem. Later on I worked extensively with coal and tracked thermal maturation using IR but also looking at things like vitrinite reflectance (a pretty standard technique) for applications using coal, not for coal exploration. That was what pushed me ultimately over into straight-up chemistry. I was spending most of my time making materials from coal and chemically treating it to see how it altered it. The same sort of stuff can be done when looking at intrusions near coal beds (or presumably any dispersed organic). In the case of intrusions near a coal bed there's thermal markers in the coal that occur both optically (vitrinite reflectance) and chemically.

For what commercial purpose?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Are you suggesting climate hasn’t always changed?

Climate changes for a reason. That's the key.

In the past we know that the reasons were purely "natural". So we learned from paleoclimate studies how nature shifted the climate. The problem is, that none of those "natural" forcings can be lined up to account for the warming we see TODAY. That is when we started to seriously consider human activities which are KNOWN to put things in the atmosphere or otherwise alter our energy budget leading to warming.

The ONLY reason YOU know anything about the past climate of the earth is due to the same research that says today's climate is largely being warmed due to human activities.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

what I've seen, the MMGW crowd can't seem to grasp the scientific fact that correlation is not necessarily causation.

Would that be the global scientific community?

Have you told them this? Won't they be surprised!

 

[Orangecat]

Would that be the global scientific community?

Have you told them this? Won't they be surprised!

Stfu, fool.

 

[jc456]

Data you have seen here dozens of times before.

View attachment 645416

Climate Change Indicators: Climate Forcing | US EPA

This indicator measures the “radiative forcing” or heating effect caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

www.epa.gov

For the five thousand years prior to the Industrial Revolution, temperatures were slowly falling

View attachment 645419

I know, groundhog day

 

[jc456]

Climate changes for a reason. That's the key.

In the past we know that the reasons were purely "natural". So we learned from paleoclimate studies how nature shifted the climate. The problem is, that none of those "natural" forcings can be lined up to account for the warming we see TODAY. That is when we started to seriously consider human activities which are KNOWN to put things in the atmosphere or otherwise alter our energy budget leading to warming.

The ONLY reason YOU know anything about the past climate of the earth is due to the same research that says today's climate is largely being warmed due to human activities.

I’ve been waiting along with others in here for how warm 120 PPM of CO2 is? Why can’t you guys provide that science?

 

[Dagosa]

May142022

MIT Scientist Debunks Global Warming Hysteria​

We need to alert Nina Jankowicz at once. Over a decade ago, the Boston Globe committed misinformation, and YouTube has failed to remove it from public view. MIT Professor of Meteorology Richard Lindzen calmly dismantling the global warming hoax has escaped the censors since 2010.
As he explains, and as schoolchildren used to understand, there has always been climate change. This is a problem only to the extent our rulers make it into one. The notion that the seas are rising up to swallow us is false, which is easily confirmed by the beachfront mansions of our warmist ruling class (e.g., Al Gore, Barack Obama, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos).
A few key quotes:

What it seems like is an orchestrated campaign to manipulate fools by striking fear in them. Covid serves as an example of how effective this tactic can be.

A dozen years later, the hottest city in the USA is also the fastest growing. People would be dumping property in Phoenix if they thought it would get much hotter here. Instead, property values are shooting into the stratosphere.

Every time there is a forest fire or a weather event, the mainstream media/Democrat Party axis blames global warming. By now, only the pathologically gullible believe it.
The fallacious tactic is known as “passing from the acceptable to the dubious.” Temperatures appear to be trending warmer; human activity may have an effect. Con artists jump from there to crises that are imaginary, unrelated, or absurdly exaggerated.
They should have stuck with the global cooling crisis they pushed in the 70s. After all, “if you want a disaster, having 2 miles of ice on your head is problematic — and the earth has had that.”
Here Professor Lindzen puts his finger on why climate change dogma has replaced science among scientists:

Big Government has an obvious interest in propping up a phony crisis the purpose of which is to justify government control over all human activity.



No wonder Big Tech is cracking down, as censors turn their attention to climate change. The Democrat agenda calls for radically reducing both our freedom and our standard of living in the name of a hoax that doesn’t pass the laugh test when challenged.

All links are highlighted


A glorious future in a fortified democracy awaits us all comrades !

View attachment 644794

No one with any brains reads this tripe.

 

[Sunsettommy]

There's no error. A salt diapir is another name for a salt dome.



See? "Salt dome".


I used the correct term, troll. Now go away.

Post 262:

"Yes, it is a geologic term but Salt Domes and Diapir isn't the same thing you are confused here lady."

You never addressed the difference.

Post 264:

"Salt dome is more accurate since Diapirs can be caused by different materials not just Salt.

Wikipedia

"Rock types such as evaporitic salt deposits, and gas charged muds are potential sources of diapirs. Diapirs also form in the earth's mantle when a sufficient mass of hot, less dense magma assembles. Diapirism in the mantle is thought to be associated with the development of large igneous provinces and some mantle plumes."

POST 268:

I know that but you still missed my point since Salt is just one of the possible material involved in a Diapir

=====

You wrote at POST 257:

Not me. I was taught both dome and diapir. I like diapir better.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Diapir is a GEOLOGICAL description of an intrusive body moving upward towards the surface.

Britannica

"diapir, (from Greek diapeirein, “to pierce”), geological structure consisting of mobile material that was forced into more brittle surrounding rocks, usually by the upward flow of material from a parent stratum. The flow may be produced by gravitational forces (heavy rocks causing underlying lighter rocks to rise), tectonic forces (mobile rocks being squeezed through less mobile rocks by lateral stress), or a combination of both."

Gas and Fluid,

Mud,

Salt,

LINK

=====

You are a freaking joke!

 

[Crick]

I’ve been waiting along with others in here for how warm 120 PPM of CO2 is? Why can’t you guys provide that science?

Here you go. The current average temperature of all the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is 13.9C (57F) but it's slowly growing warmer.

 

[ding]

Here you go. The current average temperature of all the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is 13.9C (57F) but it's slowly growing warmer.

Where is that from?

 

[Crick]

Where is that from?

Science. Don't you recognize it?

 

[ding]

Science. Don't you recognize it?

I can't put anything past you. If I knew where you had gotten that from I wouldn't have asked you where you got that from.

Did you get it from a secret place?

 

[Crick]

I can't put anything past you. If I knew where you had gotten that from I wouldn't have asked you where you got that from.

Did you get it from a secret place?

Use your head. If I told you to find the temperature of all the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, what easily found value could you actually look for that would give you the answer?

 

[jc456]

No one with any brains reads this tripe.

You prove you don’t have one then.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Stfu, fool.

No no no! You have stumbled upon a great discovery!

Shall I give you the email address of a climate scientist?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Use your head. If I told you to find the temperature of all the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, what easily found value could you actually look for that would give you the answer?

Obviously, you don't know thus once again you are thinking like a warmist/alarmist KOOK

 

[ding]

Use your head. If I told you to find the temperature of all the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, what easily found value could you actually look for that would give you the answer?

I would assume the average air temperature. But was that the question he was asking?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Post 262:

"Yes, it is a geologic term but Salt Domes and Diapir isn't the same thing you are confused here lady."

You never addressed the difference.

Post 264:

"Salt dome is more accurate since Diapirs can be caused by different materials not just Salt.

Wikipedia

"Rock types such as evaporitic salt deposits, and gas charged muds are potential sources of diapirs. Diapirs also form in the earth's mantle when a sufficient mass of hot, less dense magma assembles. Diapirism in the mantle is thought to be associated with the development of large igneous provinces and some mantle plumes."

POST 268:

I know that but you still missed my point since Salt is just one of the possible material involved in a Diapir

=====

You wrote at POST 257:



BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Diapir is a GEOLOGICAL description of an intrusive body moving upward towards the surface.

Britannica

"diapir, (from Greek diapeirein, “to pierce”), geological structure consisting of mobile material that was forced into more brittle surrounding rocks, usually by the upward flow of material from a parent stratum. The flow may be produced by gravitational forces (heavy rocks causing underlying lighter rocks to rise), tectonic forces (mobile rocks being squeezed through less mobile rocks by lateral stress), or a combination of both."

Gas and Fluid,

View attachment 647443


Mud,

View attachment 647444

Salt,

View attachment 647445

LINK

=====

You are a freaking joke!

Salt diapir is a perfectly legitimate term.

STFU. Troll.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Salt diapir is a perfectly legitimate term.

STFU. Troll.

Never said it wasn't.

You as usual don't allow the evidence presented show that Salt Domes and Diapir are NOT the same thing since it is a geological description that has different kinds of material in it.

You can't even understand this easy-to-understand definition at all:

"diapir, (from Greek diapeirein, “to pierce”), geological structure consisting of mobile material that was forced into more brittle surrounding rocks, usually by the upward flow of material from a parent stratum. The flow may be produced by gravitational forces (heavy rocks causing underlying lighter rocks to rise), tectonic forces (mobile rocks being squeezed through less mobile rocks by lateral stress), or a combination of both."

Try turning your small brain on...... for once.

 

[Orangecat]

No no no! You have stumbled upon a great discovery!

Shall I give you the email address of a climate scientist?

Stfu, fool.