The intelligent readers of this thread are clearly waiting in vain for you to answer just one of our questions. Stop your silly squirming and answer the question.
The intelligent readers of this thread will know that you don't really believe the junk that is man-made climate change any more than I do. For that reason you know what you can do with your "questions". I am not squirming - I am avoiding what supposes to pass for debate with you scammers. If you were interested in debate you would do so such as with the post above about "U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions to Form New World Economy", but as usual you cherry pick a line and avoid the issue. Most intelligent readers know your m.o. by now and so avoid your tiresome pretence at being a believer in the global warming scam. I will keep on posting good news of the increasing spread of the knowledge that man made climate change is a lie and will not be "debating" the issue with you any more than I would waste my time with a flat-Earther or a 9/11 Truth Critic (which of course is what you really are).
Why don't you re-read your own post and look at which line you cherry picked from that article for if you do you'll see it is the same line to which I refer.
And what a tell-tale line! Not only is the author guilty of gross distortion but your own attempt to highlight it proves you have no idea of what the science is and why the author is stupid beyond belief to even write it.
So, I'll ask for a third time (to which no doubt you'll blub even more), why is the reasoning behind that quote wrong? This is very simple stuff. Why are you struggling with it? (as if I didn't know)
Lorne Gunter: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof
Posted: October 20, 2008, 10:26 AM by Kelly McParland
In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.
Still, the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures -- they're going down, not up.
On the same day (Sept. 5) that areas of southern Brazil were recording one of their latest winter snowfalls ever and entering what turned out to be their coldest September in a century, Brazilian meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart explained that extreme cold or snowfall events in his country have always been tied to "a negative PDO" or Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Positive PDOs -- El Ninos -- produce above-average temperatures in South America while negative ones -- La Ninas -- produce below average ones.
Dr. Hackbart also pointed out that periods of solar inactivity known as "solar minimums" magnify cold spells on his continent. So, given that August was the first month since 1913 in which no sunspot activity was recorded -- none -- and during which solar winds were at a 50-year low, he was not surprised that Brazilians were suffering (for them) a brutal cold snap. "This is no coincidence," he said as he scoffed at the notion that manmade carbon emissions had more impact than the sun and oceans on global climate.
Also in September, American Craig Loehle, a scientist who conducts computer modelling on global climate change, confirmed his earlier findings that the so-called Medieval Warm Period (MWP) of about 1,000 years ago did in fact exist and was even warmer than 20th-century temperatures.
Prior to the past decade of climate hysteria and Kyoto hype, the MWP was a given in the scientific community. Several hundred studies of tree rings, lake and ocean floor sediment, ice cores and early written records of weather -- even harvest totals and censuses --confirmed that the period from 800 AD to 1300 AD was unusually warm, particularly in Northern Europe.
But in order to prove the climate scaremongers' claim that 20th-century warming had been dangerous and unprecedented -- a result of human, not natural factors -- the MWP had to be made to disappear. So studies such as Michael Mann's "hockey stick," in which there is no MWP and global temperatures rise gradually until they jump up in the industrial age, have been adopted by the UN as proof that recent climate change necessitates a reordering of human economies and societies.
Dr. Loehle's work helps end this deception.
Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, says, "It's practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling," as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase. His examination of warming and cooling trends over the past four centuries shows an "almost exact correlation" between climate fluctuations and solar energy received on Earth, while showing almost "no correlation at all with CO2."
An analytical chemist who works in spectroscopy and atmospheric sensing, Michael J. Myers of Hilton Head, S. C., declared, "Man-made global warming is junk science," explaining that worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year "equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration ... This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number."
Other international scientists have called the manmade warming theory a "hoax," a "fraud" and simply "not credible."
While not stooping to such name-calling, weather-satellite scientists David Douglass of the University of Rochester and John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville nonetheless dealt the True Believers a devastating blow last month.
For nearly 30 years, Professor Christy has been in charge of NASA's eight weather satellites that take more than 300,000 temperature readings daily around the globe. In a paper co-written with Dr. Douglass, he concludes that while manmade emissions may be having a slight impact, "variations in global temperatures since 1978 ... cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide."
Moreover, while the chart below was not produced by Douglass and Christy, it was produced using their data and it clearly shows that in the past four years -- the period corresponding to reduced solar activity -- all of the rise in global temperatures since 1979 has disappeared.
[img]http://www.nationalpost.com/893554.bin[/img]
It may be that more global warming doubters are surfacing because there just isn't any global warming.
Some excellent comments at the bottom of the article. This is a gem:-
Quote:
by Fred . . .Oct 20 200811:34 AM
Lorne,
You have to get the nomenclature right . . . when you refer to people who do not believe the AGW theory, you are taking about Heretics, not Deniers.
Since the Believers operate on Faith, so the people who trust the data rather than Al Gore or David Suzuki must be Heretics.
In a previous era I'd be worried about being burned at the stake for being a Heretic, but the Believers, or if you will the WarmOngers, wouldn't dare light a fire and emit CO2.
Or should I be worried that they'll still burn me a the stake and just buy some Carbon Credits to be guilt free ?
Antarctic Sea Ice Up Over 43% Since 1980, Where Is The Media?
Written by Global Warming Hoax
Tuesday, 07 April 2009
Sea ice at Antarctica is up over 43% since 1980 and we hear nothing in the news, yet Arctic ice is down less than 7% and they're all over it! We've been waiting for the main stream media to pick up on the increase of Antarctic ice but so far they're been totally absent. Guess its doesn't fit the plan.
Still no sign of the national media on the extraordinary growth of sea ice at the antarctic. They sure haven't missed a chance to point out the relatively small loss of ice at the arctic. Did did it ever occur to them that perhaps there is a natural process at work that has shifted ice growth from one pole to the other? Do they not want to admit that there are things man doesn't yet understand about how this planet works?
Remember that some of the “models” predicted increased antarctic ice, but they predicted increased “interior ice” due to increased snow fall. None of the models predicted increased sea ice around the antarctic. Yet that is what we have, and not just a little increase but a 43% increase since 1980!. This is highly significant yet hardly anyone in the main stream media (MSM) is talking about it.
Sea ice is much different than interior ice. Some of the models predicted increased ice over the interior of antarctic. If you've ever lived in the extreme cold temperature regions you already understand this. When it gets very cold the air become drier and it snows less, as the temperature warms towards freezing it actually snows more. Since the antarctic rarely even gets close to freezing its understandable that warming would cause more snow fall. Over time compacted snow would lead to more ice. But that is not what is happening here. We're seeing a dramatic increase in “sea ice”, this ice is over the ocean. Sea ice is caused by colder temperatures, not by increased snow fall. An increase of 43% is highly significant, but we hear nothing from either the MSM or the scientific community. Especially compared to the out 6%-7% decrease at the arctic (this isn't year over year, this is a 6% decline since 1980!).
Antarctic Sea Ice for March
Extent Concentration
2009 5.0 million sq km 2.9 million sq km
1997 3.8 million sq km 2.2 million sq km
1980 3.5 million sq km 2.0 million sq km
This is an increase of 45% for ice concentration since 1980. This continues a long trend that has been noted here for several months..
Interior ice is also increasing but not due to warming as the models have predicted. According to NOAA GISS data winter temperatures in the antarctic have actually fallen by 1°F since 1957, with the coldest year being 2004. All the while global CO2 levels have gone up and the main stream media has been reporting near catastrophic warming conditions. They regularly show Antarctic sea ice shelves breaking apart, which is an entirely normal process (though they never tell you that part). The main stream media and certain segments of the scientific community truly must have no shame.
If you have doubts about the increase in ice you can run the numbers yourself at the National Snow and Ice Data Center's website (part of the University of Colorado and funded by the National Science Foundation).
And if you want to read something really amusing take a gander at Michael Asher Blog about climate modelers trying to explain antarctic warming.... agh .. cooling....agh... warming it's delightful.
It makes as much sense as "as the tea leaves have predicted". That is the tea leaves which have been arranged to give an output as required. _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
By Seth Borenstein Associated Press
Originally published 11:13 a.m., April 8, 2009
WASHINGTON -- The president's new science adviser said today that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.
John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.
"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."
Holdren outlined several "tipping points" involving global warming that could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said.
Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."
At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions.
Holdren, a 65-year-old physicist, is far from alone in taking geoengineering more seriously. The National Academy of Science is making climate tinkering the subject of its first workshop in its new multidiscipline climate challenges program. The British parliament has also discussed the idea.
The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement on geoengineering that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment."
Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically.
But Holdren noted that shooting particles into the air -- making an artificial volcano as one Nobel laureate has suggested -- could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly, he said.
Still, "we might get desperate enough to want to use it," he added.
Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide -- the chief human-caused greenhouse gas -- out of the air and store it. At first that seemed prohibitively expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less costly, he said.
WE'RE DOOMED - WE'RE ALL DOOMED
And my what big teeth you have grandmother...... _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:05 pm Post subject:
Mr-Bridger wrote:
Antarctic Sea Ice Up Over 43% Since 1980, Where Is The Media?
Written by Global Warming Hoax
Tuesday, 07 April 2009
Sea ice at Antarctica is up over 43% since 1980 and we hear nothing in the news, yet Arctic ice is down less than 7% and they're all over it! We've been waiting for the main stream media to pick up on the increase of Antarctic ice but so far they're been totally absent. Guess its doesn't fit the plan.
Still no sign of the national media on the extraordinary growth of sea ice at the antarctic. They sure haven't missed a chance to point out the relatively small loss of ice at the arctic. Did did it ever occur to them that perhaps there is a natural process at work that has shifted ice growth from one pole to the other? Do they not want to admit that there are things man doesn't yet understand about how this planet works?
What is it about the threadbare presentations of the professional denier fraternity that appeals to a certain people?
Is it the theatrical thrill of the three card monty huckster?
Who knows, but either way it seems to be related to wanting to believe what they think their eyes are telling them.
Whatever the case, sea ice extent (as measured by area alone as in the rather poor graphics) is a seasonal phenomenon that varies from year to year.
The important figure is not ice area a few inches thick but the mass of multi-year layered sea ice metres thick that is disappearing. The Wilkinson ice shelf (65 ft thick) just detached.
OSLO (Reuters) - An ice bridge which had held a vast Antarctic ice shelf in place for hundreds of years at least shattered on Saturday and may herald a wider collapse linked to global warming, a leading scientist said.
"It's amazing how the ice has ruptured. Two days ago it was intact," David Vaughan, a glaciologist with the British Antarctic Survey, told Reuters of a satellite image of the Wilkins Ice Shelf. "We've waited a long time to see this." The satellite picture, by the European Space Agency (ESA), showed that a 40-km (25 mile) long strip of ice believed to pin the Wilkins Ice Shelf in place had snapped at its narrowest point of about 500 meters wide off the Antarctic Peninsula.
The break left a jumble of huge flat-topped icebergs in the sea. The loss of the ice bridge, which was almost 100 km wide in 1950 and had been in place for hundreds of years at least, could allow ocean currents to wash away more of the Wilkins. "My feeling is that we will lose more of the ice, but there will be a remnant to the south," Vaughan said. The remaining shelf is about the size of Jamaica or the U.S. state of Connecticut.
Temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula, the which snakes up toward South America, have risen by up to about 3 Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit) in the past 50 years, the fastest rate of warming in the Southern Hemisphere. "We believe the warming on the Antarctic Peninsula is related to global climate change, though the links are not entirely clear," Vaughan said. Antarctica's response to warming will go a long way to deciding the pace of global sea level rise.
Nine other shelves have receded or collapsed around the Antarctic Peninsula in the past 50 years, often abruptly like the Larsen A in 1995 or the Larsen B in 2002 further north, and shrinking maps of the frozen continent. The trend is widely blamed on climate change caused by heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels.
Vaughan landed on the narrow ice bridge, which jutted about 20 meters above the sea, in January with a group of scientists and two Reuters reporters. He predicted that it would snap this year.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:18 pm Post subject:
item7 wrote:
Quote:
...as the models have predicted
It makes as much sense as "as the tea leaves have predicted". That is the tea leaves which have been arranged to give an output as required.
What makes much more sense is that you don't understand either the flashy graphics you're shown or who's punting them at you, knowing full well you'll not understand them.
Global Warming Hoax indeed. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Antarctic Sea Ice Up Over 43% Since 1980, Where Is The Media?
If you stop reading Globalwarminghoax and start looking at the real science pages you'll discover how false this is.
The antarctic is very different to the arctic as displayed in their sea ice patterns. The amount of arctic sea ice shows a decreasing trend for the last 30 years. The antarctic trend shows little change in its oscillation. The graphs below highlight this. Remember, and I probably have to spell this out for item7, I use the word trend which is different to comparing exact figures which from year to year can show differences that are easy targets for deniers to create twisted articles about.
Lorne Gunter: Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof
Posted: October 20, 2008, 10:26 AM by Kelly McParland
In early September, I began noticing a string of news stories about scientists rejecting the orthodoxy on global warming. Actually, it was more like a string of guest columns and long letters to the editor since it is hard for skeptical scientists to get published in the cabal of climate journals now controlled by the Great Sanhedrin of the environmental movement.
Still, the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures -- they're going down, not up.
Well, we've dealt with that particular falsehood many times already in this thread, so no need to go into it again. But what is Gunters other agenda?
Read on .... (though really if you know item7's sources by now there's no great surprise, except this one is more brazen than the rest)
Is there no dataset Loehle can't twist to say what he wants it to?
Apparently not.
What is interesting is that we're now being subjected to pure straight-from-the-horse's-mouth neocon propaganda by item7.
Just as with Bush in the US, no constraints were allowed when it came to the oil industry in Harper's Canada, and Gunter was there to help with that goal.
Tell us again the one about your deniers telling us the "truth", item7.
Because it is funny, no question.
"Straus and 'Western alienation'
"The Calgary School (Calgary being the capital of Alberta the Canadian oil province and Harper powerbase) has successfully hidden its program beneath the complaint of western alienation. "If we've done anything, we've provided legitimacy for what was the Western view of the country," Calgary Schooler Barry Cooper told journalist Marci McDonald in her important Walrus article. "We've given intelligibility and coherence to a way of looking at it that's outside the St. Lawrence Valley mentality."
This is sheer Straussian deception.
On the surface, it's easy to understand Cooper's complaint and the Calgary School's mission. But the message says something very different to those in the know. For 'St. Lawrence Valley mentality,' they read 'the Ottawa-based modern liberal state,' with all the negative baggage it carries for Straussians. And for 'Western view,' they read 'the right-wing attack on democracy.' We've provided legitimacy for the radical-right attack on the Canadian democratic state, Cooper is really saying.
A network is already in place to assist Harper in foisting his radical agenda on the Canadian people.
In 2003, he delivered an important address to a group called Civitas. This secretive organization, which has no web site and leaves little paper or electronic trail, is a network of Canadian neoconservative and libertarian academics, politicians, journalists and think tank propagandists.
Harper's adviser Tom Flanagan is an active member. Conservative MP Jason Kenney is a member, as are Brian Lee Crowley, head of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies and Michel Kelly-Gagnon of the Montreal Economic Institute, the second and third most important right-wing think tanks after the Fraser Institute.
Civitas is top-heavy with journalists to promote the cause. Lorne Gunter of the National Post is president. Members include Janet Jackson (Calgary Sun) and Danielle Smith (Calgary Herald). Journalists Colby Cosh, William Watson and Andrew Coyne (all National Post) have made presentations to Civitas.
Neo-con to Theo-con
The speech Harper gave to Civitas was the source of the charge made by the Liberals during the 2004 election -- sure to be revived in the next election -- that Harper has a scary, secret agenda. Harper urged a return to social conservatism and social values, to change gears from neocon to theocon, in The Report's Ted Byfield's apt but worrisome phrase, echoing visions of a future not unlike that painted in Margaret Atwood's dystopian work, A Handmaid's Tale.
The state should take a more activist role in policing social norms and values, Harper told the assembled conservatives. To achieve this goal, social and economic conservatives must reunite as they have in the U.S., where evangelical Christians and business rule in an unholy alliance. Red Tories must be jettisoned from the party, he said, and alliances forged with ethnic and immigrant communities who currently vote Liberal but espouse traditional family values. This was the successful strategy counselled by the neocons under Ronald Reagan to pull conservative Democrats into the Republican tent.
Movement towards the goal must be "incremental," he said, so the public won't be spooked. Regime change, one step at a time".
Donald Gutstein, is a senior lecturer in the School of Communication at Simon Fraser University
By Seth Borenstein Associated Press
Originally published 11:13 a.m., April 8, 2009
WASHINGTON -- The president's new science adviser said today that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.
John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.
"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."
Holdren outlined several "tipping points" involving global warming that could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said.
Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."
At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions.
Holdren, a 65-year-old physicist, is far from alone in taking geoengineering more seriously. The National Academy of Science is making climate tinkering the subject of its first workshop in its new multidiscipline climate challenges program. The British parliament has also discussed the idea.
The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement on geoengineering that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment."
Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically.
But Holdren noted that shooting particles into the air -- making an artificial volcano as one Nobel laureate has suggested -- could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly, he said.
Still, "we might get desperate enough to want to use it," he added.
Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide -- the chief human-caused greenhouse gas -- out of the air and store it. At first that seemed prohibitively expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less costly, he said.
WE'RE DOOMED - WE'RE ALL DOOMED!!!
"....carbon dioxide -- the chief human-caused greenhouse gas "
"We have plans to tax the air that we breathe. That will make people breathe less and cure the problem. " Saint Al Gore. _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you. Eric Hoffer
James Hansen, head of NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), and Andrew Weaver, lead author of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports, made statements clearly designed to frighten people.
Both men are politically active in climate change and at the forefront of the attempt to convince the world that CO2 is a problem. Their remarks are intended to scare people by threatening impending doom – nothing new - except there is increasing urgency and fear because their message is failing. As Andrew Weaver summarized, ”All those fossil fuel emissions need to be eliminated. And we must do so quickly if we are to have any chance of stabilizing the climate and maintaining human civilization as we know it.”
Hansen increases urgency for action claiming we are on the verge of a tipping point, defined as follows. “Tipping points can occur during climate change when the climate reaches a state such that strong amplifying feedbacks are activated by only moderate additional warming.”
We’re reaching a tipping point, but it’s not the one Hansen anticipates. We’re close to the point where the public and politicians realize they have been totally deceived about the nature and cause of climate change. Even before a shift to concern about the economy polls showed a growing shift in public opinion.
Weaver is also troubled by his own definition of dramatic change occurring. He wrote in a March 24 article, in the Vancouver Sun, “There are many depressing things about being a climate scientist these days. The emerging data is going from bad to worse and the political leadership is still acting as if we have all the time in the world to deal with global warming.”
Yes, it’s depressing but because people are not fooled any more and politicians are not acting as Weaver expects. And yes, emerging data is going from bad to worse, but only because it shows CO2 is not causing warming.
Other remarks by both men indicate their fear. For example, Hansen said, “The democratic process doesn’t seem to be working.”
It’s a bizarre comment from a civil servant prior to his apparently breaking US law (the Hatch Act) again by participating in a public protest at the headquarters of E.ON, a power firm in Coventry, England. The push for elimination of CO2 emissions is failing because, despite his histrionics, democracy is working.
A few days later in the Vancouver Sun article ironically titled “’Environmentalists’ are abandoning science,” Weaver wrote, “The scientific community has a very solid understanding of what is causing global warming: It is overwhelmingly because of the combustion of fossil fuels. Thus, the solution to the problem is as simple as it is daunting: The elimination of fossil fuel use in our economies.”
Weaver claims he and his IPCC colleagues “have been as a clear as we know how about the science and the measures needed.” This is simply not the case. Their rules mean they only look at human causes of climate change. They produce a political summary for policymakers then used to make sure the science report agrees with the summary. (Canada Free Press)
More important, the entire claim of human caused CO2 global warming is based on computer models that simply can’t work.
It’s not surprising Hansen and Weaver are computer modelers; they have the most invested in these claims and the most to lose professionally and politically. I watched over the years as computer modelers took over and dominated climate science, particularly through the IPCC. But as Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton, said in the May 1999 issue of the American Physical Society and still valid today, “They are not yet adequate tools for predicting climate.” However, “If we persevere patiently with observing the real world and improving the models, the time will come when we are able both to understand and to predict. Until then, we must continue to warn the politicians and the public: don’t believe the numbers just because they come out of a supercomputer.”
Or as Pierre Gallois put it, “If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it.” - but more and more people are criticizing it.
Why have two prominent scientists made such unsupportable sensationalist comments? Simple – they’re losing control of their ability to achieve their political objectives. Here is a list of events raising their fears:
• Even the lowest computer model temperature projections have overestimated the reality. They failed to project the cooling that has occurred since 2000.
• That cooling occurred as CO2 levels rose in complete contradiction to IPCC assumptions.
• Scientists doing proper science yet derogatively labeled skeptics by Hansen and Weaver have consistently shown the fallacy in the assumptions and methods of the IPCC.
• The Kyoto Accord has failed and attempts to find a replacement are failing.
• Proponents of the claims of human induced global warming, such as Al Gore, have lost credibility by making money from the sale of carbon credits.
• Increasingly illogical statements, such as the claim that current cooling is due to warming, raise doubts even if you don’t understand the science.
• More and more politicians, such as Northern Ireland’s Sammy Watson and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus are speaking out against global warming claims.
• The real cost of reducing CO2 emissions and the inadequacies of alternative fuels are emerging.
• The public does not see warming as a concern. A Pew Center poll of January 22, 2009 showed it 20th on a list of 20 top priorities. On March 25, 2009 the Gallup Pole reported, “Global warming is clearly the environmental issue of least concern to Americans. In fact, global warming is the only issue for which more Americans say they have little to no concern than say they have a great deal of concern.”
• The growing lack of commitment of the Obama government who they believed would implement their policies. Hansen notes, “he was growing “concerned” over the stance taken by the new US administration on global warming.”
Instead of accepting that their science and proposed actions are wrong they blame the people. Hansen’s comment that democracy isn’t working means it is not doing what he wants. Weaver’s remark that, “The public debate is becoming a caricature” is an arrogant insult and sadly typical of my experience with too many of the climate modelers. The people whose fears and lack of knowledge they exploited and who they thought were too stupid to understand are using democracy to stop the fraud. Hansen and Weaver’s comments disclose their fears as Hoffer predicted.
You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you. Eric Hoffer
That the FCPP is yet another Canadian right-wing business-first think-tank is no surprise, just like it's no surprise that action on global warming is low on most people's list of priorities in the midst of a recession that promises to be more brutal than that of the 1930's. Plans for tomorrow are a luxury when today is a struggle.
That the best political clout they can conjure up are minor politicians from turnip states like Northern Ireland's Sammy Watson (sic - oh the shame!) and the Czech Republic's isolated Vaclev Klaus is indicative.
That they still cling to and proffer as "evidence" Spencer and Christy's "cooling data" mistakes - even after they've been acknowledged and corrected by Spencer and Christy is unforgivable.
You know things are bad when even other right wing journalists expose the charade.
"Naturally each book contained a chapter on the issue of man-made global warming. The first book is The True State of the Planet (Free Press, 1995). The global warming chapter was written by University of Arizona climatologist Robert Balling. The chapter relied heavily on the satellite data which found that the atmosphere had cooled by a statistically significant -0.13 degrees Celsius since 1979. Adjusting for the cooling that resulted from the explosion of Mount Pinatubo that had propelled tons of sulfur particles to stratosphere, Christy calculated a slight warming trend of +0.09 degrees Celsius per decade. This was much less than the models were projecting.
The next volume, Earth Report 2000 (McGraw-Hill, 2000) contained a chapter on global warming by Roy Spencer who was then the senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. Spencer pointed out that recently corrected satellite data found a slight warming trend of +0.01 degrees per decade between 1979 and 1997 and when one included the very warm El Nino year of 1998, the trend rose to +0.06 degrees per decade. This trend was only one-fourth the per - decade trend predicted by the models. Spencer added that various weather balloon temperature datasets showed a cooling trend of between -0.07 and -0.2 degrees per decade.
In 2002 came Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (Prima Publishing). The global warming contributor was University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist John Christy who is also the principal investigator for the satellite temperature measurements. Christy pointed out, "Since 1979, the global temperature trend is a modest +0.06 degrees Celsius per decade through March 2002." The myth about global warming was not that it was not happening, but that it was unlikely to be catastrophic for humanity or the planet. Christy concluded: "No global warming disaster is looming. Humans are causing an increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which will likely cause a very slow rise in global temperatures with which we can easily cope."
So there was a contradiction in climate science. The models projected and the surface thermometer records were showing significant warming. On the other hand, the satellite dataset and various weather balloon datasets showed only very modest warming. Which was right? In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report at the request of the Bush Administration that found that a lot of proxy data indicated that warming was taking place. However, the NAS also noted that the divergence between the satellite data and the thermometer data was troubling. "The finding that surface and troposphere temperature trends have been as different as observed over intervals as long as a decade or two is difficult to reconcile with our current understanding of the processes that control the vertical distribution of temperature in the atmosphere," declared the report. The NAS added, "Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established."
Given this divergence in the various temperature records, climate scientists naturally spent a lot of time and intellectual energy in trying to explain it. In August 2005, Science magazine published three papers that went a long way toward resolving the issue. One paper found that Christy and Spencer had failed to take proper account of satellite drift, which produced a spurious cooling trend to their dataset. Another found that the operation of weather balloons also tended to add spurious cooling to their data. When the corrections were made the satellite and weather balloon datasets were in better agreement with the surface thermometer datasets that showed higher warming trends.
On the day that the studies were released I wrote a column for Reason in which I declared that my skepticism of man-made global warming was at an end. The column was titled, "We're All Global Warmers Now." The first line read: "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up." The bottom line? Christy and Spencer's corrected dataset finds warming of +0.123 degrees per decade. The corrected balloon data tend to support Christy and Spencer. However, the scientific team that found the errors in the satellite data corrects it to find warming of +0.193 degrees per decade. And the surface measurements show a warming trend of 0.15 degrees per decade. In the column, I quote Christy saying, "The new warming trend is still well below ideas of dramatic or catastrophic warming."
Then in May 2006, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a report of which John Christy was a co-author that further reconciled the differences in temperature trends. The report found that "global-average temperature increased at a rate of about 0.12 degrees C per decade since 1958, and about 0.16 degrees C per decade since 1979. In the tropics, temperature increased at about 0.11 degrees C per decade since 1958, and about 0.13 degrees C per decade since 1979." I blogged the report at Reason ' s Hit & Run the day the report was issued. I also noted that Christy told the Washington Post that he has a "minimalist interpretation" of the report because Earth is not heating up rapidly at this point.
Up until the last year or so, the satellite data and weather balloon data pointed to relatively modest global warming much below the trends predicted by most climate models. If those trends were correct then there was no imminent "planetary emergency." When the trends were shown to be incorrect last year, I "converted" into a global warmer. In the past year, a great deal of new evidence-reductions in arctic ice cover, growing Siberian lakes and so forth--has also tended to confirm the conclusion in my mind that man-made global warming may become a problem. Because of this accumulating evidence I am much less certain than Christy and Spencer are that the future warming is unlikely to be a significant problem".
Attempts at biospheric engineering have never worked as expected and deserve to be resisted.
The moral is that there are no easy fixes.
"One way of encouraging algae growth was thought to be by “seeding” the sea with iron filings. Apparently iron encourages fast algae growth.
This is a controversial procedure because we do not quite understand what long term damage we may cause by seeding seas with iron. Nevertheless, overriding objections and even lawsuits from many environmental groups a project has now been completed which seeded about six tonnes of iron into the Southern Ocean. It is called the Lohafex Project.
Now the project results have been analysed. Well, they found out that algae did growth faster than normal, but the next stage – of the algae dying and sinking to the bottom of the sea did not happen, or at least did not happen to a significant extent.
The algae were eaten by copepods (small sea creatures) which were in turn eaten by small crustaceans. Very small amounts of algae died and sank safely to the bottom of the sea, taking the carbon dioxide with them.
It seems that the iron in the particular sea caused the wrong type of algae growth. The experimenters say that they only tested the theory in a very small part of the sea – only 300 square kilometres – and tests in other seas with different conditions may provide more successful results.
What the Lohafex experiment proved is that the scientists conducting it did not really understand the complexity of the sea’s ecosystems. It is reasonable to assume that they chose the sea which they thought would provide optimum conditions, but the experiment failed.
It strikes me as foolish to mess around with ecosystems that you do not fully understand; in fact we do not fully understand most ecosystems and they are best left alone. The experimenters want to seed a much larger area of sea with iron filings – perhaps 40,000 square kilometres. This might well cause irreversible damage; certainly after the Lohafex experiment we cannot predict the outcome with any certainty".
NASA: Clean-air regs, not CO2, are melting the ice cap
Acid-rain countermeasures could drown London
By Lewis Page • Get more from this author
Posted in Environment, 9th April 2009 12:10 GMT
New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain.
Dr Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s - particularly in the Arctic - may have resulted from changes in levels of solid "aerosol" particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level - of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.
Shindell's research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:
Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates.
Meanwhile, levels of black-carbon aerosols (soot, in other words) have been rising, largely driven by greater industrialisation in Asia. Soot, rather than reflecting heat as sulphates do, traps solar energy in the atmosphere and warms things up.
The Arctic is especially subject to aerosol effects, says Shindell, because the planet's main industrialised areas are all in the northern hemisphere and because there's not much precipitation to wash the air clean.
"Right now, in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases," says Shindell.[img][/img]
Mother Nature has been expected to be indifferent to the promotion of man-caused global warming.
The "bear market" in sunspots, and increase in volcanic activity are forcing a significant decline in global temperatures. As with data on solar activity, accumulating evidence on various factors of global cooling will be published by responsible sources.
It is fascinating that two great objectives of authoritarian political ambition - controlling the economy and the climate - are under serious assault at the same time. Natural forces are beginning to condemn the greatest intellectual blunder since the Vatican insisted that the solar system revolved around the earth.
When will the political mania to manage the economy and cure the planet fail? When the public, which can acquire common sense rather quickly, finally says a very convincing "No!".
July 14, 2008
THE POLITICAL SCIENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING
There is forensic accounting and forensic medicine - there could be an urgent need for forensic science. More specifically, geophysics, which encompasses the study of climate change, and until it became politicized, had the integrity that disciplined theoretical and practical research has always earned.
Fortunately, climate has its own history and so does science. Anyone who took a degree in geophysics in the early 1960s knew that explanations about recurring ice ages were controversial. Some lecturers argued that they were triggered by unknown events and were random. Others supported Milankovitch's theory that major climate change was periodic and driven by mechanics of the solar system. This involved regular change in the tilt of the earth towards the sun as well as in its orbit around the sun.
Both change the amount of heat received at the earth's surface. If each summer's melt in the polar regions is greater than each winter's accumulation of ice then the world is in an interglacial warming trend. This has been on for the last 12,000 years, or so.
Until the late 1960s there was not enough evidence to decisively support any explanation of climate change and then the data started coming in. It has, and continues to confirm periodic climate change as proposed by Milankovitch. This automatically condemns notions about random change and therefore that mankind, one way or another, can materially alter the climate. Essentially, the data have been accumulated from ice cores and the record covers some 400,000 years of regular climate change. Also as discussed below, this includes the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.
More recently, the sun's variable output has become measurable by satellite, rather than inferred by sunspot count. This extends the data base indicated by the Maunder Minimum, which was an exceptionally low sunspot count and attendant reduction in energy output that was associated with the bitter cold of the Little Ice Age. Record low temperatures occurred as sunspots essentially disappeared in the late 1600s. Both the sun and the earth have warmed up since. However, since the peak of the 11-year solar cycle in 1990 the count has been declining - implying less heat from the sun and the probability of cooling. Since early in the year, this cycle has been setting some unusually low sunspot counts and seems to be delayed in turning up.
Another event that can have near-term effects on overall temperatures has been the increase in volcanic activity in the Kamchatka Peninsula since late December. Although these eruptions have lifted aerosols to only a modest height of around 10 km it could be enough to provide some cooling. If a big one goes off and ejects stuff higher cooling could be substantial.
The accumulation of evidence had built a solid understanding of the mechanism of actual climate change that most earth scientists have been comfortable with before it became politicized. The purpose of this essay is to point out the corrupt application of science in the service of yet another outbreak of authoritarian politics.
It has happened before. The French Revolution and Napoleonic era recorded particularly virulent social experiments run by neurotic intellectuals. Everything was to be forcefully done in a new way and as Goethe observed:
"Most men only care for science so far as they get a living by it, but they will worship error when it affords them a subsistence."
This has been the case with the promotion of anthropogenic warming. Those who publish opinion that supports the party line earn grants and adulation, while those who publish evidence contrary to the tout are vilified as "deniers".
The promotion about man-caused warming needed to distort the data. The most pervasive propaganda tool was Mann's "Hockey Stick" chart that showed little temperature change from around 1100 to the 1800s when global temperature started its most recent increase. It was essential to get rid of the two extremes - the Medieval Optimum and the Little Ice Age. Even IPCC, the UN dissembler of science, recently admitted that Mann's work was erroneous.
The reason that the Medieval Optimum to around 1300 was eliminated was because the climate was warmer than recent, the economy was not industrialized and there were less than a billion people (UN estimates) on earth. The political theory of warming cannot explain actual climate history, therefore the record was altered.
The other "problem" with the Optimum was that with the warming trend, successful cropgrowing regions moved north as well as up the valleys to higher elevations. For example, prompted by an expanding European population, Greenland was colonized. In so many words, under that long trend of warming the population thrived and increased. The opposite occurred during the subsequent cooling.
Making it even simpler, warm is good and cold is bad, as the Greenland population disaster recorded.
It is worth taking this further. As man moved north into Europe skin pigment diminished in order to absorb more ultra violet light, which is necessary for creating vitamin D. Furthermore, anthropologists explain that the stocky stature of those living in the far north has been a successful adaptation to extreme cold. These examples suggest that modern man has evolved in response to climate change. Neanderthal did not survive the last ice age.
Another distortion involves the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. This has been done by compressing the 400,000-year record onto a chart only about 6 inches along the base. Temperature and the amount of carbon appear to go up and down together. But, when the data are reviewed in thousand-year segments, such as over the last millennium, rising temperature leads the increase in atmospheric carbon by some 400 to 800 years.
Clearly, evidence does not support the popular notion that carbon "causes" warming. Nor does logic. One of the common blunders identified in formal logic is the primitive syllogism, whereby two things that occur at the same time are claimed to be causally related. It's the old roosters causing sunrises syndrome. In this case, self-appointed custodians of the planet's health are committing a massive blunder in logic.
The terminally anxious movement, that is now focused on climate, has gone from weak evidence to distorted evidence on the way to no logic. The result is a new religion that has taken the Biblical notion that procreation is the original sin to the more encompassing catechism that just living and breathing is a sin.
One of the fascinating things about a political frenzy is never having to say you are sorry about the last one. The turn from 1999 to 2000 (Y2K) really got the hysterical classes going. The damage done on that gaffe is difficult to quantify, but there is little doubt about the wreckage left by the mob's insistence about using food in the gas tanks of cars. The movement's rallying cry then was "sustainability". Well, the same movement lead by Al Gore's "I have a nightmare" campaign is preaching that the health of the planet is unsustainable without enormous increases in regulation and taxation.
And then there is the dire threat of rising sea levels. If the arctic is open in the summer, and alpine glaciers have been shrinking - where is all the ice needed to provide the melt to create the specter of ever-higher tides?
For perspective, it's appropriate to go back to conditions at the end of the last ice age. Because of reduced heat being received at the earth the polar regions had accumulated vast amounts of ice that slowly flowed to warmer regions where it melted.
The last ice sheet gouged out Lake Michigan, for example, and over most of its expanse it was more than a mile deep. Next, let's be conservative and note that most of the ice sheet was north of the 48th parallel. All around the planet that amounted to a lot of ice that is no longer there. In changing phase all that ice is now water that has flowed to the seas and it has increased the level proportionately. What isn't in the major bodies of surface and underground water is providing some 70% to 90% of "greenhouse" warming.
Carbon in the atmosphere amounts to only around 350 parts per million, and the amount follows temperature change and this gets back to distorted evidence about climate history itself. Other points include the weird notion that warming trends have not been beneficial to mankind, as well as the one about how the relatively small amount of ice that remains at the late stages of an interglacial is going to significantly increase ocean levels.
It seems that highly-charged emotions that make monumental political frenzies so compelling have been powerful enough to bypass long-standing standards of scientific inquiry. The longrunning thread of rigorous science does not need forensic analysis, but, this version of political science does.
"This has been the case with the promotion of anthropogenic warming. Those who publish opinion that supports the party line earn grants and adulation, while those who publish evidence contrary to the tout are vilified as "deniers". "
But the scammers, with their usual twisting of reality, will claim it is the other way round. Pathetic really.
"The most pervasive propaganda tool was Mann's "Hockey Stick" chart that showed little temperature change from around 1100 to the 1800s when global temperature started its most recent increase. It was essential to get rid of the two extremes - the Medieval Optimum and the Little Ice Age. Even IPCC, the UN dissembler of science, recently admitted that Mann's work was erroneous."
Try telling that to some scammers. A little thing like reality won't get in the way of some warmOngers little game. _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
NASA: Clean-air regs, not CO2, are melting the ice cap
Acid-rain countermeasures could drown London
By Lewis Page • Get more from this author
Posted in Environment, 9th April 2009 12:10 GMT
New research from NASA suggests that the Arctic warming trend seen in recent decades has indeed resulted from human activities: but not, as is widely assumed at present, those leading to carbon dioxide emissions. Rather, Arctic warming has been caused in large part by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain.
Dr Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s - particularly in the Arctic - may have resulted from changes in levels of solid "aerosol" particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level - of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.
Shindell's research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:
Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates.
Meanwhile, levels of black-carbon aerosols (soot, in other words) have been rising, largely driven by greater industrialisation in Asia. Soot, rather than reflecting heat as sulphates do, traps solar energy in the atmosphere and warms things up.
The Arctic is especially subject to aerosol effects, says Shindell, because the planet's main industrialised areas are all in the northern hemisphere and because there's not much precipitation to wash the air clean.
"Right now, in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases," says Shindell.[img][/img]
Don't tell item7 you've posted this because he firmly believes Anthropogenic Global Warming is a myth.
It doesn't really matter which pollutant is causing the problem. The fact is man is causing that pollution and it needs to be controlled.
Don't tell item7 you've posted this because he firmly believes Anthropogenic Global Warming is a myth.
Dead right I do and it doesn't matter if that article is posted or not. Sounds like more twaddle to me. By the way, you are supposed to call it "Climate Change" now that the planet is cooling - you know the logic - global warming is causing colder temperatures.
Quote:
It doesn't really matter which pollutant is causing the problem. The fact is man is causing that pollution and it needs to be controlled.
Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant! It is a life enhancing gas and anyway man's contribution to overall levels are insignificant. No need for any controls. Keep your religion to yourself.
Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed (Hardcover)
by Christopher C. Horner
Product Description
From the author of the New York Times bestselling Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) comes Red Hot Lies, an exposé of the hypocrisy, deceit, and outright lies of the global warming alarmists and the compliant media that support them. Did you know that most scientists are global warming skeptics? Or that environmental alarmists have knowingly promoted false and exaggerated data on global warming? Or that in the Left's efforts to suppress free speech (and scientific research), they have compared global warming dissent with "treason"?
Shocking, frank, and illuminating, Chris Horner's Red Hot Lies explodes as many myths as Al Gore promotes.
From the Inside Flap
Liars--Al Gore, the United Nations, the New York Times. The global warming lobby, relentless in its push for bigger government, more spending, and more regulation, will use any means necessary to scare you out of your wits--as well as your tax dollars and your liberties--with threats of rising oceans, deadly droughts, and unspeakable future consequences of "climate change." In pursuing their anti-energy, anti-capitalist, and pro-government agenda, the global warming alarmists--and unscrupulous scientists who see this scare as their gravy train to federal grants and foundation money--resort to dirty tricks, smear campaigns, and outright lies, abandoning scientific standards, journalistic integrity, and the old-fashioned notions of free speech and open debate. In Red Hot Lies, bestselling author Christopher Horner--himself the target of Greenpeace dirty tricks and alarmist smears--exposes the dark underbelly of the environmental movement. Power-hungry politicians blacklist scientists who reject global warming alarmism. U.S. senators threaten companies that fund climate change dissenters. Mainstream media outlets openly reject the notion of "balance." The occasional unguarded scientist candidly admits the need to twist the facts to paint an uglier picture in order to keep the faucet of government money flowing. In the name of "saving the planet," anything goes. But why the nasty tactics? Why the cover ups, lies, and intimidation? Because Al Gore and his ilk want to use big government at the local, state, federal, and global level to run
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:43 am Post subject:
item7 wrote:
Quote:
Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed (Hardcover)
by Christopher C. Horner
Item7 seems to expect us to believe this "author" is just some random Joe. The reality is that it's more of the same from the same orchestrated campaign.
Why not post a rant from your accountant next, item7?
I'm sure you at least would find it fascinating and yet more "evidence".
Although checking back there must still be some other oil-connected neocons you haven't posted yet. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:09 am Post subject:
Mr-Bridger wrote:
NASA: Clean-air regs, not CO2, are melting the ice cap
Acid-rain countermeasures could drown London
By Lewis Page • Get more from this author
Posted in Environment, 9th April 2009 12:10 GMT
That headline's actually a distortion of what Shindell is saying which is that aerosols have impact in the short term. It specifically doesn't let CO2 off the hook as implied.
"Atmospheric chemists theorize that the climate system may be more responsive to changes in aerosol levels over the next few decades than to changes in greenhouse gas levels, which will have the more powerful effect in coming centuries".
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
US Navy Physicist warns of possibly 'several decades of crushing cold temperatures and global famine'
By Retired U.S. Navy Physicist and Engineer James A. Marusek
2 Apr 09 – Excerpts: “The sun has gone very quiet as it transitions to Solar Cycle 24.
“Since the current transition now exceeds 568 spotless days, it is becoming clear that sun has undergone a state change. It is now evident that the Grand Maxima state that has persisted during most of the 20th century has come to an abrupt end.
“(The sun) might (1) revert to the old solar cycles or (2) the sun might go even quieter into a “Dalton Minimum” or a Grand Minima such as the “Maunder Minimum”. It is still a little early to predict which way it will swing. Each of these two possibilities holds a great threat to our nation.
“We are now at a crossroad. Two paths lie before us. Both are marked with a signpost that reads “Danger”! Down one path lies monstrous solar storms. Down the other path lies several decades of crushing cold temperatures and global famine.”
“Climate change is primarily driven by nature. It has been true in the days of my father and his father and all those that came before us. Because of science, not junk science, we have slowly uncovered some of the fundamental mysteries of nature. Our Milky Way galaxy is awash with cosmic rays. These are high speed charged particles that originate from exploding stars.
“Because they are charged, their travel is strongly influenced by magnetic fields. Our sun produces a magnetic field wrapped in the solar winds that extends to the edges of our solar system. This field deflects many of the cosmic rays away from Earth. But when the sun goes quiet (minimal sunspots), this field collapses inward allowing high energy cosmic rays to penetrate deeper into our solar system.
As I say in Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps, these same
cosmic rays can lead to mutations and evolutionary leaps.
“As a result, far greater numbers collide with Earth and penetrate down into the lower atmosphere where they ionize small particles of moisture (humidity) forming them into water droplets that become clouds. Low level clouds reflect sunlight back into space. An increase in Earth's cloud cover produce a global drop in temperature.
“If the sun becomes quieter than the old solar cycles, producing more than 1028 spotless days, then we might slip into a Dalton Minimum or maybe even a Grand Minima such as the Maunder Minimum. This solar state will last for decades. Several solar scientist have predicted this will begin in Solar Cycle 25, about a decade from now. But a few have predicted this will occur now in Solar Cycle 24.
“A quiet sun will cause temperatures globally to take a nose-dive. We will experience temperatures that we have not seen in over 200 years, during the time of the early pioneers.
“Temperatures are already falling. Satellites provide generally the most accurate atmospheric temperature measurements covering the entire globe. From the peak year 1998, the lower Troposphere temperatures globally have fallen around 1/2 degree Celsius due to the quiet sun.
“This is despite the fact that during that same time period, atmospheric carbon dioxide (at Mauna Loa) has risen 5% from 367 ppm to 386 ppm. The main threat from a “Dalton Minimum” or “Maunder Minimum” event is famine and starvation (affecting millions or hundreds of millions worldwide) due to shortened growing seasons and harsher weather. In the past, in addition to great famines, this cold harsh weather has also lead to major epidemics.
The WUWT Arctic Ice Thickness Survey has been conducted from the comfort of a warm living room over the last half hour, without sponsors, excessive CO2 emissions or hypothermia. The data is collected from the US military web site http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil. All of the active military buoys show significant thickening ice over the past six months to a year, as seen below.
Bad news for Catlin Expedition: Satellite Data Shows Arctic Cooling in February and March
4 04 2009
Guest Post by Steven Goddard
As reported by Anthony, RSS satellite temperature data is out for March. And as the Catlin adventurers have discovered, it has been “stupidly cold” in the Arctic. March was the second consecutive month of below normal Arctic temperatures, and the continuation of a four year cooling trend - as seen below. Google’s linest() function shows that since the beginning of 2005, Arctic temperatures have been cooling at a rate of 1.8 degrees C per decade, or 18C per century ( see comments). Also note that Arctic monthly temperature anomaly now is about three degrees lower than in January, 1981.
Steven Goddard eats babies!!! _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
By DAVID DEMING | Posted Wednesday, April 08, 2009 4:20 PM PT
President Obama has said that the science of global warming is "beyond dispute," and therefore settled.
This is the justification for the imposition of a carbon cap-and-trade system that will cost $2 trillion.
But Obama does not understand science.
"Settled science" is an oxymoron, and anyone who characterizes science as "settled" or "indisputable" is ignorant not only of science, but also history and philosophy.
Aristotle, who lived and wrote in the fourth century B.C., was one of the greatest geniuses the world has ever known.
He invented the discipline of logic, and founded the sciences of ecology and biology.
Aristotle's physics were accepted as correct for nearly two thousand years. In 1534, faculty at the University of Paris officially asserted that the works of Aristotle were "the standard and basis of all philosophic enquiry."
Reasonable Reservations
Aristotle taught that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. Over the centuries, a few unreasonable persons expressed skeptical concerns.
But the consensus was that the physics of motion were described by Aristotle's dicta. The science was settled.
Around the year 1591, an irascible young instructor at the University of Pisa demonstrated that Aristotle was wrong.
He climbed to the top of the tower of Pisa and dropped cannonballs of unequal weight that hit the ground simultaneously. Aristotelean professors on the faculty were embarrassed.
The university administration responded by not renewing Galileo's contract, thus ridding themselves of a troublemaker who challenged the accepted consensus.
Galileo is better remembered today for clashing with the Catholic Church over the issue of whether or not the Earth was at the center of the universe.
An Earth-centered cosmology was first proposed by the Greek philosopher Eudoxus in the fourth century B.C.
Impious Aristarchus
About a hundred years later, an upstart named Aristarchus suggested that the Earth revolved around the sun. Aristarchus' system never proved popular, and he was criticized for being impious.
The Earth-centered system was finalized by Claudius Ptolemy in the second century A.D., and remained unchallenged until the sixteenth century.
Everyone knew that the science of astronomy had been settled "beyond dispute." When Galileo insisted that the Earth revolved around the sun, he was castigated by the church for advocating an idea that was not only heretical, but also "foolish and absurd in philosophy."
Late in the seventeenth century, Isaac Newton demonstrated definitively that Aristotle's physics were incorrect.
He proposed the Law of Universal Gravitation, and explained how the planets move around the sun in elliptical orbits.
Newton is still regarded as the greatest scientist who ever lived. He settled the science of motion in such a conclusive way that his system was referred to as an "invincible edifice."
But the edifice crumbled early in the twentieth century when Einstein showed that Newtonian physics break down as the speed of light is approached.
Near the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Neptunian School of geology taught that all rocks had formed by crystallization from a now-vanished universal ocean.
Although the evidence falsifying this theory was both plain and abundant, Neptunists interpreted every observation as supportive of their hypothesis.
Blinded by an immoderate zeal, they selected and magnified any fact in accordance with their theory, while neglecting those that tended to disprove it.
Robert Jameson characterized the evidence supporting Neptunism as "incontrovertible."
But the theory collapsed in a few decades, and today is recognized as an artifact of inexhaustible human folly.
The End Of History?
President Obama, a lawyer and politician, would now have us believe that the process of history has stopped.
For the first time, scientific knowledge is not provisional and subject to revision, but final and settled.
Skepticism, which has been the spur to all innovation and human progress, is unacceptable and must be condemned.
But in fact, it is our awareness of what we do not know that determines our scientific level.
Socrates was the wisest man, not because he knew more than others, but because he was the only one to recognize that he did not know.
Knowledge begins with skepticism and ends with conceit.
Deming is a geologist and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 Posts: 413 Location: South Essex
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:34 pm Post subject:
Part 9 of 12 of "The Obama Deception" where Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley trash the illusion of "Carbon Footprinting" taxes and what it means
for everyone including the 3rd world nations:
Link _________________ The poster previously known as "Newspeak International"
Come on Tony Gosling where's your credibility on this thread?
Where's yours, this is getting silly & tiresome.
If anyone uses further sarcasm & personal jibes rather than solid arguments I'll ban you.
PM me your thoughts don't post them on the forum - you're both an embarrassment.
You must have the patience of a saint Tony. How do you tolerate all this bickering? I have just seen that film Doomsday Called Off.. It makes you think. I am new to all this. It is a real eye opener. I'm glad to find out I am not the cause of Global Warming. Good to be on this forum. Frank Freedom. Chill out man!
I'm glad to find out I am not the cause of Global Warming.
Spread the word!!!! We HAVE to beat these fascists with their New World Order in which we become slaves. The man-made climate change scam is an integral part of their agenda for total world domination. _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
By Greg Roberts, The Australian, April 18, 2009 11:52am
Cool down ... ice is expanding in much of the Antarctic, experts say / Reuters
* Ice expanding in much of Antarctica
* Eastern coast getting colder
* Western section remains a concern
ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.
The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.
Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water, The Australian reports. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.
However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.
East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".
Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.
"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.
The melting of sea ice - fast ice and pack ice - does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water. Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps. In Antarctica, these losses are in the form of icebergs calved from ice shelves formed by glacial movements on the mainland.
Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise.
Mr Garrett insisted global warming was causing ice losses throughout Antarctica. "I don't think there's any doubt it is contributing to what we've seen both on the Wilkins shelf and more generally in Antarctica," he said.
Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.
"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."
Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.
I love the first comment on this article. It represents a growing body of opinion relating to the scam!!
" volusiarunner of FL Posted at 12:45pm today
Listen up evilbunny and the rest of you deacons of the Global Warming Church. You fools are worse than the Catholic Church during the renaissance which persecuted Galileo for daring to show evidence contrary to the popular beliefs of that time. The truth is that your man-made global warming theory is your religion. Many scientists and meteorologists are already being persecuted for daring to show evidence that is contrary to your global warming religion. And like the Church of old, the global warming nuts will do anything to silence dissent. Hey, here's a thought, how about letting the evidence speak for itself? Most of you Al Gore types are still using old data or overly inflated and discredited numbers anyway. So when global warming is debunked in such a way that even you will concede, what will you do? Oh I guess you will just call it "global change" and still blame man for it. Wake up! Find another religion or separate your faith from science." _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
I'm glad to find out I am not the cause of Global Warming.
Spread the word!!!! We HAVE to beat these fascists with their New World Order in which we become slaves. The man-made climate change scam is an integral part of their agenda for total world domination.
Greg Roberts | April 18, 2009, Article from: The Australian
RUSSIAN sea captain Dimitri Zinchenko has been steering ships through the pack ice of Antarctica for three decades and is waiting to see evidence of the global warming about which he has heard so much.
Zinchenko's vessel, the Spirit of Enderby, was commissioned in January last year to retrace the steps of the great Antarctic explorer Ernest Shackleton, marking the century of his Nimrod expedition of 1907-09.
Spirit of Enderby was blocked by a wall of pack ice at the entrance to the Ross Sea, about 400km short of Shackleton's base hut at Cape Royds. Zinchenko says it was the first time in 15 years that vessels were unable to penetrate the Ross Sea in January. The experience was consistent with his impression that pack ice is expanding, not contracting, as would be expected in a rapidly warming world. "I see just more and more ice, not less ice."
Rodney Russ, whose New Zealand company Heritage Expeditions has operated tourist expeditions to Antarctica for 20 years, agrees. He says ships regularly used to able to reachthe US base of McMurdo in summer, but ice has prevented them from doing so for several years.
"Vessels are usually stopped 8km to 14km short of the base. A few years ago, that was often open water," Russ says.
"We have experienced quite severe ice conditions over the past decade. I have seen nothing in this region to suggest global warming is having an effect."
Such observations are not in step with the popular perception of what global warming is doing to the polar icecaps. Reports last week that an ice bridge had snapped in west Antarctica, threatening the disintegration of the Wilkins Ice Shelf, generated international headlines. Environment Minister Peter Garrett insisted that although he had not received any scientific advice about the Wilkins break-up, he was in no doubt about the implications.
"It's a big event. There are many others that have been identified in and around the Antarctic, which I think tells us unequivocally that we're seeing climate change impacts," Garrett said.
The real story about ice and Antarctica, however, is more complicated.
With Antarctica holding 80 per cent of the world's fresh water and 90 per cent of its ice, a meltdown of the icecap would raise sea levels worldwide by a catastrophic 70m. With the depth of the icecap averaging 4km, nothing like that is on the horizon. But is there cause for concern about what is happening with the weather in Antarctica?
Climatologists say if temperatures rise by 4C to 6C by the end of the century - the upper limit predicted by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climage Change - the melting of ice sheets in west Antarctica and Greenland would raise sea levels by up to 1.5m, enough to create problems in coastal areas.
What is less certain is whether ice shelf losses in west Antarctica, such as Wilkins, are being offset by cooling conditions and ice expansion in east Antarctica, which is four times the size of west Antarctica.
Unlike the Arctic, there has been no certainty that global warming is having an effect across Antarctica, although temperatures have risen in parts of west Antarctica, especially on the Antarctic Peninsula. The peninsula is geologically more an extension of the Andes of South America than part of the Antarctic continent. The crucial distinction between west Antarctica and the much larger east Antarctica is rarely mentioned in media reports of ice shelf break-ups.
Last week, ABC1's Lateline claimed that a new report by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research predicted sea level rises of up to 6m by 2100 because of Antarctic melting, but the upper level predicted by the report was just over 1m in a worst-case scenario.
A letter published in January in the journal Nature by University of Washington climatologist Eric Steig and colleagues argues that the continent generally is feeling the global heatwave. Steig concludes that the area of west Antarctica affected by warming is larger than was thought previously, with temperatures having risen by about 1C during the past 50 years.
Last week's SCAR report points to substantial ice losses in and around west Antarctica: for instance, 28 of 36 surveyed glaciers on South Georgia Island are retreating.
However, the picture in east Antarctica, which includes the South Pole and the territory claimed by Australia, is different.
Steig tells Inquirer that his study found some cooling in east Antarctica in the 1980s and '90s. He adds, however, that the evidence indicates the continent is warming overall.
"West Antarctica is warming significantly and has been for the entire 50-year period of our study. West Antarctica has been warming so much that the average over the entire continent, including east Antarctica, is significant warming."
Nonetheless, evidence supports anecdotal observations that over much of east Antarctica, the sea ice that fringes the continent, a key indicator of climate change, is becoming more extensive.
According to Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre research fellow Ian Allison, satellite data since the mid-'70s suggests that across the whole of the continent there has been a slight increase in sea ice.
Although sea ice had contracted in west Antarctica, the decline was more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea in east Antarctica, which has an ice shelf bigger than France.
"We have not seen any evidence over that period of a statistically significant change in sea ice for the continent generally," Allison says. He points out that the satellite data does not give an indication of how thick the ice is.
He says anecdotal evidence provided by whalers indicates their operations moved southwards towards the Antarctic coast during the '60s, suggesting a reduction in sea ice mass of about 20 per cent.
A shrinkage of about 15 per cent in sea ice in that time was reflected in core sampling in Australia's Antarctic territory, but this may not be exceptional.
"You get 10-year cycles with the level of ice going up and down, but in east Antarctica there's no indication of a long-term increase or decrease beyond the levels of natural variability," Allison says.
Glaciologists point out that the Arctic, where substantial ice losses are well documented, is fundamentally different from the Antarctic. The Arctic is essentially land-locked. The Antarctic is a continent surrounded by the Southern Ocean, which may be absorbing global heat.
The Antarctic also has an ozone hole above it, which could be acting as a pressure valve, allowing heat to escape the icecap. "It could be that when the ozone hole is fixed, there will be more warming," Allison says.
In the Arctic, polar bears are declining as ice melts, and Greenlanders farm once desolate icy wastelands, but nothing of the sort is happening in Antarctica. Data compiled by Australian Antarctic Division ice modeller Petra Heil from drilling ice shows that since the mid-'50s at Australia's Mawson and Davis Antarctic bases, there has been no reduction in the quantity of fast ice, sea ice attached to the Antarctic mainland. The thickness of ice at Davis averaged 1.67m. "There is a lot of annual variability but no significant change in either direction," Heil says.
Scientists note that stable or increased sea ice does not necessarily mean temperatures are not rising. Australian Bureau of Meteorology senior climatologist Andrew Watkins says monitoring at three sites in Australia's Antarctic territory and at Macquarie Island, Australia's sub-Antarctic territory, indicate minor warming since the mid-'50s.
Watkins points out that snowfall could be increasing in Antarctica even as temperatures rise, adding to the ice mass, and there is much uncertainty about the total volume of ice.
"My view is that there is nowhere in the world that is not being affected by climate change," Watkins says.
University of Adelaide director of climate science Barry Brook says climate modelling indicates increased precipitation over the continent, especially in east Antarctica, possibly indicating a cooling effect associated with a build-up of snow and a thickening of the ice in some areas.
Nonetheless, Brook believes the deterioration of ice conditions in west Antarctica, where calvings from Wilkins and other ice shelves are becoming more frequent, is cause for concern. In February, an iceberg 41km long and 2.5km wide broke from the Wilkins shelf.
"If the sea ice is looser because of warming, the ice shelf is destabilised and that allows the continental glaciers to push down from behind. The result is a bit like pulling the plug out of the bath. That's when sea levels can start to be affected," Brook says.
There are more localised consequences. A study published in January by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution warned that breeding colonies of emperor penguins, a species that breeds only on ice on the continent, could be doomed by global warming in west Antarctica. In Terre Adelie, the penguin colony is set to shrink from 3000 to 400 pairs by the end of the century. However, there are no indications that colonies of emperor penguins in east Antarctica are threatened.
Brook says temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula have been rising at a rate much higher than the world average, about 2.5C during the past 50 years. "The evidence is strong that we are seeing large regional shifts of ice in that part of Antarctica and that is worrying," he says.
SCAR uses modelling to predict a warming over Antarctica of up to 3C during the next century. SCAR warns that melting on the Antarctic Peninsula may be of sufficient magnitude to make a substantial contribution to global sea levels. The committee says it cannot predict how the continent's ice sheets will respond to warming but says "observed recent rapid changes give cause for concern".
Glaciologists point out that the world has seen shrinking icecaps in the past. Ice is a dynamic environment and it is not necessarily abnormal or catastrophic when ice sheets periodically lose the quantities of ice that generated last week's headlines.
On a grander scale, the globe has experienced numerous ice-sheet meltdowns prehistorically. Melting in the northern hemisphere about 18,000 years ago raised sea levels by 130m.
Ice-core drilling has suggested 40,000-year cycles of ice melting and refreezing.
The Wilkins Ice Shelf is just several hundred years old, a speck of time in the evolution of the Earth. SCAR notes in its report that predicted temperature rises in Antarctica are comparable to or slower than increases during past weather events.
For his part, pack-ice veteran Zinchenko is relaxed. "One year there is more ice than the year before and the next year there is less. The amount of ice goes up and down, up and down. That's just the way it is."
Energy Update - Only 34% Now Blame Humans for Global Warming
Friday, April 17, 2009
Just one-out-of-three voters (34%) now believe global warming is caused by human activity, the lowest finding yet in Rasmussen Reports national surveying. However, a plurality (48%) of the Political Class believes humans are to blame.
Forty-eight percent (48%) of all likely voters attribute climate change to long-term planetary trends, while seven percent (7%) blame some other reason. Eleven percent (11%) aren’t sure.
These numbers reflect a reversal from a year ago when 47% blamed human activity while 34% said long-term planetary trends.
Most Democrats (51%) still say humans are to blame for global warming, the position taken by former Vice President Al Gore and other climate change activists. But 66% of Republicans and 47% of adults not affiliated with either party disagree.
Sixty-two percent (62%) of all Americans believe global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, with 33% who say it’s Very Serious. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s a not a serious problem. The overall numbers have remained largely the same for several months, but the number who say Very Serious has gone down.
Forty-eight percent (48%) of Democrats say global warming is a Very Serious problem, compared to 19% of Republicans and 25% of unaffiliateds.
President Obama has made global warming a priority for his administration. Half (49%) of Americans think the president believes climate change is caused primarily by human activity. This is the first time that belief has fallen below 50% since the president took office. Just 19% say Obama attributes global warming to long-term planetary trends.
Forty-eight percent (48%) rate the president good or excellent on energy issues. Thirty-two percent (32%) give him poor grades in this area.
Sixty-three percent (63%) of adults now say finding new sources of energy is more important that reducing the amount of energy Americans currently consume. However, 29% say energy conservation is the priority.
A growing number of Americans (58%) say the United States needs to build more nuclear plants. This is up five points from last month and the highest finding so far this year. Twenty-five percent (25%) oppose the building of nuclear plants.
While the economy remains the top issue for most Americans, 40% believe there is a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. Thirty-one percent 31% see no such conflict, while 29% are not sure.
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
The Rasmussen Reports Election Edge™ Premium Service offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage available anywhere.
Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.
The truth is spreading!! If these snake-oil salesman get exposed then its the beginning of the end for the NWO. _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
