You seem surprised a documentary did less at the box office than a cartoon and several super hero movies?
His first movie was much more successful. This one is going to be out of the theaters and sold as DVD (to not many) REAL quick. The only reason it's successful as it is, is the Goregasm put on by CNN.
http://www.hiedb.org/nelha/ right here in Kailua kona, just before the airport heading north. they pump water up from 3000 feet. nutrient rich and super clean waters. besides experimental energy production , the park is home to many start up companies in aquaculture that take advantage of the cold ocean waters to grow commercially Maine lobsters, Alaskan halibut, clams, abalone and oysters to name a few. these species would be impossible to produce here without the cold water. a Japanese bottling company takes advantage to distill the pure waters and market the freshwater product as a premium bottled water. they are the largest plant here and likely the most successful as they are in constant expansion seems. microalgaes like spirulana are produced for the cosmetic and health food industries on a large scale too. also big business. sea horses are raised and breed here as the only source of successful breeding when they started. when the intensive aquaculture of shrimp in southeast asai crashed due to disease, the big islands isolation and shrimp farms in nelha allowed for us to become the only producer of disease free broodstock to rebuild those industries world wide. some of the exciting experiments that are proving up include cooling the soils with the seawater to allow temperate regions fruits and vegetable production here in the tropics.
Geez, the Montreal Protocol was such a terrible regulation. Why would we have believed these silly scientists and their made up data. http://www.sciencealert.com/turns-o...est-thing-we-ever-did-to-fight-climate-change Oh wait..
Denny, serious question. If it is true, and I believe it so, that some scientists have political agendas and will vote to support them over what they actually believe to be the truth, then how could you EVER expect a 100% consensus on anything? What you are requiring in order to turn "science" into science is not possible.
There is consensus that 2 hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom make up a water molecule. Pretty sure it's 100% consensus, too. You don't have to take a poll, get people to sign petitions, etc., when it comes to scientific truth. Really, stop and think about what a "consensus" is - it's a political thing, a vote. Science isn't about votes, opinion, or politics. You might want to look at the history of scientific activism. Prior to WW II, scientists had no political agenda, at least in the main stream. Then toward the end of the War, Einstein and a few other top scientists wrote to FDR that we needed to build The Bomb. Riddled with guilt after it was used, these (and more) scientists urged a political agenda - to create an international organization to take control of the nukes. It grew from there. Ike waned about the military-industrial complex. He intended that to be "military-industrial-science" complex before altering the speech in the end. His warning has proven to be spot on. What these three things have in common is government funding and they drive political action. I'm a believer in science. I know it when I see it. Consensus and badly constructed climate models and altered data and collusion to obtain desired results are not examples of good science. FWIW, I have no doubt the earth is warming. The doubt is in the pseudo-science that says it's man made or that we can do something about it. What's far more believable is that scientists are interested in protecting and obtaining larger grants, and that scientists are humans and have political leanings. What's obvious is the cost of "fixing" this "problem" are radical changes to political organization of governments and the most massive spending programs in the history of the planet. Unjustified spending.
Okay, well taken in that context then has it been proven 100% that we are NOT expediting the problem of global warming? I mean, where is the 100% info that we are not in part to blame? Wouldn't you think that if it has not yet been proven 100% either way, that it can still be possible.. either way?
I think the argument has to be convincing, not made from flawed climate models and math tricks. There was a mini ice age in the medieval period. It's well documented that people froze to death, crops froze, etc., from it. Yet today's "science" uses math tricks to show that never happened. How can this evidence be convincing?
Im not sure I follow you regarding math tricks. Arent numbers about as black and white as it gets? If it adds up, it adds up, if not, it doesnt. Are math tricks also used to distort the mini ice age INTO existing? Not saying either or, just saying that it should be able to go both ways no? Meaning that anti global warmers can use the same math tricks right?
I just posted two graphs. They aren't using the black and white numbers. They're applying algorithms to the data sets to achieve their desired results. In this case below, to show a bigger increase in temperature by lowering the temperatures in the past.
Plus look at the graph above. If you showed the temps from 1920 to 1970, it would look like massive global cooling. If you change the scale on the left from .5 degrees to .1, the changes appear much larger visually. Similarly, if you changed the scale to 5 degrees, the graph would be a flat line. So yeah, math tricks.
More math tricks, from the graph I already posted: Red is the math trick, blue is the actual. How come they don't agree?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214242817300426?showall=true&via=ihub Abstract Time-series profiles derived from temperature proxies such as tree rings can provide information about past climate. Signal analysis was undertaken of six such datasets, and the resulting component sine waves used as input to an artificial neural network (ANN), a form of machine learning. By optimizing spectral features of the component sine waves, such as periodicity, amplitude and phase, the original temperature profiles were approximately simulated for the late Holocene period to 1830 CE. The ANN models were then used to generate projections of temperatures through the 20th century. The largest deviation between the ANN projections and measured temperatures for six geographically distinct regions was approximately 0.2 °C, and from this an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of approximately 0.6 °C was estimated. This is considerably less than estimates from the General Circulation Models (GCMs) used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and similar to estimates from spectroscopic methods. A note from one of the authors: Because after applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000 year-long proxy-temperature series we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution. Over the last few years, I’ve worked with Dr John Abbot using artificial neural networks (ANN) to forecast monthly rainfall. We now have a bunch of papers in international climate science journals showing these forecasts to be more skilful than output from general circulation models. During the past year, we’ve extended this work to estimating what global temperatures would have been during the twentieth century in the absence of human-emission of carbon dioxide. We began by deconstructing the six-proxy series from different geographic regions – series already published in the mainstream climate science literature. One of these, the Northern Hemisphere composite series begins in 50 AD, ends in the year 2000, and is derived from studies of pollen, lake sediments, stalagmites and boreholes. Typical of most such temperature series, it zigzags up and down while showing two rising trends: the first peaks about 1200 AD and corresponds with a period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), while the second peaks in 1980 and then shows decline. In between, is the Little Ice Age (LIA), which according to the Northern Hemisphere composite bottomed-out in 1650 AD. (Of course, the MWP corresponded with a period of generally good harvests in England – when men dressed in tunics and built grand cathedrals with tall spires. It preceded the LIA when there was famine and the Great Plague of London.) Ignoring for the moment the MWP and LIA, you might want to simply dismiss this temperature series on the basis it peaks in 1980: it doesn’t continue to rise to the very end of the record: to the year 2000? In fact, this decline is typical of most such proxy reconstructions – derived from pollen, stalagmites, boreholes, coral cores and especially tree rings. Within mainstream climate science the decline after 1980 is referred to as “the divergence problem”, and then hidden. In denial of this problem, leading climate scientists have been known to even graft temperature measurements from thermometers onto the proxy record after 1980 to literally ‘hide the decline’. Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, aptly described the technique as a ‘trick’. Grafting thermometer data onto the end of the proxy record generally ‘fixes’ the problem after 1980, while remodelling effectively flattens the Medieval Warm Period. There are, however, multiple lines of evidence indicating it was about a degree warmer across Europe during the MWP – corresponding with the 1200 AD rise in our Northern Hemisphere composite. In fact, there are oodles of published technical papers based on proxy records that provide a relatively warm temperature profile for this period. This was before the Little Ice Age when it was too cold to inhabit Greenland.
^^^ Get it? Math tricks to hide the decline, as I posted earler. The really big item in the study is that global temperatures were a degree warmer centuries before Industrialization.
Another tidbit from the author. http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/recent-warming-natural/ In our new paper in GeoResJ, we not only use the latest techniques in big data to show that there would very likely have been significant warming to at least 1980 in the absence of industrialisation, we also calculate an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of 0.6°C. This is the temperature increase expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. This is an order of magnitude less than estimates from General Circulation Models, but in accordance from values generated from experimental spectroscopic studies, and other approaches reported in the scientific literature [9,10,11,12,13,14]. The science is far from settled. In reality, some of the data is ‘problematic’, the underlying physical mechanisms are complex and poorly understood, the literature voluminous, and new alternative techniques (such as our method using ANNs) can give very different answers to those derived from General Circulation Models and remodelled proxy-temperature series. While I'm not a fan of models, as I've stated many times before, at least theirs actually predicts the past quite accurately.
