Log in

View Full Version : Climate change hoax exposed?


Pages : [1] 2 3

djmb74
11-21-2009, 01:31 PM
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/)

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009

309 Comments Comment on this article

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabits of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Skeptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “skeptical” view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.

Tags: AGW, Andrew Bolt, Climategate, Hadley CRU, ManBearPig, scandal




and this link, trying to carry water for the global warming hoaxers:
Environment news, comment and analysis from the Guardian | Environment | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2) ... ails/print


Climate skeptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists

Hundreds of emails and documents exchanged between world's leading climate scientists stolen by hackers and leaked online

* Buzz up!
* Digg it

* Leo Hickman and James Randerson
* guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 November 2009 18.15 GMT
* larger | smaller
* Article history

A researcher collects data from an electronic device to monitor climate change.

A researcher collects data from an electronic device to monitor climate change. Photograph: Vo Trung Dung/Corbis

Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world's leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.

The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned center focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.

Climate change skeptics who have studied the emails allege they provide "smoking gun" evidence that some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind.

The veracity of the emails has not been confirmed and the scientists involved have declined to comment on the story, which broke on a blog called The Air Vent.

The files, which in total amount to 160MbB of data, were first uploaded on to a Russian server, before being widely mirrored across the internet. The emails were accompanied by the anonymous statement: "We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it."

A spokesperson for the University of East Anglia said: "We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites. Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all this material is genuine. This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation. We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and have involved the police in this inquiry."

In one email, dated November 1999, one scientist wrote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

This sentence, in particular, has been leapt upon by skeptics as evidence of manipulating data, but the credibility of the email has not been verified. The scientists who allegedly sent it declined to comment on the email.

"It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating," said Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. "You can't tell what they are talking about. Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something - a short cut can be a trick."

In another alleged email, one of the scientists apparently refers to the death of a prominent climate change skeptic by saying "in an odd way this is cheering news".

Ward said that if the emails are correct, they "might highlight behavior that those individuals might not like to have made public." But he added, "Let's separate out [the climate scientists] reacting badly to the personal attacks [from skeptics] to the idea that their work has been carried out in an inappropriate way."

The revelations did not alter the huge body of evidence from a variety of scientific fields that supports the conclusion that modern climate change is caused largely by human activity, Ward said. The emails refer largely to work on so-called paleoclimate data - reconstructing past climate scenarios using data such as ice cores and tree rings. "Climate change is based on several lines of evidence, not just paleoclimate data," he said. "At the heart of this is basic physics."

Ward pointed out that the individuals named in the alleged emails had numerous publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals. "It would be very surprising if after all this time, suddenly they were found out doing something as wrong as that."

Professor Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate, features in many of the email exchanges. He said: "I'm not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I'm hoping the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows."

When the Guardian asked Prof Phil Jones at UEA, who features in the correspondence, to verify whether the emails were genuine, he refused to comment.

The alleged emails illustrate the persistent pressure some climatologists have been under from sceptics in recent years. There have been repeated calls, including Freedom of Information requests, for the Climate Research Unit to make public a confidential dataset of land and sea temperature recordings that is "value added" by the unit before being used by the Met Office. The emails show the frustration some climatologists have had at having to operate under such intense, often politically motivated, scrutiny.

Prof Bob Watson, the chief scientific advisor at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said, "Evidence for climate change is irrefutable. The world's leading scientists overwhelmingly agree what we're experiencing is not down to natural variation."

"With this overwhelming scientific body of evidence failing to take action to tackle climate change would be the wrong thing to do – the impacts here in Britain and across the world will worsen and the economic consequences will be catastrophic."

A spokesman for Greenpeace said: "If you looked through any organization's emails from the last 10 years you'd find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the skeptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world's leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke."

island cassie
11-21-2009, 01:38 PM
Yes Martin - I was reading that earlier - good to know that I am not the only cynic around!!

Dalmatiansoap
11-21-2009, 01:40 PM
This is just to complicate for me to understand :).
What is this about?

island cassie
11-21-2009, 01:52 PM
It is about scientists manipulating data to back up their pet theories!

turtile
11-21-2009, 02:55 PM
This is just to complicate for me to understand :).
What is this about?

Its an article written with political motives rather than real science. (In other words, it is an article with valueless information)

Richard
11-21-2009, 03:09 PM
Its an article written with political motives rather than real science. (In other words, it is an article with valueless information)

It's a piece of tabloid journalism. Should provide lots of ad sales for fear-mongering media publications.

Scuba_Dave
11-21-2009, 04:39 PM
Right...the ice caps are getting smaller cause its getting colder

http://drake.marin.k12.ca.us/academics/rock/bears_files/polar-ice-caps-melting.jpg

http://climatechange.ws/images/greenlandicesheet01.jpg

In 2007, a United Nationals panel of 2500 scientists from 130 countries concluded that ice caps will probably be completely melted by the year 2100. Some scientists believe the total melting will occur even sooner.

stumpy4700
11-21-2009, 05:03 PM
Quite frankly I don't believe the data from either side. It can all be manipulated.

damaclese
11-21-2009, 05:59 PM
the article in my mind is irrelevant the climate is changing
the hole time that the earth has been able to support life is small in comparison to its total history are we so egocentric to think that we have any say one way or another as to what the out come of all this will be any way

it just another way for some people to hate on others which is what we excel at isn't that a sad commentary on human beings

djmb74
11-21-2009, 06:26 PM
I am kinda with you on that as well. I think there are a lot of fill in the blanks on both sides of the fence...

Quite frankly I don't believe the data from either side. It can all be manipulated.

Richard
11-21-2009, 07:01 PM
I think "chang" is spelled "change" :D

damaclese
11-21-2009, 07:29 PM
I think "chang" is spelled "change" :D

I noticed i misspelled irrelevant

Seaner
11-21-2009, 07:37 PM
Somebody once told me "if you wanna understand human history, just follow the money trail". I like to keep that in mind. I've noticed that people will do almost anything to support an argument but the climate keeps changing. They recently discovered forests beneath the ice in Antarctica. I really don't believe they grew that way :ha:!
If I'm holding a candle and it gets close to some ice, the ice will melt. The temp of the room hasn't changed but more of the heat is closer to the ice. I think it would be great if industries quit pumping so much garbage into the air, land, and water. That may or may not help, if it is causing a global warming, but it couldn't hurt. Besides, if that's not what's causing it then it's probably something nobody can change anyway.

sbl
11-22-2009, 01:25 AM
To me, there are only 2 things you need to know to make a decision here--

1. If we keep sending $700 Billion to the people that want to destroy us--we won't really have to worry about climate change.

2. If the climate is changing and we ignore it--bad things happen, if we do what we can to avoid it--we don't have to worry about point #1 and we might create a few jobs in the process.

I understand the theory, but nobody knows what will happen until it happens. There are many factors involved, some positive, some negative. One big factor is pretty obvious--the loss of the Arctic Ice cap significantly increases the heating of Earth because the snow is not there to reflect the sunlight.


Unfortunately, my guess is we will ignore it until it is too late.

lorax
11-22-2009, 07:25 AM
That's pretty yellow journalism up there in the first post... However it's true that both sides can, and likely do, lie with their statistics.

I agree with sbl, and I'll also say that here at the equator, where minute changes for you are large changes for us, we are seeing definite disruption in our traditional weather patterns. A rainy season without rain is a telltale that something's up.

Worm_Farmer
11-22-2009, 10:54 AM
New World Order! Its all scare tactics!
The planet Earth has gone through how many Ice ages so far? Weather change is natural and nothing to fear. However you should fear ManBearPig, he is becoming a real problem. And I meet Glenn Beck this Friday, Fear Glenn Beck he eat's baby's!

harveyc
11-22-2009, 10:56 AM
Global climate has always changed and will continue to change. Are human causing it? I don't know. If so, is it taking a vacation in recent years? Why not show a more recent photo of the Arctic instead of one a few years ago? Why not show the Antarctic where the polar ice set a record in 2008?

Here's a graph with a trend of total global ice over the past 30 years:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Jack Daw
11-22-2009, 11:28 AM
This is just to complicate for me to understand :).
What is this about?
It's too long for me, Ante... :ha:

momoese
11-22-2009, 11:33 AM
It's too long for me, Ante... :ha:

That's pretty much what I said too! "I aint readin' all that!" :ha:

damaclese
11-22-2009, 11:55 AM
man i had this long list of links that support most of the stuff you guys are posting in this thread but i hit the back button by mistake and lost it but I'm with you Harvey

And what about methane hydrates as a cause i think its what killed the Dinosaurs not a asteroid its vary complexes so when people get up on there sop box and say its because of humans i don't think there much of any conclusive evidence that that is the only cause and I'm not a Kook my IQ is in the 98th Percentile

this isn't the first time the earth has heated up if one really wants to comprehend just what a Herculean task it is to determine its cause then you should study the milky way then the earths geological history then all the mass extinction scenarios theirs are dozens of things that can cause heating of are atmosphere

and although we think its heating up we are still not 100% sure that is whats happening theres a lot of money riding on this subject as has been pointed out

damaclese
11-22-2009, 11:57 AM
That's pretty much what I said too! "I aint readin' all that!" :ha:

it dosint really say all that much its a bunch of out of contexst sentanses im not saying its not true but thers not alot in that texst to say it is true

harveyc
11-22-2009, 01:13 PM
I've read before about data showing the warming of Mars. I'm sure that's because I drive a SUV! :ha:

Just for fun, okay? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

I just know that my bananas wish it would warm up right now! ;)

chong
11-22-2009, 05:49 PM
Right...the ice caps are getting smaller cause its getting colder



Several months ago, I read somewhere (AOL News) that scientist are baffled that while the North Polar ice caps have been diminishing, Antartic ice caps have been growing.

I, too, have read this article on AOL News. Personally, what I find significant in this article is that Global Warming proponents are manipulating the data for political and economic gain. There is nothing that I loathe more. I have worked with some energy equipment vendors that do that when a client asks them to do an energy-cost benefit study for a project. When the client asks me to review their report, I find a lot of ridiculous data that they are using to make their equipment give a very short payback period. Then they try to butter me up with dinners and golf to try to get me to bless their report. Yeah right! Then they bring their big guns in from their main office, but then even the non-engineer clients can see through their BS.

Other agencies have documented that the earth's temperature has been dropping since 1998. Al Gore seem to be ignoring that fact. The other day, I saw him on TV and heard him say that the earth's core is so hot, it's several million degrees! One source I checked with says that the earth's core is around 9000°F (5000°C). This guy won't even debate scientists with opposite views, much less Lord Monckton.

damaclese
11-23-2009, 10:01 AM
I was watching the discovery Chanel last night and theirs a seres called how the earth was made it really for us lamers pretty in depth for TV any way they stated that we were in the beginnings of an ice age and that thees ages come and go in 10 to 20 thousand years cycles and the hole of modern human kind has flourished in one of thees brief 15 thousand years retreats of the Ice age and theres no climate evidence suggesting that the earth is heating up that its the exact opposite are earth is cooling the in an interview i cant remember the guys name he said that we had been in for the last 15 thousand years an unprecedented period of stable climate that has never happened before and that some time in the next 1,000 to 7,000 thousand year we would find are selves back in this cool climate no mater how much green house gas we produce the Ice ages are related to tectonic activity which has been on a low cycle for about 15,000 years but is showing signs of renewed activity apparently the number of earth quakes and volcano's we currently have is a pittance compared to the norm the showed a map of all the faults in north America its like a net of vary fine lines theirs no point in north America thats not affected by a nearby fault he suggested that we better move south eventually at leas Las Vegas Never had a Glaser siting on top of it like the more northerly latitudes you all can come stay in my city if you want LOL

harveyc
11-23-2009, 10:13 AM
That's very hospitable of you, Pauly!!! With all of your new neighbors, I think it's going to be a bit crowded for me and I think I'll just build me a big greenhouse and heat it from a gas well on my farm. :ha:

djmb74
11-23-2009, 10:18 AM
I wonder if one day in the future people will be searching this site looking for help on growing bananas on Mars? Haha:ha:

damaclese
11-23-2009, 10:37 AM
That's very hospitable of you, Pauly!!! With all of your new neighbors, I think it's going to be a big crowded for me and I think I'll just build me a big greenhouse and heat it from a gas well on my farm. :ha:

As a Architectural aficionado iv envisioned a house made entirely up of a green house the only problem with that is the high humidity its not all that healthy how would you solve the problem of encroaching Glaser? for example the Glasers that moved over New York during the last Ice age were as much as 7 ml thick

i think the point to all this is that climate is tricky hard to pin down i for one am getting tired of the extremest spouting off and wiping the populations up in to a fitfully anxiety over things that in the schem of human existence just don't mater in the hear and now all have been dead and gone for many thousands of years before any Glaser comes knocking on North Americas door and in the mean time if the climate is warming for what looks like a vary brief time then all just grow Bananas

I'm convinced more then ever that there is no Global warming and as you pointed out the Ice packs in 2008 were of record size so the evidence just docent support Global warming yes the sea levels may have resin but its temporary at best thees cycles rang over 100,000 of thousands of years not a few decades like the Global warming Scientist would have us think and 1997 just wasn't that long ago we haven't been around long enough to know any thing we are children in the schem of the universes time frame

harveyc
11-23-2009, 11:20 AM
Pauly, I hope to not live long enough to see those glaciers....I'm already old enough to have aching joints, etc.! ;)

damaclese
11-23-2009, 11:58 AM
Pauly, I hope to not live long enough to see those glaciers....I'm already old enough to have aching joints, etc.! ;) tell me about it!! theres a certain wisdom in not living for thousands of years don't you think i was just reading an article on discovery's web page about telomers and how the affect longevity

jeffreyp
11-23-2009, 01:16 PM
I personally believe it's the sun that's causing global warming. Just as the ice caps on mars have been melting at an alarming rate in the past twenty years so they are on on earth? Why ? My guess is increased sun spot activity and solar flares.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)
SPACE.com -- Sun's Activity Increased in Past Century, Study Confirms (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060926_solar_activity.html)
Sun’s direct role in global warming may be underestimated (http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-49939.html)

djmb74
11-23-2009, 01:21 PM
I hope you guys know that was semi humorous statement to the fact that one day we may have to live somewhere else... either it gets to hot or everything freezes!

I am not crazy...

I wonder if one day in the future people will be searching this site looking for help on growing bananas on Mars? Haha:ha:

harveyc
11-23-2009, 02:04 PM
I personally believe it's the sun that's causing global warming. Just as the ice caps on mars have been melting at an alarming rate in the past twenty years so they are on on earth? Why ? My guess is increased sun spot activity and solar flares.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)
SPACE.com -- Sun's Activity Increased in Past Century, Study Confirms (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060926_solar_activity.html)
Sun’s direct role in global warming may be underestimated (http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-49939.html)

Come on, Jeff, get with the program. The warming on Mars really must somehow be due to me driving a SUV some of the time.

Richard
11-23-2009, 02:40 PM
Come on, Jeff, get with the program. The warming on Mars really must somehow be due to me driving a SUV some of the time.

That would be a great news item for the FOX network.

harveyc
11-23-2009, 03:20 PM
I think it's more likely to hear that on MSNBC.

jeffreyp
11-23-2009, 03:34 PM
My idea is that doing anything in excess is bad. Overfishing, power plants over polluting, over whatever is generally not a good thing. I think I do my part to make the world a greener place. I have over 300 banana plants in my back yard, it's practically a jungle. Some people take the glass half empty approach with greenhouse gases, I take the glass half full approach. I take it as meaning increased plant growth (proven in real greenhouses with more co2), greater ranges for growing crops, and a more lush world. Pundits of man as being the cause of global warming forget to mention that the greenhouse gas water vapor, causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Which increases with higher solar activity and not surprisingly an increase in solar activity also has a warming effect on the planets.

sbl
11-23-2009, 07:35 PM
There are many factors affecting our climate, many are natural and have been involved in our past glacial and interglacial cycles. Water vapor is one of those--it has always been here and it goes up and down naturally--as water vapor it increases our heat retention, but as a cloud it reflects heat.

The earth's orbit, inclination and precession of the axis, ocean circulation, snow cover, carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere and as many have mentioned sun cycles all have been involved in the natural cycles.

What scientist are concerned about is the rate of increase in temperature and the levels of CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gasses we have contributed above historical natural levels.

Again, if the scientist are right and we do nothing, there will some serious problems ahead. If they are wrong, then maybe we end up doing some good things for nothing. To me it is a no brainer.

harveyc
11-23-2009, 08:32 PM
If they are wrong, then maybe we end up doing some good things for nothing. To me it is a no brainer.

Not just good things happen. The cap and trade legislation will increase costs to many businesses which flows down to consumers. Unemployment will also likely be higher since many business cannot survive with the added expense of compliance. So we can just buy more things from China where they pump out more CO2, unregulated.

sbl
11-24-2009, 08:19 AM
Cap and trade will increase cost of some things in the short term and lower some, but continued reliance on imported oil will cost much more in the long run. New jobs in the alternate energy area will provide at least an offset to jobs that will be lost and if we become a leader in that field, we can start creating some manufacturing jobs tha we really need. If we continue to resist, we will end up importing what we will eventually need--oil will not last forever.

harveyc
11-24-2009, 12:01 PM
There won't be an offset in jobs with cap & trade and the cost of food will definitelt increase.

China is a leader in production of solsr panels, compact flourescent lights, etc. because of cheap labor and freedom to pollute. Cap and trade will help give more of that and maybe limit growth (not reduce) oil imports.

damaclese
11-24-2009, 01:28 PM
There won't be an offset in jobs with cap & trade and the cost of food will definitelt increase.

China is a leader in production of solsr panels, compact flourescent lights, etc. because of cheap labor and freedom to pollute. Cap and trade will help give more of that and maybe limit growth (not reduce) oil imports.

it stands to reason that at some point when the chines cant breath that they will put some kind of regulation on there economy look at Beijing its an ecological disaster right now how many times did the Olympic comity tell china that if they didn't do something about the air quality they would have to pull the game do to the fact that the athletes could not compete in thees ultra polluted conditions the barrly scraped by after baning automotive traffic for weeks Pier to the games

i have no idea Werther cap and trade will work it seems to do what we always do and that is make laws that only the rich can affectively comply with

you Know when we kicked marry old Georg out of the colony's we just replaced him with are own kind of aristocracy

Abnshrek
11-24-2009, 06:04 PM
I personally believe it's the sun that's causing global warming. Just as the ice caps on mars have been melting at an alarming rate in the past twenty years so they are on on earth? Why ? My guess is increased sun spot activity and solar flares.

I second this motion.. and the rest is fanfare.. :^) :waving:

Bch Grl
11-25-2009, 12:44 AM
I think we are missing the point of the original post... this article is alleging E-mails were "discovered" and were exposed as covering up, destroying and suppressing the info that refutes "man made climate change"! According to these emails, there has been not only an international, but worldwide, concerted effort to convince all of us that the earth is warming, and that there has been destruction and condemnation of contrary scientific data.

If these allegations are true, we are being manipulated to a level that is beyond imagination!

A "consensus" of opinion is political, not scientific!

I don't really care to line the pockets of these 3rd world dictators with arbitrary taxes based on a hoax.

I'm all for recycling, alternate energy and caring for our environment, but not at the expense of our economy and way of life.

I don't see Al Gore downsizing his house and life style. He merely "buys credits" to maintain his standard of living (wastefulness) while we are supposed to make all the sacrifices.

Time will tell if these allegations are true or not. But if they are.....We are in for some big changes!

mjdsinsacto
11-25-2009, 03:05 AM
" ... this article is alleging E-mails were "discovered" and were exposed as covering up, destroying and suppressing the info that refutes "man made climate change"! According to these emails, there has been not only an international, but worldwide, concerted effort to convince all of us that the earth is warming, and that there has been destruction and condemnation of contrary scientific data.

"If these allegations are true, we are being manipulated to a level that is beyond imagination!

"A 'consensus' of opinion is political, not scientific! ...

" ...Time will tell if these allegations are true or not. But if they are.....We are in for some big changes!"

Is anyone talking/investigating/reporting on this scandal--CNN, ABC, etc.?

I saw it here first, not very much on broadcast news/opinion makers, etc.

Has any of the scientists or parties named come forward to comment/refute/deny the alleged conspiracy? I would think they'd be all over the news with this.

chong
11-25-2009, 03:49 AM
Is anyone talking/investigating/reporting on this scandal--CNN, ABC, etc.?

I saw it here first, not very much on broadcast news/opinion makers, etc.

Only on Fox News (last couple of days) . . . . nothing on the Lame-stream Media.

sbl
11-25-2009, 09:38 AM
Only on Fox News (last couple of days) . . . . nothing on the Lame-stream Media.

I don't believe anything that comes from Fox.

As for the sun causing the warming, scientist have been measuring all sorts of solar parameters for years--if that were the cause, there would be lots of data to support that theory.

Scientist have been looking into the effects of increasing CO2 for many years--it was a topic of discussion when I was working on my PhD in the early 90s. They have been looking into past climate data for even longer in ice cores and sediment cores and we know that changes in our orbit and the inclination of our axis which increase the amount of sunlight are a major factor in initiating the warm periods over the past half million yrs.

As for oil, there are some indications that we have reached the peak in oil production world wide--if that is true we are in for much higher oil and gas prices than we have already seen. If we do not start developing alternatives, the disruptions in our economy are going to be significant.

jeffreyp
12-02-2009, 04:16 PM
Daily Express | UK News :: Climate change 'fraud' (http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573)

jeffreyp
12-02-2009, 04:22 PM
I don't believe anything that comes from Fox.

As for the sun causing the warming, scientist have been measuring all sorts of solar parameters for years--if that were the cause, there would be lots of data to support that theory.

Scientist have been looking into the effects of increasing CO2 for many years--it was a topic of discussion when I was working on my PhD in the early 90s. They have been looking into past climate data for even longer in ice cores and sediment cores and we know that changes in our orbit and the inclination of our axis which increase the amount of sunlight are a major factor in initiating the warm periods over the past half million yrs.

As for oil, there are some indications that we have reached the peak in oil production world wide--if that is true we are in for much higher oil and gas prices than we have already seen. If we do not start developing alternatives, the disruptions in our economy are going to be significant.

SBL, take a look at:

Solar activity reaches new high - physicsworld.com (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18692)
Solar Activity: A Dominant Factor in Climate Dynamics (http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm)
The Sun and Sunspots (http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/sunspots.php)
SPACE.com -- Sun's Activity Increased in Past Century, Study Confirms (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060926_solar_activity.html)
Jennifer Marohasy: CO2 Record in Ice Cores Unreliable: A Note from Paul Williams (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002176.html)

djmb74
12-02-2009, 04:25 PM
Its started to gain some steam. I am sure there are a lot of people that are making money off of the man made global climate change fraud and they are doing all they can to suppress the real truth.

I agree about the problems with pollution and it needs to change but I am angry with people pushing agendas to rob those that do not have much already!

Another way to look at it is, yes there is a huge climate change going on but maybe the truth is there isn't anything we can do to change it and it has nothing to do with cows farting or fumes from my car. Maybe its easier politically to educate the sheep with the hope that we can change it then telling them hey the climates gonna change and we are screwed some of you out there need to learn how to swim!!!

island cassie
12-02-2009, 05:33 PM
If all these government leaders had any intention of actually doing something useful - they would not fly around the world in big jets with their entourages - they would use video conferencing!! Says it all really!!!

harveyc
12-02-2009, 06:18 PM
If all these government leaders had any intention of actually doing something useful - they would not fly around the world in big jets with their entourages - they would use video conferencing!! Says it all really!!!

Isn't that the truth??!!

I've been thinking this for a few years since coming across a group discussion once where a professor working on chestnut research once wrote about an international ecology conference he was helping organize and invited our chestnut group to attend. I believe the meeting was in South America. Though I didn't really seriously consider going, I checked out the registration form and saw something like a $50 carbon fee, intended to offset the harm done to the environment by thoese traveling to the conference. There was no mention about how the $50 was going to be spent to mitigate the CO2 from jet fumes, etc., but seemed so obvious that the whole thing was about money. I wondered why they didn't just do a video conference. I realize there are some things you might need to go out into the field for, etc. but I don't think that's the type of conference that would require a physical presence.

Australian lawmakers rejected cap and trade legislation yesterday. They decided to wait until the U.S. goes first. Seems to be about politics. If they were really convinced it was the right thing to do, they wouldn't wait.

damaclese
12-02-2009, 07:46 PM
Its started to gain some steam. I am sure there are a lot of people that are making money off of the man made global climate change fraud and they are doing all they can to suppress the real truth.

I agree about the problems with pollution and it needs to change but I am angry with people pushing agendas to rob those that do not have much already!

Another way to look at it is, yes there is a huge climate change going on but maybe the truth is there isn't anything we can do to change it and it has nothing to do with cows farting or fumes from my car. Maybe its easier politically to educate the sheep with the hope that we can change it then telling them hey the climates gonna change and we are screwed some of you out there need to learn how to swim!!!

i couldint have exspresed any of that better then you did thanks

jeffreyp
12-02-2009, 10:11 PM
I remember all the hype about polar bears dieing but instead the polar bear population has increased! Glaciers have retreated in some parts of the world but increased in others!

sbl
12-02-2009, 11:08 PM
Its started to gain some steam. I am sure there are a lot of people that are making money off of the man made global climate change fraud and they are doing all they can to suppress the real truth.

I agree about the problems with pollution and it needs to change but I am angry with people pushing agendas to rob those that do not have much already!

Another way to look at it is, yes there is a huge climate change going on but maybe the truth is there isn't anything we can do to change it and it has nothing to do with cows farting or fumes from my car. Maybe its easier politically to educate the sheep with the hope that we can change it then telling them hey the climates gonna change and we are screwed some of you out there need to learn how to swim!!!

When it come to people making money, it is hard to beat the oil companies and their influence--the real scary thing is we haven't seen anything yet--it is going to get a lot worse and probably soon.

sbl
12-02-2009, 11:15 PM
SBL, take a look at:

Solar activity reaches new high - physicsworld.com (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18692)
Solar Activity: A Dominant Factor in Climate Dynamics (http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm)
The Sun and Sunspots (http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/sunspots.php)
SPACE.com -- Sun's Activity Increased in Past Century, Study Confirms (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060926_solar_activity.html)
Jennifer Marohasy: CO2 Record in Ice Cores Unreliable: A Note from Paul Williams (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002176.html)

Solar activity is not the same as incident solar energy. The solar sun spot cycle is much shorter than the period of warming we have seen. As I said there are many factors involved in the balance of energy we recieve and retain, some go up while others go down, it is the net result that matters in the long run.

Richard
12-03-2009, 12:47 AM
Its started to gain some steam. I am sure there are a lot of people that are making money off of the man made global climate change fraud and they are doing all they can to suppress the real truth.

I'll take it that is your opinion, and otherwise you have no qualifications to claim what is fraud and what is truth in climatology.

jeffreyp
12-03-2009, 06:29 AM
Solar activity is not the same as incident solar energy. The solar sun spot cycle is much shorter than the period of warming we have seen. As I said there are many factors involved in the balance of energy we recieve and retain, some go up while others go down, it is the net result that matters in the long run.


SBL, I am not a climatologist, however I feel the jury is out on the root cause(s) of this issue, if there really is an issue at all. I have doubts on man made global warming though it is also my position that countries should make efforts to limit pollution or eliminate it in every form. Those who are of the opinion that man has caused global warming think that all of those who oppose that idea want companies/corporations to have unbridled and unrestrained license to pollute and I think that's just not true. For some this issue has become a very passionate issue and like a religion in the most pejorative sense. In the 70's there was the concern and hype over global cooling, now it's global warming and now we have scientists hiding or manipulating data that doesn't work toward their interests. Whenever I perceive hype or spin on any particular topic a road block goes up and puts doubts in my mind on whatever agenda is being purported. In all things, my advice to anyone on an important topic is study, research and know all of the facts, look at both sides of an arguement and don't just go with what people tell you.

djmb74
12-03-2009, 09:09 AM
No really I have all the data somewhere around here...




Oh no wait we accidentally destroyed that data... sorry!

I'll take it that is your opinion, and otherwise you have no qualifications to claim what is fraud and what is truth in climatology.

harveyc
12-03-2009, 10:27 AM
Just go ahead and make up some data. NASA isn't very careful with theirs.

Hot Air Blog Archive Hottest October on record … was really a September (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/16/hottest-october-on-record-was-really-a-september/)

damaclese
12-03-2009, 02:42 PM
if one wants to understand or even just have a glimpse in to what is going on you are going to have to read many different scientific papers many are posted on the net

the biggest problem as i see it to understanding climate is that it is a multi discipline research and there in lies the biggest hurtle as that for the most part scientist don't like to venture out side their particular discipline and or they just simply do not talk cross disciplines

if your really want to get a handle on how immensely complex a subject this is you must first study the begins of the universe then study the earths geological records together with zoology, fossil research, tectonics, Poler sciences, climate records, extinction theory, and paleontology as well as a few others all combine in my mind to form a pretty clear picture of what is going on not necessarily why! its going on nothing is currently happening that has not happened in the past.

it is my generally considered opinion that this warming cycle is a normally occurring period in between ice ages nothing more. why its warming all leave to much better minds than mine to figure out. but mark my words Lady's and Gentleman the earth is over all cooling and no mater how much you would like to point to Green house gasses as the cause this is like looking threw a microscope, in other words a myopic view of are plaints large 4.5 billion year giver or take a million years history. are earth goes thew cycles of warming and cooling. be grateful for this resent warming as the hole of human recorded history has occurred in the space of one warm period of weather between Ice ages.
if it were not for this 10,000 year period of extremal stable weather we would probably not be here now or certainly not as advanced as we are now.

the earth is not going to burn up in some catastrophic period of man mad green house gas run muck thats ridiculous. spending much of any time considering or panicking over the likely hood that thees things are even in are currant abilities to control is in my mind a form of hysteria. nun of us are going to be alive for many 1000s of years before the earths current climate changes to the point of threatening are civilization. it would be more likely that we will kill are selves off or that a massive pandemic would do more damage then the Green house affect will at least in the interim.

how ever don't think that i don't believe that we should not try to curb are out of control abuse of the environment and are continual wasting of the limited resources this plaint has to offer us no party goes on forever people!

I'm not a scientist just a man that likes to read frequently I'm not saying that any of the above is fact its just what iv extrapolated from the information iv gained I'm sure there are many that would disagree with me and thats there right but it has an air of truth in it and there are many that support thees ideas and there not all payed by the oil industry of the Coal research institute

heres a link to a show on history Chanel a basic introduction to earths geological history
How the Earth was Made - History.com (http://www.history.com/content/how-the-earth-was-made)
heres a link to a play list of short subjects on the origins of the universe vary popular nothing that indeepth but informative nun the less
The Universe Video - Videos of the Universe - History.com (http://www.history.com/video.do?name=The_Universe)

I just thought even thou this is sum what off the subject i would throw this in to see if you all are really reading my post and maybe to get a rise out of some of the more scientifically bent ORG people LOL
Why the Big Bang is Wrong (http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html)

to support the first link

No Big Bang : Contents (http://bigbangneverhappened.org/)

jeffreyp
12-04-2009, 03:00 AM
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs today brushed aside the concerns of more than 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition challenging the theory of man-made global warming.

WND White House corrrespondent Les Kinsolving brought up the petition as a follow-up to an earlier comment.

Gibbs had been asked by Fox News correspondent Major Garrett, "On climate change, why is it a good idea for the president to arrive near the beginning of the climate talk negotiations (scheduled by the United Nations in Copenhagen early in December) as opposed to the end, when the ultimate deal is going to be struck? And secondarily, does the White House have any evaluation or comment on this controversy of the hacked e-mails that suggest that some of the underlying science through some of the propositions put forward by climatologists may be in error or may have been altered in some way?"

Gibbs responded, "On the second part, I think Carol Browner addressed that last week, on the order of several thousand scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening. I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among – most people – in dispute anymore."

He continued, "In terms of when the president goes, obviously we believe that progress has been made with developing nations – the U.S. has made some progress with the Chinese and the Indians over the past couple of weeks. The president will travel to Oslo on the 10th, and believed it was important to use this visit to help get us to the point of a deal – something that can take the type of action that scientists say needs to be taken to stop and reverse climate change. I think the president believes that a visit happening at the beginning is just as important as it would be at any point to getting that deal going quicker."

Kinsolving then asked about the Petition Project, launched some 10 years ago when the first few thousand signatures were gathered. It now lists well over 31,000 scientists, including over 9,000 with doctorates, who subscribe to the following statement:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

"Are you aware of a list, the published list of 31,000 scientists who oppose this idea of global warming?" Kinsolving asked.

"I don't doubt that there's such a list, Lester. I think there's no real scientific basis for the dispute of this," Gibbs said.
Gibbs: 'No dispute' on global warming (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117609)

Global Warming Petition Project (http://www.petitionproject.org/)




.

jeffreyp
12-04-2009, 03:05 AM
http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf


a very good read...

turtile
12-04-2009, 09:41 AM
The whole climate change hoax is nothing but a political campaign to change public opinion before the United Nations' discussion on climate change.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/2860.php)

At the same time, every article posted on here that tries to disprove global warming does the same tricks when they display their "data". Of course no one realizes this fact.

ewitte
12-04-2009, 10:53 AM
I heard before that if enough ice melts somewhere (not sure where) it would actually trigger an Ice Age not warming. I'm also recalling off of memory the warm periods usually do not last that long.

damaclese
12-05-2009, 12:01 PM
I heard before that if enough ice melts somewhere (not sure where) it would actually trigger an Ice Age not warming. I'm also recalling off of memory the warm periods usually do not last that long.

i was waiting for some one to bring this up. it could happen then again there mite be mitigating factors that offset the cooling affects of slower water circulation. like rising air temperatures. also one could see and increase temperatures in the tropics. Florida for example mite become a zone 11 rain Forest.
thats just hypothetical. if enough fresh water from melting ice caps enters the Atlantic and reduce the over all salinity significantly enough to decrease the density of of the sea to the point that cooling waters do not drop in to the mid Atlantic trench and flow back to the equator one could see sum significant changes. there is historical data to support this having happened in the past some 1280 years ago and then again 500 years ago. their was enough notation in many of the churches rectory records across England to put together a pretty good picture of a vary severe cold period. in that time frame along with data about preceding warm period that mite suggest that as some point prier to 500 years ago the poler ice caps did melt significantly enough to hasten a colossal cold period. its affects lasted for about 200 years. although the worst summers where only about 20 to 30 years out. famine was drastic and wide spread across Europe. this could have been a significant contributer to prolonging the effects of the Plague. the last magre out brake was in the mid 14 century and lasted about 60 years at its high point. but affects were seen for about 100 years. with periodic re out brakes correlating to severe cold spells across Europe.
fascinating don't you think? it really reinforces how climate affects humans.

but there are some significant differences in todays world verses the plant of 500 years ago. we have the ability to move food around they didn't. we can farm were its warm they couldn't. wile Europe was cold we don't know what the rest of the planet was like as there are no records of weather patterns to read like there were in england and France as well as Italy. so it mite not be all domes day sanoreos. wile Europe mite get pretty cold there could be cold reagons warming to the point were farming is possible. we just dont have enoghe info to know for sure

Richard
12-05-2009, 02:43 PM
... I am sure there are a lot of people that are making money off of the man made global climate change ...

The only companies and individuals currently making significant income on this subject are those in the business of selling controversy; i.e., tabloid journalism (in print and on network television) and internet bloggers paid by a political action committee.

jeffreyp
12-05-2009, 04:00 PM
very funny richard.. (; Where would all these tabloids be without manbearpig?


South Park Episode Player - ManBearPig (http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103675/?autoplay=false)


Thank you Al Gore you are super awesome! Excelsior!!

Richard
12-05-2009, 09:12 PM
very funny richard.. (; Where would all these tabloids be without manbearpig?
South Park Episode Player - ManBearPig (http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103675/?autoplay=false)
Thank you Al Gore you are super awesome! Excelsior!!

Thanks! Even without parity it's an excellent parody!

sbl
12-06-2009, 11:21 AM
I heard before that if enough ice melts somewhere (not sure where) it would actually trigger an Ice Age not warming. I'm also recalling off of memory the warm periods usually do not last that long.

You are correct. When enough ice melts, seawater will become less dense and we will no longer create the deep-water seawater that drives the ocean circulation system. That is already beginning to happen as is evidenced by the increasing frequency of El Nino. Interglacial periods typically last 10 -15k yrs--we are somewhere around 12-13k into the current interglacial period. It is the warming that leads to the ice melt and then the shut-down of the circulation system that is believed to have driven the glacial/interglacial cycles over the past 600k yrs. The warming starts as a result of a combination of changes in our orbital path and the wobble in our axis, CO2 released naturally in the warming process then enhances and extends the warming, but now we are way beyond the historical CO2 concentrations.


I think that once the ocean circulation system shuts down, there will be some rapid climate change, initially causing a rapid warming, followed by increased snowfall that will start a glacial cycle.

Edit, BTW it is the North Atlantic that is the source of Deep-Water formation, so ice melt or decrease in formation of Ice in the North Atlantic is what will slow or stop the ocean circulation system.

harveyc
12-06-2009, 02:21 PM
The only companies and individuals currently making significant income on this subject are those in the business of selling controversy; i.e., tabloid journalism (in print and on network television) and internet bloggers paid by a political action committee.

Billions are being made by researchers. House appropriates increased funding for climate research (posting from Climate Science Watch) (http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/house-climate-funding/)

djmb74
12-06-2009, 05:04 PM
Thanks harvery I was perplexed why Richard didn't think people are making money off of it...

Greed is most peoples main motivator! Even scientists!

Billions are being made by researchers. House appropriates increased funding for climate research (posting from Climate Science Watch) (http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/house-climate-funding/)

sbl
12-06-2009, 06:52 PM
Thanks harvery I was perplexed why Richard didn't think people are making money off of it...

Greed is most peoples main motivator! Even scientists!

Wow! Imagine that scientist don't work for free! After spending tens of thousands of dolllars of their own on their education, they actually expect to get paid!

I for one think that the money our government spends on scientific research is some of the best spent money they spend. Where would we be without science? Some of the best discoveries happen when we are trying to do something else--look at all of the technology that came out of the mission to put a man on the moon.

Science is a process of gathering data, proposing theories and testing them. There are often more than one way of interpreting the data, and even when we arrive at what appears to be a sound conclusion, we are always questioning them. Sometimes, we find that conclusions we reached long ago are not correct, or at least don't apply to all situations. Debate amoung scientist is healthy, but it is often misunderstood by non-scientist.

harveyc
12-06-2009, 07:10 PM
sbl, nobody said scientists shouldn't get paid. But to say nobody is making money off of the research is false.

Richard
12-06-2009, 08:13 PM
sbl, nobody said scientists shouldn't get paid. But to say nobody is making money off of the research is false.

No one has made such a statement here. Further, the percentage of money being spent on "global climate change research" is very small compared to the total amount of federal dollars spent on research.

When it comes to marketing to pop culture: controversy sells.

jeffreyp
12-06-2009, 10:21 PM
Now it seems very suspicious why such common established knowledge wasn't applied to humans, but for 50 years, the cure for gastric ulcers in animals was a spercific antibiotic and peptobismol. They knew in the veterinary industry that ulcers in pigs were caused by a bacteria called helicobacterpilory and of course they couldn't get one of these high-prices stomach surgeons from Mayo Clinic, (in fact, they used to yell, "Hold the Mayo" when they would say stuff like that), and otherwise your pork chops would be $275 a pound to pay for that kind of surgery. They learned that with a trace mineral called bismuth and the tetracycline antibiotic that they could prevent and cure those stomach ulcers in pigs without surgery. And so that's what they veterinary industry did. Costs $5 to cure a pig of stomach ulcers with bismuth, a trace mineral, and tetracycline. The pharmaceutical industry, scientists withheld this information only so they could make money on antacids, mostly by expensive prescription medications. Scientists knew what caused ulcers in farm animals knowing the cure was antibiotics and pepto bismol.

I suspect the same with HIV/AIDS. There's also quite a bit of literature on selenium, and interestingly there are trials being done by a PHD doctor out of Canada (Dr. Harold Foster) on using selenium and select amino acids. These form a substance in the body called glutathione peroxidase. The theory goes the entire glutathione reductase system collapses when certain persistant viruses that encode for glutathione come into the picture. When the body senses less selenium, cysteine, glutamine and tryptophan it limits white blood cell production. It's an involved topic but google harald foster and what really causes aids. Or google cal crilly hiv AIDS - Retrovirus Expression Regulated by Methylation? - Health Supreme (http://www.communicationagents.com/sepp/2006/05/18/aids_retrovirus_expression_regulated_by_methylation.htm)

What does this all have to do with climate change? I suppose other members on the board could rattle off a dozen other examples but mine are just a couple examples of how scientists will abuse the system for their own financial means.

A Natural Cure for HIV, AIDS (http://www.truehealth.org/break16.html)


Foster, H.D. (2000). Aids and the “selenium-CD4T cell tailspin”: The geography of a pandemic. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, 209, 94-99.

sbl
12-06-2009, 11:17 PM
sbl, nobody said scientists shouldn't get paid. But to say nobody is making money off of the research is false.

Isn't getting paid making money?

Richard
12-07-2009, 12:01 AM
What does this all have to do with climate change? I suppose other members on the board could rattle off a dozen other examples but mine are just a couple examples of how scientists will abuse the system for their own financial means.


In the case of ulcers, I believe you are referring to corporations and not researchers themselves. I agree that there are greedy researchers. However, the conspiracy theory being proposed in this thread seems pretty far-fetched.

More interesting, there are political action committees pouring millions of dollars monthly into paid internet bloggers. The general tactic is divide-and-conquer with controversy and hopefully align opinions with current advertising of the political party. If you want to join in the fun, just click on one of the ads you see for "mom makes 1,000's per month at home on computer". I wouldn't be surprised if we have some on this site.

harveyc
12-07-2009, 12:44 AM
The only companies and individuals currently making significant income on this subject are those in the business of selling controversy; i.e., tabloid journalism (in print and on network television) and internet bloggers paid by a political action committee.

Significant income? Richard, some researchers make their entire livelihood on GCC research. This certainly leads to the potential for biased research reports to continue to justify their employment. Science is far from pure. When funding is dictated on the perceived importance of something or winning favors by oil companies, etc., the information is often skewed one way or the other.

harveyc
12-07-2009, 12:45 AM
Isn't getting paid making money?

Exactly, making significant money, as a matter of fact.

Richard
12-07-2009, 01:14 AM
Significant income? Richard, some researchers make their entire livelihood on GCC research. This certainly leads to the potential for biased research reports to continue to justify their employment. Science is far from pure. When funding is dictated on the perceived importance of something or winning favors by oil companies, etc., the information is often skewed one way or the other.

Of the 120 climatologists over at the Scripps Institute, 2 are full time on GCC and about a dozen are full time on global warming -- a different topic.

One way to get your way with an under-educated population is to spread fear and contempt about academia. Mao was very good at this.

harveyc
12-07-2009, 02:44 AM
What about NASA or other agencies cited in the funding article above.

While you seem to hold blogs in disdain, there is often valuable information in them. If it wasn't for these blogs, we wouldn't know that NASA had repeated Russia's September 2008 data for October 2008. Or that many sensors have been located through the world in some very poor locations to be considered meaningful. But I guess we should all enjoy being treated like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed...whatever.

djmb74
12-07-2009, 03:49 AM
Speaker Thor Pedersen (Lib) "Scientists say: ‘We have a theory’ – then that crosses the road to the politicians who say: ‘We know’"

djmb74
12-07-2009, 03:50 AM
The Fiction Of Climate Science - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html)

The Fiction Of Climate Science
Gary Sutton, 12.04.09, 10:00 AM ET

Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed "the coming ice age."

Random House dutifully printed "THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age." This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported "many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age."

OK, you say, that's media. But what did our rational scientists say?

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

You can't blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed's mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today's scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.

In 2002 I stood in a room of the Smithsonian. One entire wall charted the cooling of our globe over the last 60 million years. This was no straight line. The curve had two steep dips followed by leveling. There were no significant warming periods. Smithsonian scientists inscribed it across some 20 feet of plaster, with timelines.

Last year, I went back. That fresco is painted over. The same curve hides behind smoked glass, shrunk to three feet but showing the same cooling trend. Hey, why should the Smithsonian put its tax-free status at risk? If the politicians decide to whip up public fear in a different direction, get with it, oh ye subsidized servants. Downplay that embarrassing old chart and maybe nobody will notice.

Sorry, I noticed.

It's the job of elected officials to whip up panic. They then get re-elected. Their supporters fall in line.

Al Gore thought he might ride his global warming crusade back toward the White House. If you saw his movie, which opened showing cattle on his farm, you start to understand how shallow this is. The United Nations says that cattle, farting and belching methane, create more global warming than all the SUVs in the world. Even more laughably, Al and his camera crew flew first class for that film, consuming 50% more jet fuel per seat-mile than coach fliers, while his Tennessee mansion sucks as much carbon as 20 average homes.

His PR folks say he's "carbon neutral" due to some trades. I'm unsure of how that works, but, maybe there's a tribe in the Sudan that cannot have a campfire for the next hundred years to cover Al's energy gluttony. I'm just not sophisticated enough to know how that stuff works. But I do understand he flies a private jet when the camera crew is gone.

The fall of Saigon in the '70s may have distracted the shrill pronouncements about the imminent ice age. Science's prediction of "A full-blown, 10,000 year ice age," came from its March 1, 1975 issue. The Christian Science Monitor observed that armadillos were retreating south from Nebraska to escape the "global cooling" in its Aug. 27, 1974 issue.

That armadillo caveat seems reminiscent of today's tales of polar bears drowning due to glaciers disappearing.

While scientists march to the drumbeat of grant money, at least trees don't lie. Their growth rings show what's happened no matter which philosophy is in power. Tree rings show a mini ice age in Europe about the time Stradivarius crafted his violins. Chilled Alpine Spruce gave him tighter wood so the instruments sang with a new purity. But England had to give up the wines that the Romans cultivated while our globe cooled, switching from grapes to colder weather grains and learning to take comfort with beer, whisky and ales.

Yet many centuries earlier, during a global warming, Greenland was green. And so it stayed and was settled by Vikings for generations until global cooling came along. Leif Ericsson even made it to Newfoundland. His shallow draft boats, perfect for sailing and rowing up rivers to conquer villages, wouldn't have stood a chance against a baby iceberg.

Those sustained temperature swings, all before the evil economic benefits of oil consumption, suggest there are factors at work besides humans.

Today, as I peck out these words, the weather channel is broadcasting views of a freakish and early snow falling on Dallas. The Iowa state extension service reports that the record corn crop expected this year will have unusually large kernels, thanks to "relatively cool August and September temperatures." And on Jan. 16, 2007, NPR went politically incorrect, briefly, by reporting that "An unusually harsh winter frost, the worst in 20 years, killed much of the California citrus, avocados and flower crops."

To be fair, those reports are short-term swings. But the longer term changes are no more compelling, unless you include the ice ages, and then, perhaps, the panic attempts of the 1970s were right. Is it possible that if we put more CO2 in the air, we'd forestall the next ice age?

I can ask "outrageous" questions like that because I'm not dependent upon government money for my livelihood. From the witch doctors of old to the elected officials today, scaring the bejesus out of the populace maintains their status.

Sadly, the public just learned that our scientific community hid data and censored critics. Maybe the feds should drop this crusade and focus on our health care crisis. They should, of course, ignore the life insurance statistics that show every class of American and both genders are living longer than ever. That's another inconvenient fact.

Gary Sutton is co-founder of Teledesic and has been CEO of several other companies, including Knight Protective Industries and @Backup.

djmb74
12-07-2009, 04:11 AM
But I guess we should all enjoy being treated like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed...whatever.

Nice one Harvey! :-) :nanadrink:

And please I love science, most of the programming I watch on TV is either science related or history related as well as Science Fiction... haha

SBL I did not mean that all scientist are greedy I was just pointing out that greed is a huge motivating factor and can affect science as well.

Richard you are being just as bad as when you take a hard stance to one side and think those that are skeptical are being ignorant. If everyone acted as you think they should based on those that are yelling the loudest on what they think is the truth then we would still be scared of falling off the end of the earth!!!

I feel that there are some major issues on both sides of the argument and those tactics you say are being used to promote fear or discredit the issue are being used by both sides of the argument as well.

sbl
12-07-2009, 08:31 AM
Nice one Harvey! :-) :nanadrink:

And please I love science, most of the programming I watch on TV is either science related or history related as well as Science Fiction... haha

SBL I did not mean that all scientist are greedy I was just pointing out that greed is a huge motivating factor and can affect science as well.

I feel that there are some major issues on both sides of the argument and those tactics you say are being used to promote fear or discredit the issue are being used by both sides of the argument as well.

You are right, there are greedy and evil people in all areas and on both sides of every issue, But the vast majority of climate scientist support the current man made global climate theory.

As I said before, nobody KNOWS what will happen, but you do not even need to know which side is right to make an intelligent decision on which path we should take when it comes to trying to reduce the potential effects of greenhouse gasses. Just think about the consequences of choosing either path if it is the wrong path.

I am far more knowledgable that the average person on this issue and I have no axe to grind here. In fact, I own far more oil stocks than I do "green" stocks. I think the data is pretty clear and I know it is much warmer here now than it was when I was a kid, so just on the science issue I tend to think the majority is right.

harveyc
12-07-2009, 12:09 PM
I do agree, sbl, that we should be prudent in our use of energy.

Our first frost this year was about a month earlier than normal (average first frost date is 12/15) and we've had seven days with frost. There was a forecast for a chance of snow here this morning at sea level, which would be the first time in 30-35 years when we had a dusting. Global temperatures have been colder the past couple of years. So all of this really makes me wonder if we are getting warmer at all. Did global warming just take a break?

Richard
12-07-2009, 12:32 PM
This thread proposes that there is a widespread conspiracy among climatologists to fool the population into believing the world is undergoing climate change.

The "widespread conspiracy" part of this claim seems very far-fetched to me. It is the very sort of claim you find in tabloid journalism and political blogging in order to sell controversy.

Of course, pop culture has far more of an appetite for controversy and drama in sports and politics than for any sort of accurate "review of the literature" which you would find in a science monograph. What I particularly disdain is discussion of "controversy for the sake of controversy" and "arguing for the sake of anger and disagreement". Just take a look around and you'll see it popping up everywhere.

In response to Harvey:
... If it wasn't for these blogs, we wouldn't know that NASA had repeated Russia's September 2008 data for October 2008. Or that many sensors have been located through the world in some very poor locations to be considered meaningful. ...

If blogs and Google searches are your only source of information, then I guess that's true. The issue with sensors and repeat reporting has been otherwise known (even in mid-school science classes) since the 1980's.

I feel that there are some major issues on both sides of the argument and those tactics you say are being used to promote fear or discredit the issue are being used by both sides of the argument as well.

Definitely. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

harveyc
12-07-2009, 12:46 PM
If blogs and Google searches are your only source of information, then I guess that's true. The issue with sensors and repeat reporting has been otherwise known (even in mid-school science classes) since the 1980's.

No, these are not my only sources but they are useful as checks and balances to the the crap we are sometimes fed by so-called scientists, thus avoiding the mushroom syndrome that some seem to enjoy.

While the issue with these sensors and repeat reporting are known, bad data continues to be reported and decisions get made based on poor information. Knowledge is only good if you use it.

Richard
12-07-2009, 01:02 PM
No, these are not my only sources ...

I never said they were.

Go look at some budget details. In the U.S., money allocated for "climate change research" includes equipment and salaries. NASA's budget is about 20 times that of the National Science Foundation. Nearly all of NASA's budget in this category is spent on equipment. Further, the National Science Foundation funds nearly all the salaries of the researchers (through grants). So the concept that billions of federal dollars are going into researchers salaries is incorrect, it is actually going into NASA's subcontractors who of course are the biggest lobbyists of "global change research" in Congress.

harveyc
12-07-2009, 01:37 PM
I never said you said they were.

I never said billions were going towards salaries at NASA. Richard, can you give me a precise figure on how much is being spent for researcher's salaries?

Richard
12-07-2009, 01:39 PM
I never said billions were going towards salaries at NASA.

True. But the concept that billions of federal dollars are going into researchers salaries is a main tenant of this thread.

sbl
12-07-2009, 01:48 PM
I do agree, sbl, that we should be prudent in our use of energy.

Our first frost this year was about a month earlier than normal (average first frost date is 12/15) and we've had seven days with frost. There was a forecast for a chance of snow here this morning at sea level, which would be the first time in 30-35 years when we had a dusting. Global temperatures have been colder the past couple of years. So all of this really makes me wonder if we are getting warmer at all. Did global warming just take a break?

Harvey, That is the difference between climate and weather. Climate is long-term, weather averaged over years. As I said in an earlier post, there are many factors involved in our climate, some are driving it toward a warmer average, some toward a cooler average temperature. Some factors have short-term effects (like day and night, winter and summer), some have longer cycles--like sun spot activity and the southern ocillation, some have very long-term effects or cycles--like orbital changes and greenhouse gasses. In the end it is the balance of these effects that controls the climate. If you look at the graphs of global average temperature it is not a smooth line--it has ups and downs, but the overall trend in the last 50-60 yrs has been a dramatic increase in temperature.

Richard, I couldn't agree more. It is a shame, but what passes for news now is purely stirring the pot of controversy. There is no such thing as honest news anymore, no attempt to sort out the truth and help the average person understand the consequences.

sbl
12-07-2009, 02:00 PM
I never said you said they were.

I never said billions were going towards salaries at NASA. Richard, can you give me a precise figure on how much is being spent for researcher's salaries?

I can. Here is the GS pay scale (annual) for government scientist. Salary Table 2009-GS (http://www.opm.gov/flsa/oca/09tables/html/gs.asp)

Typical BS degree scientist (more accurately technicians) are usually GS 5 to 9--some make it to GS-11 or 12.

MS degree scientist, typically start at GS-9 and usually end around GS-12

Ph.D. Scientist usually start at GS-11 or 12 and unless they are considered a national expert, usually end around GS-13.

University professors can be above or below the government scale, but industry generally pays the highest salaries.

harveyc
12-07-2009, 02:00 PM
sbl, I understand the difference between weather and climate. Yet, when NASA used bad data for October 2008, it sure jumped on "warmest October on record". Scientists like to stir up controversy just as much as bloggers.

harveyc
12-07-2009, 02:01 PM
sbl - total salaries, not an average salary.

sbl
12-07-2009, 02:19 PM
sbl, I understand the difference between weather and climate. Yet, when NASA used bad data for October 2008, it sure jumped on "warmest October on record". Scientists like to stir up controversy just as much as bloggers.

Depending on where you live it may have been one of the warmest Octobers on record. I haven't looked at the record, but it certainly felt like the warmest one I can remember. Scientist do not "like to stir up controversy", they debate the data and the theories, in most cases based on honest differences in opinions or interpretations. Errors do creep into data, sometimes from instrumental problems, sometimes from human error, but just because someone makes an error does not imply intent.

harveyc
12-07-2009, 02:24 PM
sbl, this was last year, not this year, and it was global temperatures that were being talked about. I have never seen someone at NASA in recent years point out a month that was colder than normal, even though many have existed. When they only point out what appears to be warm months, that seems to be a sign of being less than objective.

Richard
12-07-2009, 02:48 PM
So far, the proponents of this thread "Climate chang hoax exposed?" claim that
1. there is a widespread conspiracy among climatology researchers to extort public money with lies about "global climate change".
2. billions of U.S. federal dollars are being spent on researchers of global climate change.

The 1st is false by counter-example: although the majority of climatologists agree that "global climate change" would not be good for humans, a sizable minority feel that there is no significant evidence of global climate change. For more details, go read one of the monographs from one of the recent peer-reviewed conferences on climate change.

The second is false by budget: the billions being spent by the U.S. federal government is going to engineering contractors, not researchers. The researchers only get a few crumbs of the whole pie. Or as the famous quote goes: add a billion here and a billion there and now you've got some real money.

I would also warn you about how NASA totals up numbers of researchers. 20 years ago I worked as a civilian scientist for the U.S. Navy. We obtained data from a NASA "Earth Observing" sensor and processed it rather meticulously in comparison to the standard release from NASA. The chief scientist on the NASA sensor project liked our results better, and thus paid our department about $10k a year for operating a data server on darpa.net. Humorously, everyone in the department was listed by NASA as a researcher on the project, although none of the $10k went towards our whopping $32k annual salaries.

sbl
12-07-2009, 03:24 PM
sbl, this was last year, not this year, and it was global temperatures that were being talked about. I have never seen someone at NASA in recent years point out a month that was colder than normal, even though many have existed. When they only point out what appears to be warm months, that seems to be a sign of being less than objective.

I don't remember what the temperature was more than a yr ago, but I could certainly look up the data if I wanted to. Anyone can find a point out warmer or colder months, days or yrs if they want. The data is objective and it does not lie. Eventhough we are predicted to have a cooler than normal winter here due to El Nino, that is not a climate change. BTW--the "cooler than normal" prediction came from NOAA --maybe they will point it out to you after it happens.

damaclese
12-11-2009, 09:09 AM
wow i go away for a few days and look at what you all have been up to. it will take me all day to read from my last post forwerd!

djmb74
12-11-2009, 10:39 AM
Richard its not the climatologist, its the ones handing them their paycheck. Their corporate boss and politicians.

Also that guy that is always smoking a cigarette. Mulder can't stand that guy even though he may be his father!

So far, the proponents of this thread "Climate chang hoax exposed?" claim that
1. there is a widespread conspiracy among climatology researchers to extort public money with lies about "global climate change".
2. billions of U.S. federal dollars are being spent on researchers of global climate change.

The 1st is false by counter-example: although the majority of climatologists agree that "global climate change" would not be good for humans, a sizable minority feel that there is no significant evidence of global climate change. For more details, go read one of the monographs from one of the recent peer-reviewed conferences on climate change.

The second is false by budget: the billions being spent by the U.S. federal government is going to engineering contractors, not researchers. The researchers only get a few crumbs of the whole pie. Or as the famous quote goes: add a billion here and a billion there and now you've got some real money.

I would also warn you about how NASA totals up numbers of researchers. 20 years ago I worked as a civilian scientist for the U.S. Navy. We obtained data from a NASA "Earth Observing" sensor and processed it rather meticulously in comparison to the standard release from NASA. The chief scientist on the NASA sensor project liked our results better, and thus paid our department about $10k a year for operating a data server on darpa.net. Humorously, everyone in the department was listed by NASA as a researcher on the project, although none of the $10k went towards our whopping $32k annual salaries.

Richard
12-11-2009, 02:15 PM
Richard its not the climatologist, its the ones handing them their paycheck. Their corporate boss and politicians.

Corporate bosses? Climatologists are rarely in the corporate sector. The corporations lobbying congress are engineering firms who benefit from large equipment expenditures by NASA.

Also that guy that is always smoking a cigarette. Mulder can't stand that guy even though he may be his father!

Which "that guy" are you referring to?

sbl
12-11-2009, 03:50 PM
2009 was 5th warmest on record so far according to this report:

abc11.com Green Content - 2009 will be among warmest years on record (http://www.greenrightnow.com/wtvd/2009/12/08/2009-will-be-among-warmest-years-on-record/)

jeffreyp
12-11-2009, 03:51 PM
I think alot of problems in the world today, especially here in the USA is rooted in greed. Corporate greed stands out in my mind. Companies will sell out our jobs to cheap mexican, indian, or chinese workers so those in management and at the top can keep their bonuses and stock options. But it's like a gang mentality and they live in a fantasy scrooge world where the workers don't even come to mind because their needs and wants are being met. I think alot of the environmental problems caused by corporations are rooted in greed as well. It is common experience that those who have most want most. This must be because they don't really have what they have: it doesn't fulfill them, it only baits them into further accumulation. Greed is a bottomless pit and nothing will ever fill it. Many misers even live very poor lives - in order to die rich! I think anything in excess is bad but in regard to the whole climate gate scandal, I don't agree with telling lies to control what is believed to be an environmental pollutant. In the great scheme of things it's not very expensive to sequester c02, use it as a fertilzer for bio-algae or even use it as a fuel! I think taxing energy producers only hurts the common man and has little effect of corporations since they will just pass the cost on to you and I. Governments could better spend their efforts either mandating the retrofitting of existing power plants with some of these new emerging technologies and/or require new power plants to incorporate them as these would be a one time cost rather than an ongoing one. Interestingly the most widespread and pervasive co2 producer is the automobile yet I see very very few global warming folks giving up their cars for greener alternatives.

Researchers Build Machine That Turns CO2 Into Fuel | Inhabitat (http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/11/25/new-machine-turns-co2-into-fuel/)
Exploiting Algae as A Bio-Fuel Feedstock & for Reduction in Co2 Emission (http://www.oilgae.com/ref/sub/sub1.html)
SitNews: Cooler decades ahead, researcher says By NED ROZELL (http://www.sitnews.us/0509news/052809/052809_ak_science.html)
Turning Carbon Dioxide Into Fuel - Using Solar Power (http://www.scientificblogging.com/news/turning_carbon_dioxide_into_fuel_using_solar_power)
Bacteria engineered to turn carbon dioxide into liquid fuel (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091210162222.htm)


Along with these things there are other greed related problems the world faces such as starvation, poverty and such that really don't that much attention. I think there is a difference between wanting to improve oneself and the being intoxicated with greed and I think that's where most corporations are today.

saltydad
12-11-2009, 04:17 PM
The late and much beloved Abe Pollen (owner of the Washington Wizards, builder, philanthropist) was noted for saying that he "didn't want to be the richest man in the cemetery".

jeffreyp
12-11-2009, 04:17 PM
2009 was 5th warmest on record so far according to this report:

abc11.com Green Content - 2009 will be among warmest years on record (http://www.greenrightnow.com/wtvd/2009/12/08/2009-will-be-among-warmest-years-on-record/)

You might be interested in this paper.
Climate Change and the Earth's Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection
Author: Kerton, Adrian K.
Source: Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, January 2009 , pp. 75-83(9)
Publisher: Multi-Science Publishing Co Ltd
Abstract:
Many natural mechanisms have been proposed for climate change during the past millennia, however, none of these appears to have accounted for the change in global temperature seen over the second half of the last century. As such the rise in temperature has been attributed to man made mechanisms. Analysis of the movement of the Earth's magnetic poles over the last 105 years demonstrates strong correlations between the position of the north magnetic, and geomagnetic poles, and both northern hemisphere and global temperatures. Although these correlations are surprising, a statistical analysis shows there is a less than one percent chance they are random, but it is not clear how movements of the poles affect climate. Links between changes in the Earth's magnetic field and climate change, have been proposed previously although the exact mechanism is disputed. These include: The Earth's magnetic field affects the energy transfer rates from the solar wind to the Earth's atmosphere which in turn affects the North Atlantic Oscillation. Movement of the poles changes the geographic distribution of galactic and solar cosmic rays, moving them to particularly climate sensitive areas. Changes in distribution of ultraviolet rays resulting from the movement of the magnetic field, may result in increases in the death rates of carbon sinking oceanic plant life such as phytoplankton.

Keywords: MAGNETIC POLES; DRIFT; CLIMATE; COSMIC RAYS
Document Type: Research article
DOI: 10.1260/095830509787689286

http://www.earthsgeomotor.com/

sbl
12-11-2009, 04:26 PM
I can't disagree with you about greed, but it is hard to imagine any corporations more greedy than oil companies--well, maybe banks.

But if you totally ignore the effects of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses or if they had no effect, then plotting temperature from 1800 to 2100 might provide as good a guess as any for future temperatures, but there is not a lot of science behind that.

As for the other links, I like the idea of using algae as a fuel source. Algae can double in biomass in as little as 8 hours, and nowdays can be engineered to produce carbon chains that are readily converted to fuel. Also, I heard a program on the radio where a researcher had developed a way to convert
CO2 directly into methanol in a process driven by electricity, the problem was that it would take 800 nuclear power plants to replace the oil we currently use for transportation.

I agree with you about autos providing a huge amount of greenhouse gas, but hybrids and plug-in electrics will allow us to power autos with renewable electrical sources.

Richard
12-11-2009, 04:33 PM
I can't disagree with you about greed, but it is hard to imagine any corporations more greedy than oil companies--well, maybe banks.

And yet, it is a whole other sickness in and around D.C. The crossroads in Crystal City VA are the same ones Muddy Waters sang about.

jeffreyp
12-11-2009, 04:47 PM
I can't disagree with you about greed, but...

I agree with you about autos providing a huge amount of greenhouse gas, but hybrids and plug-in electrics will allow us to power autos with renewable electrical sources.

That is what is considered cognitive dissonance since most energy produced is by coal, gas and oil.

http://www.jyi.org/articleimages/1368/originals/img2.jpg



.

Richard
12-11-2009, 04:57 PM
Jeffrey,

There is no disagreement that a significant minority of esteemed climatologists feel that the warming trend we see is largely driven by "nature" and not "human activities". Further, just because they are a minority does not make them incorrect -- or correct.

What was proposed in this thread is that there is a "climate chang hoax" (misspelled in title) being perpetrated by climatologists and they are reaping huge profits from it. Neither of these things are true. It is just the latest news feed from the RCC.

jeffreyp
12-11-2009, 05:17 PM
Pardon my ramblings Richard, I think I agree with both sides on the overall issue so I guess that puts me in the middle. :ha: I don't think scientists are reaping some insane amount of money, but I do think they do benefit and for financial means they will pursue the idea du jour. Take a look at a minority dissident on hiv - Peter Duesberg, Ph.D., a researcher in the fields of molecular and cell biology, believes the “HIV causes AIDS” theory fails to meet the “cardinal rules of virology [the science of viruses] and therefore the theory is flawed and untrue. The points he makes are both interesting and plausible though it shows how your career as a scientist or researcher can go in the toilet when one takes a view that is outside of the politically correct one.

Richard
12-11-2009, 05:39 PM
Oh, people in general will put their heads in the sand when it comes to theory of the day. In the late 1800's it was thought that physics was a dead end subject and everything could be explained deterministically -- except for that one problem with "the ultra-violet catastrophe".

But in the case of Peter Duesberg, he unfortunately has irreproducible results. Or as my neighbor from the Neural Sciences Institute points out: if the trials performed for Johnson & Johnson had any merit then Duesberg would be a hero.

sbl
12-11-2009, 08:42 PM
That is what is considered cognitive dissonance since most energy produced is by coal, gas and oil.

http://www.jyi.org/articleimages/1368/originals/img2.jpg



.

I realize that right now only a small perecntage of electricity is made from renewable sources, but that percentage is growing. I do not believe that we will be able to power a large percentage of cars with electricity for a while unless we build a lot of nuclear power plants in a hurry--even then I don't know if we have the capacity to supply the battery needs.

sbl
12-11-2009, 08:59 PM
Pardon my ramblings Richard, I think I agree with both sides on the overall issue so I guess that puts me in the middle. :ha: I don't think scientists are reaping some insane amount of money, but I do think they do benefit and for financial means they will pursue the idea du jour. Take a look at a minority dissident on hiv - Peter Duesberg, Ph.D., a researcher in the fields of molecular and cell biology, believes the “HIV causes AIDS” theory fails to meet the “cardinal rules of virology [the science of viruses] and therefore the theory is flawed and untrue. The points he makes are both interesting and plausible though it shows how your career as a scientist or researcher can go in the toilet when one takes a view that is outside of the politically correct one.

There is a science philosopher named Kuhn that describes science as a balance between order and chaos. There is order when most scientist agree on a given theory, then as we make new observations with the accepted theory in mind we begin to find exceptions where the theory does not fit, ultimately the number of exceptions leads to new theories, even competing theories and the order breaks down, this is actually the period when new ideas and discoveries are more likely to be found. Then science again unites around the new best fitting theory and order is re-established.

This process has happened over and over in various fields of science.

jeffreyp
12-15-2009, 09:52 PM
Daily Express | UK News :: Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why (http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138)



HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

** EXPRESS NEWS: 100 REASONS WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS NATURAL**

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.


SEARCH UK NEWS for:


8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests

44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to Ł15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as Ł60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.

52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”

53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.

54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot

55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.

56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.

57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”

58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.

59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines.

60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about Ł55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.

61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.

63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.

64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.

65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.

66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature.

67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.

68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.

70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”

71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.

72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.

73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.

74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.

75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or Ł1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.

76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.

77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.

78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.

79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).

80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.

81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.

82) Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to Ł1 billion a year.

83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around Ł4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only Ł4 to Ł5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.

88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.

89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.

91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.

94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.

95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.

96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters.

97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.

98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: “We – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”

99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”

Richard
12-15-2009, 10:16 PM
That report is a really great example of:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51HRGNPNEYL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg

jeffreyp
12-15-2009, 10:53 PM
Climate gate is perfect example of that too Richard...interestingly only 20% of the scientists surveyed in the climate gate scandal believe in statistics.

Richard
12-15-2009, 11:06 PM
That's like saying "4 out of 3 people have trouble with fractions" :ha:

jeffreyp
12-15-2009, 11:19 PM
exactly! :ha: ;)

sbl
12-16-2009, 09:11 AM
Climate gate is perfect example of that too Richard...interestingly only 20% of the scientists surveyed in the climate gate scandal believe in statistics.

That means they are not really scientist. Modern science is based on statistics. Science does not seek to prove anything, we are always seeking to dis-prove theories--generally the null hypothesis. If a scientist is to prove a theory that warming is natural then they would need to suggest a way to test the theory that all other possibilities are false (including the theory that CO2 is causing it) using statistics. Even then, we would only be 90, 95, or 99% sure that we had proved that theory to be false (depending on the results).

damaclese
12-16-2009, 03:59 PM
this may be anecdotal but i wanted to bring this up for consideration

here is an exsample of a exstreamly rapid chang in the earths climet that resuted in a mass exstiction of allmost all maga fona of north amarica as well as Europe


Clovis culture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A Clovis projectile point created using bifacial percussion flaking (that is, each face is flaked on both edges alternatively with a percussor)
Image courtesy of the Virginia Dept. of Historic Resources.The Clovis culture (sometimes referred to as the Llano culture[1]) is a prehistoric Paleo-Indian culture that first appears 11,500 rcbp radiocarbon years ago, at the end of the last glacial period, characterized by the manufacture of "Clovis points" and distinctive bone and ivory tools. Archaeologists' most precise determinations at present suggest that this radiocarbon age is equal to roughly 13,500 to 13,000 calendar years ago.

The Clovis culture was replaced by several more localized regional cultures from the time of the Younger Dryas cold climate period onward. Post-Clovis cultures include the Folsom tradition, Gainey, Suwannee-Simpson, Plainview-Goshen, Cumberland, and Redstone. Each of these is commonly thought to derive directly from Clovis, in some cases apparently differing only in the length of the fluting on their projectile points. Although this is generally held to be the result of normal cultural change through time,[2] numerous other reasons have been suggested to be the driving force for the observed changes in the archaeological record, such as an extraterrestrial impact event or post-glacial climate change with numerous faunal extinctions.

After the discovery of several Clovis sites in western North America in the 1930s, the Clovis people came to be regarded as the first human inhabitants of the New World. Clovis people were considered to be the ancestors of all the indigenous cultures of North and South America. However, this majority view has been contested over the last thirty years by several archaeological discoveries, including possible sites like Cactus Hill in Virginia, Paisley Caves in the Summer Lake Basin of Oregon, the Topper site in Allendale County, South Carolina, Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania, and the Monte Verde [3]and Cueva Fell sites in Chile.

It has also been hypothesized that the Clovis culture saw its decline in the wake of the Younger Dryas cold phase. This 'cold shock', lasting roughly 1,500 years, affected many parts of the world, including North America. It appears to have been triggered by a vast meltwater lake – Lake Agassiz – emptying into the North Atlantic, disrupting the thermohaline circulation.


cericteriszation of the last Ice age
Last glacial period
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Last glacial" redirects here. For the period of maximum glacier extent during this time see Last Glacial Maximum
The last glacial period was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age, occurring in the Pleistocene epoch. It began about 110,000 years ago and ended about 9,600 - 9,700 BC. During this period there were several changes between glacier advance and retreat. The maximum extent of glaciation was approximately 18,000 years ago. While the general pattern of global cooling and glacier advance was similar, local differences in the development of glacier advance and retreat make it difficult to compare the details from continent to continent (see picture of ice core data below for differences).

The last glacial period is sometimes colloquially referred to as the "last ice age", though this use is incorrect because an ice age is a longer period of cold temperature in which ice sheets cover large parts of the Earth, such as Antarctica. Glacials, on the other hand, refer to colder phases within an ice age that separate interglacials. Thus, the end of the last glacial period is not the end of the last ice age. The end of the last glacial period was about 12,500 years ago, while the end of the last ice age may not yet have come: little evidence points to a stop of the glacial-interglacial cycle of the last million years.

The last glacial period is the best-known part of the current ice age, and has been intensively studied in North America, northern Eurasia, the Himalaya and other formerly glaciated regions around the world. The glaciations that occurred during this glacial period covered many areas, mainly on the Northern Hemisphere and to a lesser extent on the Southern Hemisphere. They have different names, historically developed and depending on their geographic distributions: Fraser (in the Pacific Cordillera of North America), Pinedale, Wisconsinan or Wisconsin (in central North America), Devensian (in the British Isles), Midlandian (in Ireland), Würm (in the Alps), Merida (in Venezuela), Weichselian (in Scandinavia and Northern Europe), Vistulian (in northern Central Europe), Valdai in Eastern Europe and Zyryanka in Siberia, Llanquihue in Chile, and Otira in New Zealand

this is the reson we find no clovis point sites on the eastern cost of north amarica after 11,000 year ago

Younger Dryas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Three temperature records, the GRIP sequence (red) clearly showing the Younger Dryas event at around 11 kyr BPThe Younger Dryas stadial, named after the alpine/tundra wildflower Dryas octopetala, and also referred to as the Big Freeze,[1] was a geologically brief (approximately 1,300 ± 70 years) cold climate period following the Břlling/Allerřd interstadial at the end of the Pleistocene between approximately 12,800 to 11,500 years ago,[2] and preceding the Preboreal of the early Holocene. In Ireland, the period has been known as the Nahanagan Stadial, while in the UK it has been called the Loch Lomond Stadial and most recently Greenland Stadial 1 (GS1).[3]

The Younger Dryas (GS1) is also a Blytt-Sernander climate period detected from layers in north European bog peat. It is dated approximately 12,900-11,500 BP calibrated, or 11,000-10,000 BP uncalibrated (radiocarbon dating). An Older Dryas stadial had preceded the Allerřd, approximately 1,000 years before the Younger Dryas; it lasted 300 years.[4]

if your not falowing me the younger dryas is a breif pirod were the ices sheats of north amarica started readvansing for no aparint reson there are thirore but it was fast and wasint caused by any humin intervetion as there was no carbon amiting tecnoliges at that time it practicly wiped out the Palo Indeans Clovis point people this is what is hapening right now we are heding in to a new Ice Age in less then 100 years we will probly have to abandon north amarica i know say im crasy but im resonably sure on this

damaclese
12-16-2009, 04:34 PM
i hope my post was clear as i did not try to out line the hole concept in one post i well elaborate further if you all want me to but I'm of the opinion that most people find my postings hard to fallow because i try to out line to vast an amount of information at one time and with my Dyslexia it vary hard to read and understand the points I'm trying to make so i thought i would lay it out in more then one post

in synopsis my point is that the climate can change rapidly with out warning we do not know why theirs no point in arguing this fact we just don't understand the climate well enough to know

secondly it changes with out warning and radically

thirdly i assert that the ice age so often referred to as the last ICE AGE is not infect over we are just in a glassily low ebb in its cycle and the rapid warming that so many clam to see may or may not be related to any of this in fact over all here and in many parts of the world the climate is getting colder not warmer but the people that are looking for warming are just not looking at the cooling parts just the warming parts its myopic and narrow minded

theres no way for me to prove my assertions as we only have theory's as to why the last cold period happened i can print them out for you all if you want to hear them for your self

and as for my opinion that north America will be uninhabitable in almost no time at all is that there simply will not be enough water on this Continent to support 450,000,000 people if that comes to pass then look out we are looking at the largest human extinction scenario in the history of are species

I don't think any efforts to curb green house gases will make any difference one way or the other on this out come

its sad to think of the loss of culture that is going to occur but we haven't exactly taken care of the planet any way so what clam do we really have on it you just get to rent for a wile

Richard
12-16-2009, 05:34 PM
I don't think any efforts to curb green house gases will make any difference one way or the other on this out come


I think there is a difference between irresponsible polluting and responsible custodianship of the earth.

As for whether or not there is any merit to the claims that global climate change is occurring or not occurring, I look at it this way:

A meteorologist is someone who studies weather conditions. They typically have a bachelors degree in Earth Sciences, or perhaps they attended a University that offers a Meteorology degree.
A climatologist is someone who studies the climate of a solar body. Yes, most of them study the earth climate. With a masters degree you can get one of the few jobs in industry as a consulting engineer, but for a career you won't get far without a PhD. Included in the PhD will be at least a masters degree in Earth Sciences and Physics which includes at least a masters degree in Applied Mathematics.
A Geo-climatologist is someone who studies climates back through the geologic history of the earth. One area of study is global warming -- the theory that the earth has been warming on average 1 degree (C) every hundred years. Another area of study is the theory of current global climate change.


For lay-people (including myself) to issue opinions on whether or not climate change exists is ludicrous.

Further, to judge a theory by vote (how many scientists for and against) is even more ridiculous. Consider this:
In the years that Einstein's Theory of Relativity papers were published, the vast majority of physicists thought there was little merit to the ideas.

paradisi
12-16-2009, 06:13 PM
ROFLMAO

I havent been on the forum for a while and the first thing I see are the flat earthers proclaiming climate changes is a hoax LOL

We now have a religous right political group as the opposition in australia and they have decreed that climate change deosnt exist - the oppisiontis headed by a bloke called abbott - a failed catholic priest and a woman called bishop

I havent read the thread and may be jumping in feet first, but I would have thought the flat earthers had very little place in a discussion forum where everyone is a plant grower and gardenr and as such are the people most likely to notice changes in the climate

Just my thoughts. i will get around to reading the full thread, I need something to make me smile

jeffreyp
12-16-2009, 06:43 PM
I would suggest reading the whole thread rather than kick up the sand like an equus asinus. . I don't think most would dispute the climate changes.

djmb74
12-16-2009, 07:11 PM
valid points Richard, but the argument isn't really weather climate change is happening! Its always happening! The argument is weather or not we are the cause of climate change and if we really can do anything about it! The other problem is wealthier nations bullying the poorer nations into treaties that effect the growth of their nation.

And yes a lot of this also has to do with money. Policy changes one way or another can effect large corporations profit! Scientist may not be making large amounts of money on this climate issue but someone is either that or they are trying to keep from having to pay out money and those people are the ones that may be in positions to encourage them down one path or another!

Conspiracies and powerful people manipulating large portions of society is happening, its happening everyday!

As a "lay person" I am not going to just believe something someone tells me just because they have an education.

Heck how many times in the last 20 years have we been told that something was bad for us then the next year they do another study that says they were wrong and it actually is good for us or vice versa!

Richard
12-16-2009, 08:00 PM
As a "lay person" I am not going to just believe something someone tells me just because they have an education.


I'm certainly not asking you to. And likewise, no one without a credible background in the subject (about 3 PhD's worth) should be voicing opinions on whether or not we are currently in a phase of global human-induced climate change.

djmb74
12-16-2009, 08:55 PM
Not even close to be the same subject as what is being discussed here. But I had a really bad experience with so called "educated" when it came to the birth of my 2 oldest. Especially my 2nd oldest. Had 2 doctors give different decisions on whether or not to do a C section first one said it had to be done no way because he was gonna be over 10lbs, his shift ended 2nd doctor said he has no idea why the previous doctor said she needed a c-section. After that experience I thought boy I could do a better job then they did. My 3rd child I spent 8 months studying I delivered Larissa, then Zachary, and Jayden myself.

In my 40 years I have met a lot of people with way too much eduction to be walking around without a lick of sense!

Richard
12-16-2009, 09:32 PM
djmb74, your vocation would not exist without the multitude of highly educated physicists and electrical engineers that made it possible in the last century.

Divide and conquer by invoking bias and mistrust of academics and science/engineering professionals has been a major theme of the RNC for the last two decades. It is a page right out of Mao's playbook.

You have been playing a nut-and-shell game in this thread. Exactly what is your point?

djmb74
12-16-2009, 09:57 PM
(scratches my head)... hmm maybe at this point I don't have one!

I think I am just starting to like reading what you type Richard! :ha:

djmb74
12-16-2009, 09:59 PM
I don't mistrust academics or science...

Its the politicians I mistrust, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM!

damaclese
12-17-2009, 07:36 AM
now back to the point heres another example of non man made events that caused rapid and extreme climate change

Laki - 1783 Eruption

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Williams, Jr., and Moore, Man Against Volcano: The Eruption on Heimaey, Vestmannaeyjar, Iceland: USGS General Interest Publication, 32p.
The Vestmannaeyjar islands parallel the structural trend of tectonic fissures (gjár), grabens, and crater rows on the mainland to the north in the eastern volcanic zone. This is a zone of historically active volcanoes, including Hekla, Katla, and the famous Laki fissure eruption of 1783. The Laki eruption derives its name from a mountain (Laki) which was split by a fissure from which a large volume of lava and gas emanated. ... The Laki eruption produced the largest lava flow on Earth observed in historic times, 2.9 cubic miles of lava which inundated 218 square miles. ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard S. Williams, Jr., Glaciers: Clues to Future Climate: USGS General Interest Publication, 1999 Online version
Among the more prominent theories of events that have triggered global climatic changes and lead to repeated glaciation are: (1) known astronomical variations in the orbital elements of the Earth (the so-called Milankovitch theory); (2) changes in energy output from the Sun; and (3) increases in volcanism that could have thrown more airborne volcanic material into the stratosphere, thereby creating a dust veil and lowered temperatures. ...


The potential climatic effect of the Laki volcanic eruption in Iceland in 1783, the largest effusive (lava) volcanic eruption in historic time, was noted by the diplomat-scientist Benjamin Franklin in 1784, during one of his many sojourns in Paris. Franklin concluded that the introduction of large quantities of volcanic particles into the Earth's upper atmosphere could cause a reduction in surface temperature, because the particles would lessen the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface.

After this 1783 eruption of Laki in Iceland there were three Years of complete and utter devastation across the norther hemisphere. The sumer of 1784 85 and 86 there was reports of ice in the Mississippi delta down in to new Orleans. That same years there was continuous snows across northern England in the months of July and August. All across France Crops failed for 3 years strate. It has been suggested that this was a leading cause of the French revaluation. We know know from studies of volcanic lava in Laki that there was sulfur dioxide expelled in high concentration in the 1783 eruption. Many reports that same year of hazy red colored Sky's. The sulfur combines with Water vapor in the atmosphere to form an aerosol that block solar radiation. There are many other examples of this kind of dramatic climate Chang. the rice fields of Japan falid cousing the bigest famin ever in Japans recorded history cupled with all the other afects its ben shown that over 600,000 people died as a result of the 1783 eruption of laki why they hell dont the teach that in high school (retorical) you would think 6 hundred thousand people dieing would be big news?

You see here ones agian are exsamples of non Human related climat chang

damaclese
12-17-2009, 09:15 AM
OK now that i have finally laid out the previous examples this is what i think its causing the cooling affects. The Golf stream is slowing down. Why? because in the last 20 years the glaciers of Iceland have been melting at unprecedented rates. Now before you start jumping up and down saying "see see i told you global warming" Let get the facts striate as to why the glaciers are melting. Its not do to global warming! its do to dramatically increased volcanic activity on Iceland which by the way is the biggest sheet of ice in the norther hemisphere.
And its melting from the bottom up ^ not the other way around. All over Iceland you can see depression were the volcanoes that sit under the ice are melting the over head ice. This makes for large lakes that sit inside of the calderas of many of thees volcanoes. At some point the walls of the caldera fail letting the water rush out. There are numerous examples of thees mass flooding events, including photographs and moves this of course flows in to the Atlantic sea and this is why the salinity of the sea which has been dropping rapidly over that last 2 decades causing the golf stream to slow down. there by not moving heat from the equatorial regions to the north hemisphere. So the atmosphere is not heating up but if you were to look at the temperatures at the equator you would think the earth is over heating. The global warming people use this as an example of green house gas affect when its absolutely and provably not from solar radiation but do to ice melts from volcanic activity in Iceland. So you see we are headed for at least a short maybe 1500 year cold spell as to why north America looks like its heating is because the heat the builds up in the golf of Mex that is normally moved away by the Golf stream is now free to radiate out threw natural convective currents. This is making the regions of the souther US warmer. This is turn is creating higher faster moving winds to the east sucking the heat and moisture out of the desert south west. And increasing the snows on the east coast wish is the pattern we have been seeing now for over 20 years. this is what promoted climatologist to perceive that the Climate was in flux's. In turn is leaving heat that would normally be cared north down in the Caribbean which is accelerating the evaporation of the oceans and is causing and exscalation in the hurricane cycle making storms more frequent and increasing their intensity. All of this is sucking the moisture out of Europe and drawing hotter air up off the Mediterranean making Europe have some of the hottest and longest summers on record. So you see its not green house its Golf Stream related Global warming. But it will lead to Cooling on the back side its just the beginning of the cycle. In the Younger Dryer Period its Been estimated that it only took 30 years to go from 80 deg summers on the east cost of North America to 40 deg summers. That would make the winters here in the US similar to Alaska you are looking at wind chills in the -100 or grater and temps in the -20 to -30 below zero fh. The water in the atmosphere will freeze out and start to accumulate in northern latitudes were it will remain locked up even in the summer times. Leaving North America as dry as the Sahara or in my case the Mohave desert. Were will you all get your drinking water? and Kansas Nebraska and Iowa which feed 50% of the world will not be even able to feed us let alone the starving peoples of Africa. What will they do? What about Russia which buys halfe of all are wheet now they will starve and so will Europe and India. Possibly as many as 4 billion people in the World will Die.

PS i am not a flat earther as was pointed out in another post any one that knows me at all on this forum would know that i am one of the stonchest perponets of stewerd ship of are Good Green Earth and my postings on this subject in no way saport or advacat the abusiv life stiles that have been the hall mark of Western culture throuw out the 19th and 20th centurys

jeffreyp
12-17-2009, 09:44 AM
so the answer would seem to pump more co2 into the atmosphere.

damaclese
12-17-2009, 10:04 AM
so the answer would seem to pump more co2 into the atmosphere.

in answer to your question. heres a link on the Younger dryas period that has some references to an event 50,000 years ago when the earths CO2 was many many times higher. not that this really answers in any definitive way but it hints at how we cant know if the current CO2 levels would have any affect. or maybe they would curb the cooling all together. we simple cant know we will have to just monitor and learn as we go

Two examples of abrupt climate change (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/arch/examples.shtml)

sbl
12-17-2009, 03:54 PM
Paulo, I agree with you that the Gulf Stream is slowing--it is part of the ocean circulation belt that starts with deepwater formation in the Notrh Atlantic--the Gulf Stream is the last leg of the return trip as the water come to the surface in the Pacific. There are oceanographers that are measuring the amount of deepwater formed and they are seeing a decrease in formation. The slowing of the circulation is also evident in the increased frequency of El Nino.

I do believe that when or if the circulation stops, there will be dramatic changes in climate as the ocean has a major influence on our weather and climate. It will be much like the Younger Dryas period.

But, I do think that man's influence on the climate is speeding our warming and leading to that dramatic change (not that other natural factors are not involved as forces increasing or decreasing our temperature). In addition, as we are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, the pH of seawater is decreasing making it more difficult for mollusk to make shells and coral to make reefs.

jeffreyp
12-17-2009, 04:47 PM
co2 causes both global warming and cooling then?

sbl
12-17-2009, 07:09 PM
As a greenhouse gas, CO2 increases the retention of solar heat causing warming of the earth. The warming reduces the formation of deepwater in the ocean --that is what drives the ocean circulation.

One major question that science has never had a good answer for is what happens to cause the drop in CO2 that has happened at the end of each of the past warm periods.

My theory--I have not seen this in any science articles-- is that the CO2 drops because the ocean circulation breaks down into a two layer system--the bottom layer becomes isolated--so any algae produced in the surface layer sinks to the deep layer and is isolated from the surface until the system is restarted--that is then what leads to the rapid increase in CO2 at the start of the warm period.

jeffreyp
12-17-2009, 07:53 PM
so if things cooled because of natural processes would it be prudent to emit more co2?

damaclese
12-17-2009, 08:23 PM
co2 causes both global warming and cooling then?

it can start a warming trend but we don't know if its the cause of global warming but as the atmosphere warms and glaciers melt the seas salinity grows weaker then the golf stream slows and if it stops completely the entire northern hemisphere would be thrown in to at least a short Glacial piroud the golf stream is what circulates heat from the equator up in to the northern latitudes
but is my opinion along with a grate many scientist that the fresh water that is interring the northern Atlantic is defiantly from Iceland's massive ice sheet why this is melting is the bone of contention i say its from increased volcanic activity by the way there is some evidence that volcanoes as well as tectonic activity is tied to the solar cycle and guess what its just happens to be on a dozey of a hot cycle right now we are getting particle out flows like we have never seen sins the sun was first monitored in the early 20th century

I would like to point out that the total Co2 in are atmosphere has not raisin magnificently in the last 10 years as a mater of fact its drooping for example the average Auto in 2009 puts out 95% less emissions then it did in 1960 the first year for recording of such facts and yes that even accounts for chinas hole sale abuse of the climate but that could Chang as they are building infrastructure as an amazing pace and are set to over take the US in road construction in less then 5 years and seeing as there country is many times the size of ares I'm sure if they don't get it together and soon on coming ICE AGE or not nun of us are going to be breathing by the time it gets here
now I'm not talking other kinds of emissions like Carbinmonoxside or nitrogen sulfur or any other just Co2
i wish we could convince the Chinese and Indians that they could grow even in the face of emissions controls we did it we have had some sort of legislation for almost 50 years and most of are super growth has occurred in that time we were hardly a super power in 1960 we barely had and army at that point in comparison to previous decades of WWII OK I'm veering of topic sorry for that but it is all inter related

sbl
12-17-2009, 08:39 PM
If the scenario I just described is what happens, then extra CO2 will shorten the time until the circulation system shuts down, once it shuts down CO2 emissions may not have much effect as the ocean starts drawing it down--probably faster that we have been increasing it. However, whatever levels of CO2 do remain, it will still behave like a greenhouse gas and retain more heat than if it were not there.

The normal CO2 cycle (before man's influence) varied from a low of about 180ppm during the Ice Age to a high of 280 to 300 ppm during the warm periods. We are now near 400 ppm.

However, CO2 is not the only factor involved in the the earth's climate, a combination of orbital factors, reflectance and ocean circulation are also involved--I doubt CO2 levels can stop an Ice Age when it is due if that is what you are asking.

damaclese
12-17-2009, 08:43 PM
so if things cooled because of natural processes would it be prudent to emit more co2?

just the respiration of the 9 billion people on this planet produces tuns of Co2 every day but as Co2 goes up Plant growth rapidly exhilarates its there primary means of energy production they in turn put of Ox and thats are primary means of energy production so in Essenes we are interdependent species this is why habitat loss is such an important issue we must keep the plants or we die

I know this is totally preposterous to suggest but the longer i live the more tempting the thought of taking are entire planet back to a balanced hunter gatherer and Agrarian society makes more and more sens O could you see the wars that would brake out at the mer suggestion that Americas would have to pitch there Blackberry's what if we left all the communications apparatus in place but took every ones means of mobility away from them and went on a course of self production of course this would only work if we could scale the population of the earth back to 1.6 billion and hold it there permanently thats considered the optimal population by the people that study thees kinds of things sorry i digressed again

damaclese
12-17-2009, 08:49 PM
Sbl i have to commend you on your super way of explaining consepts you say all the things i wish i could convey

sbl
12-17-2009, 10:20 PM
You bring up a good point, it is both the total world population and the fast pace lives we try to live that are at the root of the problem. I think that when the real change begins there will be a lot of wars over resources--ultimately we may all become hunter gathers again!

--I'm headed out to polish up my skills tomorrow!

jeffreyp
12-18-2009, 12:29 AM
" Carbon dioxide not to blame in ice age mystery
The reason why those cold spells now come less frequently is still unknown"

Carbon Dioxide Not To Blame In Ice Age Mystery - Science News (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/44821/title/Carbon_dioxide__not_to_blame_in_ice_age_mystery)




"Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical."

The Sun, Not CO2, Caused Ice Age Glaciers To Melt (http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-sun-not-co2-caused-ice-age-glaciers-to-melt.html)

:coldbanana:

sbl
12-18-2009, 03:52 AM
Modern theory does not say that CO2 causes the shift from Ice Age to warm period--it is believed to be caused by changes in our orbit and the wobble in our axis that increase the amount of sun energy the we recieve--only after that does CO2 become involved and increase from approximately 180 ppm to 280-300 ppm and then stabilize and enhance the warm period.

jeffreyp
12-18-2009, 10:56 AM
Copenhagen climate summit: 'most important paper in the world' is a glorified UN press release – Telegraph Blogs (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100020279/copenhagen-climate-summit-most-important-paper-in-the-world-is-a-glorified-un-press-release/)


Copenhagen climate summit: 'most important paper in the world' is a glorified UN press release


By Gerald Warner World Last updated: December 18th, 2009

58 Comments Comment on this article

When your attempt at recreating the Congress of Vienna with a third-rate cast of extras turns into a shambles, when the data with which you have tried to terrify the world is daily exposed as ever more phoney, when the blatant greed and self-interest of the participants has become obvious to all beholders, when those pesky polar bears just keep increasing and multiplying – what do you do?

No contest: stop issuing three rainforests of press releases every day, change the heading to James Bond-style “Do not distribute” and “leak” a single copy, in the knowledge that human nature is programmed to interest itself in anything it imagines it is not supposed to see, whereas it would bin the same document unread if it were distributed openly.

After that, get some unbiased, neutral observer, such as the executive director of Greenpeace, to say: “This is the single most important piece of paper in the world today.” Unfortunately, the response of all intelligent people will be to fall about laughing; but it was worth a try – everybody loves a tryer – and the climate alarmists are no longer in a position to pick and choose their tactics.

But boy! Was this crass, or what? The apocalyptic document revealing that even if the Western leaders hand over all the climate Danegeld demanded of them, appropriately at the venue of Copenhagen, the earth will still fry on a 3C temperature rise is the latest transparent scare tactic to extort more cash from taxpayers. The danger of this ploy, of course, is that people might say “If we are going to be chargrilled anyway, what is the point of handing over billions – better to get some serious conspicuous consumption in before the ski slopes turn into saunas.”

This “single most important piece of paper in the world” comes, presumably, from an authoritative and totally neutral source? Yes, of course. It’s from the – er – UN Framework Committee on Climate Change that is – er – running the Danegeld Summit. Some people might be small-minded enough to suggest this paper has as much authority as a “leaked” document from Number 10 revealing that life would be hell under the Tories.

This week has been truly historic. It has marked the beginning of the landslide that is collapsing the whole AGW imposture. The pseudo-science of global warming is a global laughing stock and Copenhagen is a farce. In the warmist camp the Main Man is a railway engineer with huge investments in the carbon industry. That says it all. The world’s boiler being heroically damped down by the Fat Controller. Al Gore, occupant of the only private house that can be seen from space, so huge is its energy consumption, wanted to charge punters $1,200 to be photographed with him at Copenhagen. There is a man who is really worried about the planet’s future.

If there were not $45trillion of Western citizens’ money at stake, this would be the funniest moment in world history. What a bunch of buffoons. Not since Neville Chamberlain tugged a Claridge’s luncheon bill from his pocket and flourished it on the steps of the aircraft that brought him back from Munich has a worthless scrap of paper been so audaciously hyped. There was one good moment at Copenhagen, though: some seriously professional truncheon work by Danish Plod on the smellies. Otherwise, this event is strictly for Hans Christian Andersen.

Blizzard Dumps Snow on Copenhagen as Leaders Battle Warming - Bloomberg.com (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601130&sid=a5wStc0K6jhY)

Blizzard Dumps Snow on Copenhagen as Leaders Battle Warming
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A

By Christian Wienberg

Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) -- World leaders flying into Copenhagen today to discuss a solution to global warming will first face freezing weather as a blizzard dumped 10 centimeters (4 inches) of snow on the Danish capital overnight.

“Temperatures will stay low at least the next three days,” Henning Gisseloe, an official at Denmark’s Meteorological Institute, said today by telephone, forecasting more snow in coming days. “There’s a good chance of a white Christmas.”

Delegates from 193 countries have been in Copenhagen since Dec. 7 to discuss how to fund global greenhouse gas emission cuts. U.S. President Barack Obama will arrive before the summit is scheduled to end tomorrow.

Denmark has a maritime climate and milder winters than its Scandinavian neighbors. It hasn’t had a white Christmas for 14 years, under the DMI’s definition, and only had seven last century. Temperatures today fell as low as minus 4 Celsius (25 Fahrenheit).

DMI defines a white Christmas as 90 percent of the country being covered by at least 2 centimeters of snow on the afternoon of Dec. 24.

To contact the reporter on this story: Christian Wienberg in Copenhagen at cwienberg@bloomberg.net

jeffreyp
12-18-2009, 11:04 AM
For the past 150 yrs. the warming rate, 0.42. That is straight from the IPCC. Ever notice they never tell you exactly just how much the temp. rose? The hottest yrs. are merely measured in hundreds of a degree higher, so the difference between 54.54 and 54.59 is the "hottest". You can get any trend simply by choosing the right starting date. CO2 has increased by 1/10000 since 1750. If you pay any attention to Copenhagen, the debate is all about money. 3rd World countries figured out that the West had lost their minds and they are there to pick-up the cash to absolve Western guilt. The problem is that the West intends on keeping them in poverty to use them for "carbon credits"...the ones all the big banks have set-up for trading. They think it will be the largest market EVER...trillions of dollars. So it's all about who's the better poker player. Both sides are playing the other for fools. With all the socialists, marxists, communists, mal-contents, freaks and you got a circus.

Report: Antarctic Ice Growing, Not Shrinking
FOXNews.com - Report: Antarctic Ice Growing, Not Shrinking - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,517035,00.html)
Saturday , April 18, 2009

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 percent of the Earth's ice and 80 percent 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 destabilization of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.
Volcano, Not Global Warming Effects, May be Melting an Antarctic Glacier|Environmental Graffiti (http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/volcano-not-global-warming-effects-may-be-melting-an-antarctic-glacier/714)
• Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Natural Science Center.

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."

Australia 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," Allison said.

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Center shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years.

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.

jeffreyp
12-18-2009, 11:26 AM
I share these conclusions


1. In geological history, we are lucky to experience a warm planet. The more common ice ages, which last tens of thousands of years, would probably end human civilization as we know it.
2. Our current temperature truly is not significant when compared to Holocene, as a whole.
3. C02 and fossil fuel increase by humans may be contributing to a warmer planet, but the significance is still not clearly understood.
4. Between 1979 and 2000, there was a steady rise in temperature, but it has leveled for the past 9 years.
5. Governments should implement "clean" technologies to sequester or convert co2 (and other real pollutants) for existing power plants and require it for all new ones that are built. Stop the nonsense with the card game of carbon credits - it solves very little and only works toward giving the impression things are being taken care of. If anyone is passionate about this issue participate dealing with pollution from a personal level (your car, home energy consumption) and demand your government handles it in a logical sensible way.
6. Carbon credits is just a taxing game which only passes the costs on to you and I (makes you poorer) and does nothing to address the perceived problem of excess co2.
7. Grow more plants! Increased Co2 is a natural fertilizer for increased plant growth and yields plus plants consume / reduce co2.
8. Burn carbon neutral fuels like ethanol (even non flex fuel cars can burn 60% gas 40% ethanol on a fillup)

damaclese
12-19-2009, 11:36 AM
Jeff i think most of what you have posted on the last three confirms what i have said the Arctic is more then safe i don't know about you but i keep looking up and guess what i haven't had a single poler bear drop out of the heavens to squash me flat go figure!

check out some of those links i posted on Iceland its fascinating stuff

jeffreyp
12-20-2009, 12:32 AM
I'll take a look at your links...thanks..

Peolple are seen on the beach covered by snow in Nice, southeastern ... - Yahoo! News Photos (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//091219/481/603d554f4c774822bd1a36f32ae5c907/)

sbl
12-21-2009, 09:16 AM
[QUOTE=jeffreyp;114739] CO2 has increased by 1/10000 since 1750. QUOTE]

That may sound like nothing, but that is the normal difference between the Ice Age and a Warm Period.

Again--Fox news is totally unreliable--show me some science journal articles not FOX BS.

Jeffery--1. "In geological history, we are lucky to experience a warm planet. The more common ice ages, which last tens of thousands of years, would probably end human civilization as we know it."

The increasing CO2 is probably racing us to that point of stopping the ocean circulation system and starting the next Ice Age.

jeffreyp
12-21-2009, 10:31 AM
Climate mythology:
The Gulf Stream, European climate and Abrupt Change
Richard Seager
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University

New: June 7, 2007

Richard Seager's presentation to the New York Academy of Sciences:
The Gulf Stream, European Climate and Abrupt Climate Change

A few times a year the British media of all stripes goes into a tizzy of panic when one climate scientist or another states that there is a possibility that the North Atlantic ocean circulation, of which the Gulf Stream is a major part, will slow down in coming years or even stop. Whether the scientists statements are measured or inflammatory the media invariably warns that this will plunge Britain and Europe into a new ice age, pictures of the icy shores of Labrador are shown, created film of English Channel ferries making their way through sea ice are broadcast... And so the circus continues year after year. Here is one example.

The Gulf Stream-European climate myth
The panic is based on a long held belief of the British, other Europeans, Americans and, indeed, much of the world's population that the northward heat transport by the Gulf Stream is the reason why western Europe enjoys a mild climate, much milder than, say, that of eastern North America. This idea was actually originated by an American military man, Matthew Fontaine Maury, in the mid nineteenth century and has stuck since despite the absence of proof.

We now know this is a myth, the climatological equivalent of an urban legend. In a detailed study published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society in 2002, we demonstrated the limited role that ocean heat transport plays in determining regional climates around the Atlantic Ocean. A popular version of this story can be found here.

The determinants of North Atlantic regional climates
We showed that there are three processes that need to be evaluated:

1. The ocean absorbs heat in summer and releases it in winter. Regions that are downwind of oceans in winter will have mild climates. This process does not require ocean currents or ocean heat transport.
2. The atmosphere moves heat poleward and warm climates where the heat converges. In additions, the waviness in the atmospheric flow creates warm climates where the air flows poleward and cold climates where it flows equatorward.
3. The ocean moves heat poleward and will warm climates where it releases heat and the atmosphere picks it up and moves it onto land.

Using observations and climate models we found that, at the latitudes of Europe, the atmospheric heat transport exceeds that of the ocean by several fold. In winter it may even by an order of magnitude greater. Thus it is the atmosphere, not the ocean, that does the lion's share of the work ameliorating winter climates in the extratropics. We also found that the seasonal absorption and release of heat by the ocean has a much larger impact on regional climates than does the movement of heat by ocean currents.

Seasonal storage and release accounts for half the winter temperature difference across the North Atlantic Ocean. But the 500 pound gorilla in how regional climates are determined around the Atlantic turned out to be the Rocky Mountains. Because of the need to conserve angular momentum, as air flows from the west across the mountains it is forced to first turn south and then to turn north further downstream. As such the mountains force cold air south into eastern North America and warm air north into western Europe. This waviness in the flow is responsible for the other half of the temperature difference across the North Atlantic Ocean.

Hence:

1. Fifty percent of the winter temperature difference across the North Atlantic is caused by the eastward atmospheric transport of heat released by the ocean that was absorbed and stored in the summer.
2. Fifty percent is caused by the stationary waves of the atmospheric flow.
3. The ocean heat transport contributes a small warming across the basin.


The seasonal ocean heat storage and pattern of atmospheric heat transport add up to make winters in western Europe 15 to 20 degrees C warmer than those in eastern North America. A very similar process occurs across the Pacific Ocean. The ocean heat transport warms the North Atlantic Ocean and the land on both sides by a modest few degrees C. The only place where the ocean heat transport fundamentally alters climate is along the coast of northern Norway which would be sea ice-covered were it not for the warm northward flowing Norwegian Current.

The Gulf Stream and future climate change
A slowdown of the Gulf Stream and ocean circulation in the future, induced by freshening of the waters caused by anthropogenic climate change (via melting glaciers and increased water vapor transport into high latitudes) or simply by warming, would thus introduce a modest cooling tendency. This would leave the temperature contrast across the Atlantic unchanged and not plunge Europe back into the ice age or anything like it. In fact the cooling tendency would probably be overwhelmed by the direct radiatively-driven warming by rising greenhouse gases.

North Atlantic Ocean circulation and abrupt climate change
The conflation of the Gulf Stream, ocean heat transport and Europe's climate has led to changes in ocean circulation being the reigning theory of the cause of glacial era abrupt climate change. These abrupt changes - the Dansgaard-Oeschger events of the last ice age and the Younger Dryas cold reversal of the last deglaciation - are well recorded in the Greenland ice core and Europe and involved changes in winter temperature of as much as thirty degrees C! For the Younger Dryas it has been proposed that the sudden release of glacial meltwater from ice dammed Lake Agassiz freshened the North Atlantic and shut down the overturning circulation causing dramatic regional coooling.

Only through an inflated view of the impact of ocean circulation could it be thought that the enormous glacial era abrupt changes were caused by changes in ocean circulation. Instead, as we have argued, changes in atmospheric circulation regimes had to be the driver, see (Seager and Battisti,2006). Determining how this could happen has become more of a priority now that the geological evidence for the Lake Agassiz flood has not been found, see (Broecker,2006).

Moving beyond the myth
It is long time that the Gulf Stream-European climate myth was resigned to the graveyard of defunct misconceptions along with the Earth being flat and the sun going around the Earth. In its place we need serious assessments of how changes in ocean circulation will impact climate change and a new look at the problem of abrupt climate change that gives the tropical climate system and the atmosphere their due as the primary drivers of regional climates around the world.

The Gulf Stream Myth (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/)
Science says the Gulf Stream's not slowing (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=18a82eea-b683-44db-a46c-47ad6c3ae6c1)
Subzero Temperatures Batter Europe - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126131735544199141.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r1:c0.156487:b29452782)

sbl
12-21-2009, 02:32 PM
The ocean has far more effect on climate than the atmosphere. It is why we have desserts right on the coast in places like Chile, it is why Ancorage is as warm as it is and why the Pacific NW of the US is cold and wet. The atmosphere moves faster than the ocean, but it gains and looses most of it's heat from the ocean (which covers over 2/3 of the earths surface). Water has a higher heat capacity than air and evaporation of water from the ocean is like transferring 540 calories of heat per gram of water into the atmosphere.

Like the Gulf Stream, major currents like the Kuroshio Current, the California Current, the Benguela Current, The Brazilian Current , the Peruvian Current and the Aguhlas Current all transfer massive amounts of warm or cold water north or south along the shores of the continents and have dramatic effects on the landward climates. All of these currents are driven by deepwater formation in the North Atlantic which is formed as seawater freezes in the North Atlantic. Warm water, and fresher water in the North Atlantic reduce the formation of deepwater, slowing all of the currents (they are interconnected). We have only been measuring the amount of deepwater formation for a relatively short period of time, but those measurements are showing a dramatic decline in that short time.

If as you said, Antartica is getting cooler, it is probably due to reduced flow of the ocean currents carrying heat to the Southern Ocean, and that agrees with a increased frequency of El Nino. Even these small short-term changes have dramatic effects on the weather.

Lamont's Broecker Warns Gases Could Alter Climate; Oceans' Circulation Could Collapse. Columbia University Record, December 5, 1997 (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/23/11/13.html)

climate change and deep water formation | climate change and deep water formation Information | HighBeam Research - FREE Trial (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1O112-climatechangenddpwtrfrmtn.html)

In Deep Water: Will Essential Ocean Currents Be Altered by Climate Change? [Slide Show]: Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=deep-water-ocean-currents-climate)

jeffreyp
12-21-2009, 03:03 PM
I have not seen anything stating that the southern oceans are conveying less heat to the southern oceans. Probably, could, might be, there's a chance, are not good science. The above article I posted states that:

1. Fifty percent of the winter temperature difference across the North Atlantic is caused by the eastward atmospheric transport of heat released by the ocean that was absorbed and stored in the summer.
2. Fifty percent is caused by the stationary waves of the atmospheric flow.
3. The ocean heat transport contributes a small warming across the basin.

It does not make the conclusion that the ocean has no affect on climate.

sbl
12-21-2009, 08:10 PM
I have not seen anything stating that the southern oceans are conveying less heat to the southern oceans. Probably, could, might be, there's a chance, are not good science. The above article I posted states that:

1. Fifty percent of the winter temperature difference across the North Atlantic is caused by the eastward atmospheric transport of heat released by the ocean that was absorbed and stored in the summer.
2. Fifty percent is caused by the stationary waves of the atmospheric flow.
3. The ocean heat transport contributes a small warming across the basin.

It does not make the conclusion that the ocean has no affect on climate.

the southern oceans are conveying less heat to the southern oceans???

Based on the fact that the heat capacity of water is 4.186 Joules/cm3 per degree Kelvin and the heat capacity of air is 0.001297 Joules/cm3 per degree Kelvin, I find it difficult to believe that the atmosphere could possibly contain anywhere near the heat that is contained in the oceans. The atmosphere may move 50% of the heat after obtaining the heat from the ocean while the other 50% of the heat is moved directly by the ocean, but that is just semantics.

"Ocean heat transport contributes a small warming across the basin"--another case of word smithing to confuse the truth. Most of the currents I listed transport heat North and South--not across the ocean.

The deepwater formation that occurs in the North Atlantic flows to Antartica along the bottom of the Atlantic and then resurfaces as it travels around Antartica and back down to the bottom in the Pacific. That cold water then resurfaces in several places in the Pacific (ie Peru) before returning on the surface to the North Atlantic. If the ocean currents stop, there will be major climate disruptions.

jeffreyp
12-21-2009, 10:27 PM
It's conjecture, and it feeds into the panacea of the hypochondriacs of global warming. Consider the conveyor belt not as a matter of currents by temperature differences but rather a mechanical engine based on gravitation and spin of the earth. I am not so convinced of the former and the global warming hysteria reminds me of a hypochondriac. Find a potential illness and then look for a potential (despite the facts say otherwise) scenario that could cause the illness. The sugar pills of the global warming hysteria are carbon credits. As far as I am concerned, the debate over whether global warming is real or part of the natural climate cycle is like watching a football game (or whatever team sport you favor). Each team gets excited, heated and pugnacious. One team wins and in the end in the big scheme of things it doesn't matter except the team owners walk away with a ton of money. If you know a little about the human condition from a medical perspective you can get really depressed about thinking of all the things that could go wrong (diseases, pestilence, infections, etc) but you do the best you can do. In the same sense humanity is given the responsibility to be good stewards of the earth and should demand realistic and reasonable things to keep the earth healthy. From the human experience most people would probably agree anything in excess is bad hence as I stated before:

Governments should implement "clean" technologies to sequester or convert co2 (and other real pollutants) for existing power plants and require it for all new ones that are built. Stop the nonsense with the card game of carbon credits - it solves very little and only works toward giving the impression things are being taken care of. If anyone is passionate about this issue participate dealing with pollution from a personal level (your car, home energy consumption) and demand your government handles it in a logical sensible way. The problem is with "carbon credits"...the ones all the big banks have set-up for trading. They think it will be the largest market EVER...trillions of dollars. So it's all about who's the better poker player. Get everyone worked up about it while they rake in the bucks. Both sides are playing the other for fools. With all the socialists, Marxists, communists, mal-contents, freaks and you got a circus.

Conveyor Belt Model Broken | The Resilient Earth (http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/conveyor-belt-model-broken)
Climate Change Spin Doctors | The Resilient Earth (http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/climate-change-spin-doctors)
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/tdm22.pdf


.

sbl
12-22-2009, 07:38 AM
It's conjecture, and it feeds into the panacea of the hypochondriacs of global warming. It's the cross towards a demanaic to consider the conveyor belt is not a matter of currents by temperature differences but rather a mechanical engine based on gravitation and spin of the earth.

It is not conjecture. What drives the ocean currents is one of the most well understood parts of this whole debate. It is pure physics--gravity is the driving force, temperature and salinity determine the density, the spin of the earth affects the direction and velocity due to Coriolis effect.

In the same sense humanity is given the responsibility to be good stewards of the earth and should demand realistic and reasonable things to keep the earth healthy. From the human experience most people would probably agree anything in excess is bad hence as I stated before:

Governments should implement "clean" technologies to sequester or convert co2 (and other real pollutants) for existing power plants and require it for all new ones that are built.

I agree!

I am not a politician or an economist and I do not know what is the best way to get governments, people or industries to implement technologies to reduce carbon emissions. Cap and trade, carbon credits, or outright limits and laws that force change are all tools that governments can use, but without some incentive people and industry will not change.

jeffreyp
12-22-2009, 07:52 AM
Corporations are greedy and they'd rather pass the costs down to the consumer rather than tighten their belts. With carbon credits, there is no incentive.


.

sbl
12-22-2009, 08:27 AM
Corporations are greedy and they'd rather pass the costs down to the consumer rather than tighten their belts. With carbon credits, there is no incentive.


.
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/tdm22.pdf

I agree. Where there is no competition in an industry, that is probably true, but if there is, the ones that find the cheapest way to reduce carbon will have the cheapest product and people will buy it.

The problem comes with monopolies like power companies--that will require outright mandates.

Again, I am not a politician or an economist, but if there are no cost for not changing, most industries and most people will not change. There are not many that will "just do the right thing".

As for the link you provided, I have never heard of the General Science Journal, it is certainly not a prestigeous journal. All of his references are blogs or his own work--in other words--junk science.

jeffreyp
12-22-2009, 10:40 AM
Saltier North Atlantic should give currents a boost - environment - 23 August 2007 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12528)

Like I said before,

Governments should implement "clean" technologies to sequester or convert co2 (and other real pollutants) for existing power plants and require it for all new ones that are built. Stop the nonsense with the card game of carbon credits - it solves very little and only works toward giving the impression things are being taken care of. If anyone is passionate about this issue participate dealing with pollution from a personal level (your car, home energy consumption) and demand your government handles it in a logical sensible way. The problem is with "carbon credits"...the ones all the big banks have set-up for trading. They think it will be the largest market EVER...trillions of dollars. So it's all about who's the better poker player. Get everyone worked up about it while they rake in the bucks. Both sides are playing the other for fools. With all the socialists, Marxists, communists, mal-contents, freaks and you got a circus.

sbl
12-22-2009, 04:57 PM
A saltier North Atlantic does not mean the conveyor belt is not slowing--in fact it may be more evidence that it is.

How can the ocean be getting saltier when sea level is rising from glacial melt?

Maybe it is because we are sinking less very high salinity water (ie deepwater). What causes the formation of deepwater is the formation of ice. When seawater freezes (at approximately -2 degrees C), only the freshwater turns into ice, leaving the remaining water saltier. When the salinity gets high enough (dense enough) that water sinks to the bottom--driving the ocean conveyor belt.

Saltier water in the North Atlantic will require heavier and even saltier water to sink and drive the ocean conveyor belt. So your article is not good news, it is probably bad news and some wrong way thinking--typical of most anti-warming theorist.

jeffreyp
12-22-2009, 05:04 PM
Or possibly freshwater as it passes through warm ocean currents becomes saltier. Is there any concrete proof it is slowing ? I don't see anything new other than natural processes.

jeffreyp
12-22-2009, 05:11 PM
, it is probably bad news and some wrong way thinking--typical of most anti-warming theorist.

Man made global warming theorists have plenty of the wrong way of thinking in their corner. Take a look at climate-gate. There is plenty of bad thinking on that side.

sbl
12-22-2009, 05:17 PM
El Nino is caused by a slowing of the upwelling of deepwater along the coast of Peru (one of the other ends of the conveyor belt--there are 2 or 3 different areas where it comes up).

In the last decade or 2 there have been some researchers actually measuring the amount of deepwater formed in the North Atlantic and several yrs ago they reported a significant decrease over about a decade, but I have not seen a recent report.

Thermohaline circulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation)

jeffreyp
12-22-2009, 05:30 PM
Like La Nina?

jeffreyp
12-22-2009, 05:42 PM
The Source of Europe's Mild Climate » American Scientist (http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-source-of-europes-mild-climate/2)

sbl
12-22-2009, 05:46 PM
I think La Nina is the return of normal cold water upwelling in the same area. The system does have a pulsing nature to it. El Nino used to occur only once ever 15 yrs or so, now it is occuring every 3-5 yrs.

Here is another good science article on the link between deepwater and Antartica climate.

http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/papers/stocker02sci.pdf

jeffreyp
12-22-2009, 06:42 PM
Sbl, I was looking at your photo gallery and saw your photo of orinoco's. Have you been able to get any other varieties to fruit up in pc?

sbl
12-22-2009, 07:37 PM
The Source of Europe's Mild Climate » American Scientist (http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-source-of-europes-mild-climate/2)

This article says he is wrong. http://www.realclimate.org/Rhines_hakkinen_2003.pdf

sbl
12-22-2009, 07:59 PM
Sbl, I was looking at your photo gallery and saw your photo of orinoco's. Have you been able to get any other varieties to fruit up in pc?

This was my first yr to get any bananas and I had 4 blooms--3 were Orinoco and 1 was Raji Puri. I also got 3 new varieties--Ice Cream, Dwarf Red and Dwarf Cavendish. The Orinocos were ripe in 4 months, but the RP is yet to ripen on the stem--I cut 1 hand yesterday to try and get it to ripen indoors.

jeffreyp
12-22-2009, 09:48 PM
I think Raja Puri is closer to what you'd buy in the grocery store albeit smaller. I use orinoco for making plantain chips (when green). When they are extra ripe (orinocos) are great for making fried plantains - almost like a sweet potato in southern cooking. If you have the room saba is pretty cool/cold tolerant for your area and is good as a green plantain and has a very mild taste/flavor/texture as a sweet banana when ripe.

sbl
12-23-2009, 07:51 AM
The Orinocos were pretty good as regular desert bananas when fully ripe. I did not try any green this time but will next time. We made a lot of banana pudding since the all got ripe at the same time. Looking forward to tasting RP, may plant a Saba some day.

djmb74
12-23-2009, 10:45 AM
http://i.usatoday.net/news/opinion/cartoons/2009/December/e091207_pett.jpg

sbl
12-23-2009, 11:06 AM
I love it!

I like this quote too: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

jeffreyp
12-31-2009, 01:37 PM
Interesting...

No rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide fraction in past 160 years, new research finds (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm)

Can Carbon Dioxide Be A Good Thing? -- Physicist Explains Benefits Of Carbon Dioxide (http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0603-can_carbon_dioxide_be_a_good_thing.htm)

Scuba_Dave
12-31-2009, 05:29 PM
This was posted on another site

So CO2 has gone up & down in the past
But a LOT higher recently

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg/720px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png

Abnshrek
12-31-2009, 07:53 PM
I wonder what the difference is between summer and winter readings in particular hemisphere's. Not like a tree and banana's or any other plant is releasing oxygen or sucking up any CO2..

damaclese
01-01-2010, 09:37 AM
This was posted on another site

So CO2 has gone up & down in the past
But a LOT higher recently

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg/720px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png

i just wanted to point out if you look at the chart the highest point on the chart is just prior to the last grate spike in glacial expansion some 100,000 years ago still looks like its all supporting my assertion that we are the tiping point of an ice age and i would also like to point out that that extreme high point occurred long before Humans were a serous cause of Co2

jeffreyp
01-01-2010, 09:54 AM
Are those charts based on ice cores? Not everyone is enamored by the theory that these ice cores tell us the truth about past climates and the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere during those years. Critics maintain that the methodology is hindered by the fact that ice doesn't necessarily trap every gas in the atmosphere at any given time. They also argue that the high pressure experienced deep beneath the visible surface of the Antarctic is strong enough to "squeeze" greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide out of the ice. I look at it is comparing two very different things and then attempting to draw an exact conclusion - to me it's very flawed. Ice also shifts, an entire squadron of world war 2 planes crash landed in Greenland because of fuel issues and they turned up under over a 100+ meters of ice some 40-50 years later. When they first tried to dig them out of the ice where they thought they were, they ended up being a very large distance away from their original crash site.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Questioning_Climate/userfiles/Ice-core_corrections_report_2.pdf
trevoole.co.uk (http://www.trevoole.co.uk/Questioning_Climate/_sgg/mdm1_1.htm)
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/storm_of_errors.pdf

.

Scuba_Dave
01-01-2010, 10:16 AM
i just wanted to point out if you look at the chart the highest point on the chart is just prior to the last grate spike in glacial expansion some 100,000 years ago still looks like its all supporting my assertion that we are the tiping point of an ice age and i would also like to point out that that extreme high point occurred long before Humans were a serous cause of Co2

Actually the extreme high point is NOW

I did make the comment that another human race must have existed 100k+ years ago & been wiped out :ha:

sbl
01-01-2010, 05:33 PM
Interesting...

No rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide fraction in past 160 years, new research finds (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm)



That defies simple logic--we have burned billions of barrels of oil, millions of tons of coal and destroyed millions of acres of tropical forest--but we haven't increased the fraction? Sure if you consider the fraction to be less than 1/10 of 1%--then atmospheric CO2 has been constant for millions of yrs!

It also defies thousands of measurements of atmospheric CO2 which is now 100 ppm higher than it has ever been in the past million yrs. 100 ppm, or 1/100 of 1% is the normal difference between Glacial and Interglacial periods.

Trends in Carbon Dioxide (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/)

jeffreyp
01-01-2010, 09:27 PM
cO2 which is now 100 ppm higher than it has ever been in the past million yrs. 100 ppm, or 1/100 of 1% is the normal difference between Glacial and Interglacial periods.

Trends in Carbon Dioxide (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/)


based on what ? Ice cores?

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO<sub xmlns="">2</sub> emissions increasing? (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml)

sbl
01-01-2010, 09:39 PM
Based on measurements since the 1950s.

Trends in Carbon Dioxide (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/)

jeffreyp
01-01-2010, 09:39 PM
no in the past 1 million years.

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO<sub xmlns="">2</sub> emissions increasing? (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml)

sbl
01-01-2010, 09:54 PM
Ice core are the best record for the distant history, but that data is supported by isotopic data and ocean sediment data. The recent measured data also starts at values supported by ice core data.

Paleoclimatology: The Oxygen Balance : Feature Articles (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_OxygenBalance/)


Anyone that suggest that we have not altered the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is off their rocker!

sbl
01-02-2010, 06:59 AM
no in the past 1 million years.

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO<sub xmlns="">2</sub> emissions increasing? (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml)

BTW, a careful reading of your reference does not say CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not increasing. It says that the % of CO2 that has been released by man and then remains in the atmosphere (instead of disappearing into the ocean or terrestrial sinks) has increased about 10% over the past 150 years (plus or minus 20%). In other words, his data has too much error to tell us anything for sure, but does indicate that the fraction that is going somewhere beside the atmosphere may be increasing--making our effects on climate even worse.

damaclese
01-02-2010, 10:21 AM
Actually the extreme high point is NOW

I did make the comment that another human race must have existed 100k+ years ago & been wiped out :ha:

I stand by my statement i believe it to be a true explanation of how i see the facts

not to get personal but. the use of bold face indicates a sort of social contempt for my statements. like I'm some how to dumb to see the obvious facts. i just wanted to point that out to you. or in othere word like im a chiald that has to have things underlind in order for me to see it.

Scuba_Dave
01-02-2010, 10:27 AM
not to get personal but. the use of bold face indicates a sort of social contempt for my statements. like I'm some how to dumb to see the obvious facts. i just wanted to point that out to you. or in othere word like im a chiald that has to have things underlind in order for me to see it.

Really ? Is that what it means ?

damaclese
01-02-2010, 10:34 AM
Really ? Is that what it means ?

Dave i just wanted to point out that the bold face hurt my feelings by making me feel ridiculed in public

Nicolas Naranja
01-02-2010, 11:33 AM
I will have to hunt through the texts of a climatology class I took about 2 years ago, but basically what our professor pointed out to us was that CO2 had already had it's main effect on temperature and that we really should be more worried about things like methane and ozone. Speaking as someone who has taken climatology courses at both UF and Iowa State and at both schools the tenured professors had some doubts about all the climate change being man made and even further doubts about us being able to do anything about it. I am fairly skeptical about some of the proposals. I can't argue that CO2 hasn't increased or that temperatures are increasing, but I don't know what percent of a role CO2 has on temperature, and a statistical analysis between the two would be confounded by the fact that warmer weather will cause more natural sources of CO2 to be released.

Scuba_Dave
01-02-2010, 12:22 PM
Dave i just wanted to point out that the bold face hurt my feelings by making me feel ridiculed in public

I'm not sure how you can possibly know what my intent was

sbl
01-02-2010, 12:28 PM
I will have to hunt through the texts of a climatology class I took about 2 years ago, but basically what our professor pointed out to us was that CO2 had already had it's main effect on temperature and that we really should be more worried about things like methane and ozone. Speaking as someone who has taken climatology courses at both UF and Iowa State and at both schools the tenured professors had some doubts about all the climate change being man made and even further doubts about us being able to do anything about it. I am fairly skeptical about some of the proposals. I can't argue that CO2 hasn't increased or that temperatures are increasing, but I don't know what percent of a role CO2 has on temperature, and a statistical analysis between the two would be confounded by the fact that warmer weather will cause more natural sources of CO2 to be released.

You are absolutely right about methane (I don't know about ozone sources related to warming). Thawing tundra and permafrost is releasing methane and it is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.

What the basic premise for man made climate change is that considering all other factors affecting climate are in balance, then the addition of more CO2 is adding to one side of the scale--the warming side. We have clearly added about 100 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere. Sunlight does not warm the atmosphere much directly, but once it warms the earth, the infrared light that is reflected is then absorbed by greenhouse gasses.

I also cannot disagree with the point that we probably won't be able to do enough to reverse the changes.

Nicolas Naranja
01-02-2010, 01:21 PM
The name of the Physics law is Beer's Law and it basically states that electromagnetic wavelength absorption is logarithmic meaning that for each doubling in concentration you only get the same result as the last doubling. Basically, we have already saturated the CO2 with infrared radiation so that increases in CO2 would have only negligible impacts on temperature. The easiest way to think about it is blankets on a cold night. One blanket will cause you to warm up quite a bit, a second will warm you more but not as much as the first, a fourth may further warm you but perhaps only as much as the second one did and by the time you have ten blankets you are as warm as you are going to be.

Beer's law is proven science, the predicted global warming catastrophe is based on statistics and there are 3 types of lies: Lies, Damned lies, and Statistics.

damaclese
01-02-2010, 04:14 PM
I'm not sure how you can possibly know what my intent was

Dave let me put for the olive branch of Peace i never meant to harm you in any way i was just trying to be real with you about how your comments cam across to me Ii hurt and i thought your were insulting me publicly I'm sorry if that was a misconception on my part

Scuba_Dave
01-02-2010, 06:06 PM
No problem....I honestly did not mean in any way to offend you
Rereading the sequence of posts & my qoute I can see how that happened
Sorry.............
I was sort of agreeing with you....but I guess it came out wrong
Global warming seems to be a big topic on almost every site I visit
Some is natural...a cycle...some is man-made...IMO

sbl
01-02-2010, 08:16 PM
The name of the Physics law is Beer's Law and it basically states that electromagnetic wavelength absorption is logarithmic meaning that for each doubling in concentration you only get the same result as the last doubling. Basically, we have already saturated the CO2 with infrared radiation so that increases in CO2 would have only negligible impacts on temperature. The easiest way to think about it is blankets on a cold night. One blanket will cause you to warm up quite a bit, a second will warm you more but not as much as the first, a fourth may further warm you but perhaps only as much as the second one did and by the time you have ten blankets you are as warm as you are going to be.

Beer's law is proven science, the predicted global warming catastrophe is based on statistics and there are 3 types of lies: Lies, Damned lies, and Statistics.

Beer's law is safe--but the contention that increasing CO2 does not result in any increase in absorption of infrared energy is false. I do not know the absorption coefficient for CO2, but even if the peak wavelength is totally absorbed, there is still increased absorption on the shoulders of the peak and at weaker wavelengths. It is not like one blanket or two, it is like a blanket covering part, then a bigger part and a bigger part. If CO2 was already absorbing all of the infrared energy, we would not be able to use infrared cameras and optics for night vision.

Abnshrek
01-03-2010, 02:25 AM
Thanks SBL I know I can shoot hogs @ night with confidence.. :^) nice explaination

jeffreyp
01-03-2010, 05:49 AM
I suppose sitting on the side of man made global warming is a dream position to be in. Even if co2 emissions were eliminated completely and the weather got warmer, man caused it, if it got colder then man also caused that as well. Curious also how those on that side of the fence feel about driving their cars to work spewing out co2? Pope urges lifestyle changes to save environment | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/video/idUSTRE6000G220100101?videoId=22059676)


Controversial New Climate Change Data: Is Earth's Capacity to Absorb CO2 Much Greater Than Expected?

ScienceDaily (Nov. 11, 2009) — New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.

The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early in December have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.

So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? "Not necessarily," says Knorr. "Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed."

Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published in early November in Nature Geoscience by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.


http://vortex.plymouth.edu/uschill.gif
Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/6921281/Britain-facing-one-of-the-coldest-winters-in-100-years-experts-predict.html)
News - Asia: Cold weather kills scores (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=126&art_id=nw20100101113458666C113855)
NewsDaily: Heavy snow brings Beijing to standstill (http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre60204b-us-china-weather/)
U.S. East Coast Faces Deep Freeze; Florida Oranges Threatened - Bloomberg.com (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=adEgGRWjmUdA)
Man Bear Pig is wrong on arctic ice: Breitbart.tv » Source Scientist Busts Al Gore for ‘Embarrassing Error’ About Arctic Ice (http://www.breitbart.tv/source-source-scientist-busts-al-gore-for-embarrassing-error-about-arctic-ice/)
White Christmas: Snow totals, snow pack, and arctic sea ice building (http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m12d21-White-Christmas-Snow-totals-snow-pack-and-arctic-sea-ice-building)
.

sbl
01-03-2010, 08:49 AM
No one has ever said that the oceans have quit absorbing CO2--it is and always has been the major reservior of CO2, and if we could magically stop all emissions CO2 levels in the atmosphere would drop to levels only slightly higher than pre industrial levels in a few decades--a process called equillibrium. The fact that the ocean absorbs so much of the CO2 is one if the reasons I believe that changes in ocean circulation are the explanation for the difference in glacial and interglacial atmospheric CO2 in the historical record.

However, there are consequences of that extra CO2 we are dissolving in the ocean--ocean pH is decreasing and making it more difficult for corals, mollusk and carbonate shell organisms to grow.

BTW--I agree we should reduce driving, carpool, conserve, use mass transit wherever we can.

damaclese
01-04-2010, 11:01 AM
are we talking absorption do to Bio or Chemical actions Bio has a grater potential then chemical do thees climate models that the computers are putting out take that in to account sorry to ask such a rudimentary question but some how iv missed this fact in the discussions

djmb74
01-04-2010, 11:28 AM
Someone help me understand here...

Does global warming cause it to get colder cause we in the midst of the longest cold snap in 9 years. If you watch the weather channel almost 2/3 of the US is hitting Near-record low right now!

sbl
01-04-2010, 12:20 PM
The biggest factors affecting weather are the shortest term factors--day/night, winter/summer, but there are also intermediate term factors like El Nino/Southern Oscillation and sun spot activity. Then there are the long term factors such as changes in our orbit, the wobble of our axis and the effects of greenhouse gasses (both the man-mad and natural fluctuations).

This is clearly "weather", but on that point--I think I read somewhere that most experts consider "climate" at least a 3 yr period.

This colder and wetter winter was predicted as a typical condition associated with El Nino, and normally I would gladly accept the cold wet winter effects of El Nino for the benificial effects it usually has on hurricanes, but one disturbing thing I just read about El Nino is that they have found that there are 2 types, this one is the bad type, like the one that we had in 2004 when we had 4 hurricanes hit Florida. The bad type has a warm spot in the middle of the Pacific instead of next to the coast of Peru.

sbl
01-04-2010, 01:14 PM
are we talking absorption do to Bio or Chemical actions Bio has a grater potential then chemical do thees climate models that the computers are putting out take that in to account sorry to ask such a rudimentary question but some how iv missed this fact in the discussions

Both biological and chemical absorption are taking place, but the biological absorption in the ocean is generally considered to be a net zero since most of the CO2 taken up by phytoplankton is converted back to CO2 before it sinks to the bottom (by respiration of consumers). Uptake by organisms like coral and mollusk to make shells is a potential sink that could result in long term storage, but decreasing pH is having negative effects on that process. BTW, carbonate rock from corals, mollusk, and carbonate phytoplankton is by far the largest reservior of carbon in the world.

As for the models, there are many different models and I do not know what they consider, but there are many different processes happening on many different time scales, so most models only include the biggest factors for the time scales they are considering. In the short term, the biggest factor is just the dissolving of CO2 in the surface water of the ocean.

djmb74
01-04-2010, 01:26 PM
Well this is the 2nd year in a row of having a nasty cold snap here in central Florida. Last winter it wasn't so many days in a row... So if we have the same issue next year we have a cold climate issue? lol

I sure hope we do not have a bad hurricane season this year, I have a lot of plans to grow all kinds of stuff.

The biggest factors affecting weather are the shortest term factors--day/night, winter/summer, but there are also intermediate term factors like El Nino/Southern Oscillation and sun spot activity. Then there are the long term factors such as changes in our orbit, the wobble of our axis and the effects of greenhouse gasses (both the man-mad and natural fluctuations).

This is clearly "weather", but on that point--I think I read somewhere that most experts consider "climate" at least a 3 yr period.

This colder and wetter winter was predicted as a typical condition associated with El Nino, and normally I would gladly accept the cold wet winter effects of El Nino for the benificial effects it usually has on hurricanes, but one disturbing thing I just read about El Nino is that they have found that there are 2 types, this one is the bad type, like the one that we had in 2004 when we had 4 hurricanes hit Florida. The bad type has a warm spot in the middle of the Pacific instead of next to the coast of Peru.

sbl
01-04-2010, 09:01 PM
Yeah, I agree, it's the second yr here too--I'm ready for a frost free winter (normally a 1 in 20 probability)! It is a lot of work covering all my citrus, bananas, pineapples and avocados. This is just the first blast--they are predicting teens for the end of the week!

I really, really hope this prediction of a new type of El Nino is wrong! We do not need another 2004!

Patty in Wisc
01-04-2010, 09:40 PM
SBL, I remember thinking you were wrong about el nino when you said it would be a colder winter when I read that it would be a warmer one. We are both right...I read this in Oct. Very interesting & so far it's true! I'm sure you saw this before? For all I know, maybe I got it from you LOL. I also posted this on citrus forum in Oct.
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: El Nińo to Help Steer U.S. Winter Weather (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20091015_winteroutlook.html)

jeffreyp
01-04-2010, 11:41 PM
Whatever goes on with the climate it's still "the weather". This year there was reduced to no sun spot activity, after something like 10 years of very active sunspot phase of the sun. Because of this they were saying it was going to be a cold winter and I guess they were right.


More evidence CO2 not culprit | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/more-evidence-co2-not-culprit/story-e6frg6zo-1225814230258)


Hot Weather Convinces Media of Climate Change; Cold Weather Ignored
From 2003 heat wave that killed thousands, to melting Peruvian glaciers the news media find examples of global warming.

By Julia A. Seymour
Business & Media Institute
1/4/2010 3:34:22 PM

The news media constantly misuse extreme weather examples to generate fear of global warming, but when record cold or record snow sets in journalists don’t mention the possibility of global cooling trends. While climatologists would say weather isn’t necessarily an indication of climate, it has been in the media, but only when the weather could be spun as part of global warming.
In Iowa, temperatures are 30 degrees below normal according to the Des Moines Register. That’s a near-record low. Beijing is facing the coldest temperatures in decades according to Australia’s The Age.
And in Pichccahuasi, Peru, bitter cold may cause the extinction of communities of alpaca farmers suffering from pneumonia and other respiratory problems. Ironically, that Guardian (U.K.) report called the region an anomaly “in a world growing ever hotter.”
Despite such extreme cold around the world, the three networks are not forecasting a period of global cooling. In fact, in the past three months there has been only one mention of “global cooling” on the networks. That was in an NBC “Today” about geo-engineering (manipulating) the global climate to create global cooling to combat global warming.
But when record heat was in the news global warming got the blame. NBC highlighted melting glaciers in Peru on Dec. 8 and declared that “climate change is to blame.” That story cited United Nations claims that the decade might be the warmest since 1850 – also the same year the Little Ice Age ended.
When a heat wave hit the U.S. in July 2006, CBS “Evening News” consulted Pew Center on Global Climate Change’s Jay Gulledge.
“The average global temperature is getting hotter due to global warming,” Gulledge told CBS.
In a Cosmo magazine style quiz, Newsweek called the deadly European heat wave of 2003 “a human fingerprint” of “man-made climate change.”
And in 2008 Stanford University professor Dr. Stephen Schneider told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are making hot temperatures even hotter.
“While this heat wave like all other heat waves is made by Mother Nature, we've been fooling around by turning the knob and making a little bit hotter,” Schneider said on June 9, 2008. “[W]e’ve already increased by 35 percent the amount of carbon dioxide which traps heat. We've added 150 percent more methane, which also traps heat.”
Dr. Roy Spencer, the principal research scientist for the University of Alabama at Huntsville, disagreed with Schneider. Spender told the Business & Media Institute that making a connection between the East Coast heat wave and emissions was “too much.”
John Christy, a climatologist at the same university as Spencer, testified to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on May 2, 2001. He urged the committee “to be suspicious of media reports in which weather extremes are given as proof of human-induced climate change.”
He added that “weather extremes occur somewhere all the time,” including “the coldest combined November and December in 106 years” at the end of 2000, an event that “does not prove U.S. or global cooling"

Recent global cool-down challenges validity of climate change models (http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m1d1-Recent-global-cooldown-challenges-validity-of-climate-change-models)
YouTube - The Man-made Global Warming Hoax (Part 1) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME&feature=related)
YouTube - The Man-made Global Warming Hoax (Part 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpX-Kae00s8&feature=related)

YouTube - The Man-made Global Warming Hoax (Part 3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BJrdSRDVlQ&feature=related)

YouTube - Al Gore Im Serial! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9wmczxnT3c)
.

Patty in Wisc
01-04-2010, 11:49 PM
Yes they were. And I hope they were right about saying it will be warmer up here in the north.
Warmer up here & colder & wetter in SE. sorry:(
But, we will see come Feb.

jeffreyp
01-05-2010, 12:25 AM
Climate-change movement pays homage to false god of global warming (http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m1d4-Environmental-movement-falls-victim-to-global-warming-religion)

“This unquestioned adherence to the theory of Global Warming bears all the markings of what traditionally would be recognized as a religion. Complete with sin (the emitting of carbon dioxide), scriptures (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports), commandments (drive a Prius, use Compact Florescent Light bulbs, do not eat meat etc.), indulgences (carbon offsets), proselytism, prophets (Al Gore), priests (scientists), prophecy and apocalypse (floods, hurricanes, dead polar bears), infidels (Warming skeptics), and salvation (the halting of carbon emitting industrial progress) . . . .”

(I thought the indulgences part was hilarious!) I mentioned it before in this thread that the whole movement reminds me of a religion in the most pejorative sense nevertheless it's a great well written article.

sbl
01-05-2010, 07:37 AM
The coldest day ever on record here was 1985-- and 1990 was the second coldest day ever--the beginning of the warmest decade on record.

The difference in science and religon is that science forbids what religon requires--Faith in the absence of any evidence. Kinda like the anti-climate change theorist.

As I said before, ocean circulation is probably the biggest single factor on earth determining our "climate". El Nino is an example of just how much a slowing of the ocean circulation will affect our climate. The frequency of El Nino is increasing. I still think that warming will lead to slowing of the circulation and that will lead to cooling.

damaclese
01-05-2010, 08:34 AM
Damaclese AKA Paul<-------(Warming skeptic) infidel LOL

jeffreyp
01-05-2010, 09:12 AM
The difference in science and religon is that science forbids what religon requires--Faith in the absence of any evidence. Kinda like the anti-climate change theorist.


I think most would agree the climate does change, those who do not would truly be ignorant.

sbl
01-05-2010, 09:35 AM
Skepticism is basic to science--we do not "believe" anything. We generate theories or hypotheses and seek to dis-prove them. If we can't disprove them we accept them as the best explanation for the observations and data we can think of until a better explanation or until we get different data. Right now, most knowledgable scientist accept man-made global warming as the best explanation for all of the data. That does not mean that there are not others that accept a different theory--or that they are wrong.

The point that I have often made is that if we do nothing and the theory is correct, we will face some severe consequences. If we are able to change enough to make a difference (something I doubt), perhaps we can avert a crisis--in the mean time we create jobs, get big oil off our backs and improve the environment.

jeffreyp
01-05-2010, 10:03 AM
I agree with that.

djmb74
01-05-2010, 11:52 AM
YouTube - CLIMATEGATE: Hitler flips out over the CRU hacked emails (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8O-E_GN0Kg)

jeffreyp
01-05-2010, 12:14 PM
Martin you infidel...

djmb74
01-05-2010, 12:32 PM
Martin you infidel...

HAHAHA

Nicolas Naranja
01-06-2010, 09:22 AM
We ought to be conserving energy and finding the most energy efficient means of doing things as a matter of business. I don't think that scaring people about climate change is the necessary means to an end. First of all, not all change is bad. I for one would like to have fewer frosts and freezes in Florida. Climate is very local as well. Here in Florida we have several weather stations that have been recording since the 10s and 20's and some have been stable over that time period, some have increased, and some have decreased. The other state I personally know something about is Iowa and they have the same kind of thing happening some up, some down and some stable. They have gotten consistently more rain over the past 100 years. Long term we know that there are 30 year cycles for certain things and 18 year cycles for others. When gas gets to $5 conservation won't be an option.

sbl
01-06-2010, 09:42 AM
We ought to be conserving energy and finding the most energy efficient means of doing things as a matter of business. ---- When gas gets to $5 conservation won't be an option.

I agree with that--but I don't think it will stop at $5--we will probably see that this summer.

Here, our rainfall has been anything but stable--from just over 30 inches a few yrs ago (Pine trees were dying) to 88 inches last yr. Rainfall, or lack of it, is probably more important than temperatures--just ask Lorax.

I do not think the climate change warnings are an attempt to scare people, but a heads up for the changes that are likely comming. Many areas dependent on glacial water are going to run out--that has serious consequences.

Here in FL, I am much more concerned with the potential for increased hurricane strength.

jeffreyp
01-06-2010, 11:14 AM
Nicolas,

There are bunch of proactive things we should be doing as a country and locally here in florida. I've felt we should be building reverse osmosis plants all up and down the coast to make fresh water from seawater. With the large popupation growth you cannot depend on ground water or lake water to meet all your freshwater needs. There are some places in south florida that are using grey water (processed wastewater) piped to the houses for use as water you use to water your lawn. I think there is way too much water that goes down the storm drains and out to sea instead of reclaiming it.

I have a flex kit for my vehicle from E85 flex fuel conversion kits from Jonny Energy (http://www.jonnyenergy.com) and burn almost exclusively ethanol. It's a carbon neutral fuel and there are more and more stations here in florida. My main concern really is not sending $$ over to countries that hate us, there are pros and cons to ethanol but for me the pros outweigh the cons. There are a ton of alternative energy options & this country is very short sighted in not investing heavily in them. The pickens plan for large scale wind farms, nuclear (france's energy production is about 80% from nuclear), solar farms First Solar to Build 250MW & 300MW Solar Farms in California, Enough to Power 170,000 Homes : TreeHugger (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/first-solar-solar-power-california-socal-edison-550-megawatts.php), geothermal (high-velocity flame jet may make drilling cost effective). Investments in technologies that produce Bio diesel, Algae oil, ethanol, butanol, natural gas, hydrogen fuel, etc are all steps in the right direction imho. With hyrdogen you can produce it on demand from electriciy (electrolysis) and new and existing vehicles can be retrofitted to burn it. There are new "tuffshell" 10,000 psi tanks that can give you the same range as with gasoline!

Renewable Energy Focus - Horizon to unveil ‘personal hydrogen station’ at CES 2010 in Las Vegas this week (http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/6213/horizon-to-unveil-personal-hydrogen-station-at-ces-2010-in-las-vegas-this-week/)
Greentech Media: Can Aluminum Make Hydrogen Real? (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/can-aluminum-make-hydrogen-real/)

Nicolas Naranja
01-06-2010, 11:33 AM
If I were an engineer, I could totally meet the energy needs of my vehicle and house with maybe an acre of sugarcane. I'd just need a large storage tank at my house for the ethanol. If I could legally convert the bagasse to energy by burning it, I'd be able to supply my neighbors with energy as well. Of course the energy at my house already comes from sugarcane.

sbl
01-06-2010, 11:37 AM
I agree with that!

I have not seen any ethanol sources here in NW FL, but maybe I need to look for some and get a conversion kit. Brazil is now energy independent based on ethanol from sugar cane--they are way ahead of us in making ethanol and figured out long ago that corn was not the best way.

I think there are some new technologies that are making ethanol from cellulose that are very promising.

We really should be putting more effort into nuclear, solar and wind.

jeffreyp
01-06-2010, 12:28 PM
sbl, there are probably others (I didn't do an exhaustive search) but I found these
HERNDON SHELL
400 E GREGORY ST
PENSACOLA, FL 32502

Kangaroo Express
3500 N Monroe St.
Tallahassee, FL 32303
850-562-1159


. HERNDON OIL CORPORAT - SHELL
E-85: Available (8/13/2009)
505 FAIRHOPE AVE, FAIRHOPE, AL
(14 miles away)
(251)928-2343

Drive Green
E-85: Available (9/24/2009)
7080 AIRPORT BLVD, MOBILE, AL
(9.8 miles away)
(334)342-5929


I'm not so opposed to corn ethanol in the short term I think it's a step in the right direction to get us off the oil addiction. In time better technologies will emerge such as cellulosic ethanol and I'd rather see us farmers getting rich rather than countries that hate us. Once corn is processed the remains are used as cattle feed, plus other chemicals are made from it so it's not a total loss. Home ethanol production isn't too difficult tho it's probably too labor intensive for the average home owner. You could get waste alcohol from a bar and then distill it into fuel, but again maybe too much effort. I think more energy dense fuels (biodiesel) from cooking oil would be easier to produce.

Abnshrek
01-06-2010, 12:56 PM
You know weather being man-made is like when you goto the doctor and they find out you have a throat disease (or anything they can't figure out.. it just an example).. so they ask you a ton of questions cause they can't figure it out.. then suddenly they ask you.. you use smokeless tobacco... The doctor jumps on the yes answer... "like there's the culprit".. even though you only did it occasionally 20 years ago.. can you smell the BS?

jeffreyp
01-06-2010, 01:21 PM
My position in life, my prayer so-to-speak is that truth would be near to me and lies far from me. When climate-gate came out in the news it was very disturbing. Whether co2 produced by man has had any impact/effect on the climate is not clearly understood.

Nevertheless, my position on emissions (co2, sulfur dioxide, mercury, etc) should be controlled and limited in a reasonable way. Human experience will tell you that anything in life in excess is bad but I think the way politicians and governments have gone about tackling co2 emissions has been extremely flawed. I've mentioned this before but carbon trading is just a game or an "indulgence" in the ecological religion. I'd much rather see money and efforts spent on sequestering, scrubbing or recycling of emissions than have carbon taxes (the things governments and greedy corporations create to make you poorer) passed down to you and me. I think the US has the technical know how to do great things how but unfortunately and historically I think we have spent our money on the wrong things.

sbl
01-06-2010, 02:28 PM
In time better technologies will emerge such as cellulosic ethanol and I'd rather see us farmers getting rich rather than countries that hate us.

Amen! And Thanks for the sources.

jeffreyp
01-06-2010, 03:32 PM
SBL, just an fyi, in a non flex vehicle you can top off with ethanol (e85) so lets say your tank is 60% full of gasoline your can top off with ethanol and gain some impressive performance and still keep your car's computer happy. I got a flex kit so I can burn any combination but topping off can really give you great performance in a non flex configuration. Interestingly, I noticed with e85 the exhaust smell is sweet instead of that toxic gasoline fume smell. Too bad they add gasoline to ethanol (to denature it) otherwise it would be 1 gallon for the car, and one gallon for me... (;


YouTube - E85 conversion kits E85 Kit Flex Fuel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWNOiQQV_p4)


.

sbl
01-06-2010, 06:31 PM
I would have never thought that it was that simple to install! Is the mileage about the same?

I will start topping my tank off next tank! Is 40% about the limit without flex fuel conversion?

jeffreyp
01-06-2010, 06:41 PM
yea its a piece of cake to install...40% is about the max, i've done almost a full tank of e85 before my flex kit but my check engine light came on because the computer can't handle the high octane. That's easy to remedy, just add more gas. I think the mileage can be about the same (it just depends on your vehicle) in my case I drive a huge suv and get about 2mpg less but the cost can be up to a $1 less per gallon for ethanol. Try experimenting in the meantime, when you are down 1/4 - 1/3 from full top off with e85 and see the improvement in performance! btw, I bought my conversion kit from jonnyenergy.com fwiw...

http://www.youtube.com/v/Q8Gawyybcwc&color1=0xb1b1b1&c

sbl
01-07-2010, 03:59 PM
Bummer! I went to the only station listed for E-85 in Pensacola, but they do not have it--maybe they will, but not yet.

In my internet search I found an article on one in Mobile and several sites listing one in Fairhope--about 50 miles away, so maybe I can get some one day when I am over there.

jeffreyp
01-07-2010, 04:13 PM
How far away is this one from you? I haven't done an exhaustive search for pensacola, but there probably is a station closer to you. You could also call a couple of the station owners that do carry ethanol and see if there are plans to introduce it into your area. I love it, the performance is great and I feel good about burning that for fuel for lots of reasons.

Drive Green
E-85: Available (9/24/2009)
7080 AIRPORT BLVD, MOBILE, AL
(9.8 miles away)
(334)342-5929

Green Ethanol Corp
Address: 4771 Bayou Blvd 206
Pensacola, FL,
32503-1930
Phone: 850-434-6409

Nicolas Naranja
01-07-2010, 05:44 PM
EFuel100, Earth's First Home Ethanol System, a Product of E-Fuel Corporation (http://www.microfueler.com/) You can have an ethanol pump at your house, just pour sugar or any other readily fermentable product in the back

sbl
01-07-2010, 06:13 PM
The one in Mobile is about 60 miles away, the one in Pensacola (Bayou Blvd) would be very close if it is there--I will check it out. Thanks--I did not find that in my search--what site are you finding these?

The address of the Herndon Shell on Gregory in Pensacola was correct--they just do not have E85.

Abnshrek
01-07-2010, 08:51 PM
Bummer! I went to the only station listed for E-85 in Pensacola, but they do not have it--maybe they will, but not yet.


Once you use it you'll find out you don't get as good of gas milage nor will your vehicle have the power it does with gasoline.. :^)

jeffreyp
01-07-2010, 09:29 PM
Wow, 50 miles is too far, try giving the other place a call when you have time before making the trip.


I have found I have ALOT more power with ethanol, this is also the reason race cars use it. Even in a non flex config when I mixed a 60 % gas / 40% e85 blend myself I got a huge boost like my car had a nitro injection. Mileage will generally drop regardless, in the worst case maybe 20% less mpg, but keep in mind e85 is an American made fuel. I remember getting on the highway and stomping on the gas and felt like I was in the back to future delorian. There are also alot of other benefits, it burns cleaner, it will actually clean all the crap out of your engine that gas leaves behind, will make your cars parts last longer, your engine does not get as hot with ethanol, less emissions (the exhaust actually smells good), and costs less than gas, sometimes as much as $1 per gallon!

sbl
01-07-2010, 10:14 PM
I hope they have it at the last address you sent--that is right here close to me. I will definitely try it if they have it. If not, I know that place in Fairhope and I am over there pretty often.

Abnshrek
01-07-2010, 11:06 PM
I don't have it around here but when I goto Wisc. (every blue moon) I get it in Mo. and yeah it cheap alright. My experience may not be very accurate since my fuel pump in my suburban was on the fritz, and has sicne been replaced but not trips up there since then..

sbl
01-08-2010, 07:54 AM
OK, Back to the climate--Some of you guys seem to know a good bit about meterology--I don't know that much about meterology, or more specific, the movement of atmospheric masses, but I do know that air that rises at the equator and moves west and north due to coriolis and air that falls near the Artic moves east and south. Is it possible that the warm spot in the Pacific (El Nino), pushes extra air north and then that results in stronger air masses coming down from the artic?

jeffreyp
01-08-2010, 09:47 AM
seems like something else is going on..

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/threats2/enso/elnino/UStrank/nd.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/threats2/enso/elnino/UStrank/ndj.gif

sbl
01-08-2010, 10:30 AM
Surprising! Why the prediction of a colder and wetter winter for the South in El Nino.

Look at page 31 of this NOAA pdf link:http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

jeffreyp
01-11-2010, 07:28 AM
ARRLWeb: ARRL NEWS: The K7RA Solar Update (http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/01/08/11280/?nc=1)

The K7RA Solar Update

Recent sunspot activity is increasing, and the numbers bear this out. The average daily sunspot number for 2009 was 5 and the average for 2008 was 4.7. There's not much difference in those numbers, but those are for calendar years; the trend toward the end of 2009 was increasing sunspot activity. The average daily sunspot numbers for 1999-2009 were 136.3, 173, 170.3, 176.6, 109.2, 68.6, 48.9, 26.1, 12.8, 4.7 and 5. On Wednesday of this week, the sunspot number was 0, but it rose to 15 on Thursday with the appearance of new sunspot group 1040. Coming this weekend, sunspot groups 1036 and 1038 are due to return, although we don't know yet if they are still powerful enough to be classed as sunspots. Sunspot numbers for December 31-January 6 were 16, 16, 22, 20, 15, 13 and 0, with a mean of 14.6. The 10.7 cm flux was 79.9, 75.2, 78, 76.4, 73, 76.8 and 77.3, with a mean of 76.7. The estimated planetary A indices were 1, 1, 0, 3, 2, 1 and 1, with a mean of 1.3. The estimated mid-latitude A indices were 0, 2, 1, 3, 1, 1 and 0, with a mean of 1.1.

A few years ago, we began recording a moving average of daily sunspot numbers based on three calendar months in order to help us spot a sunspot cycle bottom, thinking that this would perhaps give us a more immediate indication than smoothed sunspot numbers, which use a whole year of data. Because we now have all of the sunspot numbers for December, we can calculate the three month average centered on November 2009 -- 10.16 -- which is the highest it has been since August 2007 when it was 10.17. We will know the average centered on December at the end of January.

Over the past couple of years, it looked like the moving average bottomed out several times. In late 2007, it appeared we hit bottom when the three-month average centered on October dropped to 3. Then the average rose and was in the range of 8.23 to 8.89, centered on December 2007-April 2008. The average then declined again, hitting 1.1 in August 2008. In September-November, it moved to 2.5, 4.52 and 4.39, then declined to a new minimum of 1.5 in March, 2009. From there it rose, stalled and rose dramatically when from April through November 2009 it was 2.01, 4.23, 5.2, 4, 4, 4.64, 7.1 and 10.163. The average daily sunspot number for just the month of December was 15.7, which is a good trend -- 5.54 points higher than the 3-month average.

The latest prediction is for geomagnetic conditions to remain quiet, with the anticipated planetary A index at 5. But looking at recent predictions from USAF/NOAA, that value is probably a maximum, since they have predicted that value almost every day for months, and actual numbers were better (lower). Check the table and note that the planetary A index hasn't gone as high as 5; as of Friday morning, the last time it rose to 4 was December 14. The same prediction shows solar flux at 79 for today (January 8), 80 on January 9-10, 82 on January 11, 84 on January 12 and 86 for January 13-15.

Regarding recent conditions, last week, Jeff Hartley, N8II, of Shepherdstown, West Virginia, said in a New Year's Eve e-mail that conditions seemed poorer on the higher bands (17 meters and up) than the solar activity would suggest. But then Jeff saw better conditions on lower frequencies: "Last night, the 30th was exceptional on 30, 80 and 160. Several loud longpath JAs were worked on 30 meters; I tried 20 meters longpath to no avail around 2320UTC. Then signals from northern EU and other EU were booming in on 160 from 0020-0130 UTC and I caught TF3SG on SSB. All of the EUs heard on 80 at the same time were loud, and 4S7NE was about S6-7 on 80 CW around 0120 UTC near his sunrise, attracting a crowd."

Last week, we had an interesting email exchange with Jerry Spring, VE6CNU, of Calgary, Alberta. Carl Luetzelschwab, K9LA, commented on them when I passed Jerry's e-mail on to him. Jerry thinks that HF conditions are poorer than expected, given the solar activity. He feels that conditions have not improved, and wonders if there needs to be a certain threshold of activity, enough to "kick-start" the F layers of the ionosphere.

Carl's comment was that we really haven't seen much sunspot activity, enough to raise the MUF (Maximum Usable Frequency). Carl analyzed ionosonde data from Wallops Island in Virginia from last August and attached a graph representing the rise and fall of MUF from day to day. He wrote, "It shows the day-to-day variation of the F2 region MUF over the Wallops Island ionosonde, assuming it's the midpoint of a 3000 km hop. Note that the MUF varies from a low of 11.6 MHz to a high of 21.5 MHz -- and to reiterate, this is with zero sunspots and no change in solar flux. Thus, there are other factors that ultimately determine the ionization -- and these are geomagnetic field activity and events in the lower atmosphere coupling up to the ionosphere. Surprisingly, the day-to-day variation of the F2 region is more due to these two factors than a small change in sunspots or solar flux. In fact, these two factors generally mask any small increase in sunspots and solar flux." Carl emphasized that only when the sunspot activity rises significantly will we see any long term improvements. When we notice an improvement in propagation, it may be due to other factors, including seasonal changes.

Don't miss Carl's personal Web site, a great resource devoted to propagation. He writes the excellent monthly propagation column for WorldRadio Online, with a new issue on the 20th of each month. Note on that page that there is a link on the left to back issues, beginning with February 2009.

Tom Russell, N4KG, of Harvest, Alabama, lives for 160 and 80 meters. He has an impressive array of antenna arrays at his place in the woods west of Huntsville, including large ground plane antennas for 80 and 160, an inverted-L for 160 and dipoles on 80. In fact, I was just admiring his antennas, not from his photos, but publicly available aerial images. I went to a search engine and clicked on "Maps," then entered his address and ZIP code from his license record. He is actually west of the location that you land on, at the end of a road. Click on "Aerial," then "Bird's Eye" -- note you can click on vantage points from four directions and can also zoom in. Look for multiple telltale Yagis in the woods. Tom tells us that November and December had some fantastic 160 and 80 meter conditions and he sent a long log listing of contacts in Russia and Northern Europe from December 11-13, most from December 12 and most on 160 meters. He notes more shortpath UA9s in two months than in 30 years operating in Northern Alabama. He says that "these Russian openings are not daily events by any means, but there have been (and continue to be) several very good nights (and mornings). My friend N4NO -- he holds a PhD in electromagnetic field theory and communications and is a very active DXer -- suggested that these openings are the result of historically low geomagnetic activity, a 'seminal event.'"

Among his contacts over those days on 160 (mostly CW) were 4O3A, EI2CN, ES2DJ, LA5HE, LY2J, LZ1ANA (S9++), RA0ALM (Zone 18, just north of JT), RA1AOB, RA3DOX, RA4LW, RU3DX, RU4SU, RX4HZ, RX9FM (Zone 17), SM6CPY, TF3SG, TF4M, UA3BS, UA3TCJ, UA4CC, UA4HBW, UA9MA, UR0MC, UW7CN, UX1UA, UY0ZG, YL2SM and ZC4VJ. On 80 meters he worked RA4CC, RK3ER, SM4OTI (S9+), TF3SG (S9 SSB), UA3TCJ, UA4HBW, UA4LY, UA9FMZ, UA9YAB, UU9DX and UX4UU. At the end of it all, his amplifier died on December 13 and then he worked RA0ALM, RA1AOB and UA3TCJ barefoot.

Tom reported that on January 2 "RZ0AF has been camping out on 160 and 80 meters (3521), morning and night, around 1200 to 1300 UTC and Friday evening from 2300-0400 UTC, well past his sunrise which is around 0200 UTC. He is located in Krasnoyarsk, about 300 miles north of the northwest border with Mongolia, in Zone 18. Is there a Big 160 meter station in UA0Y (Zone 23 -- my last needed Zone on 160 meters)? UA9MA has also been active on 160 and 80 meters from Omsk in the southeastern corner of Zone 17, peaking 569 on 3524 at 0342 UTC last night (January 2 in GMT). UA9KAA was running NA on 1823 (up 1) from 0500-0600 UTC, peaking 569 at times. He is in Northern Siberia in Zone 17. RX4HZ was 599+ on 40 meters with a little help from his 4L Quad at 30 meters high at 0600 UTC."

The STEREO Mission has been a tremendous asset. This year, it is expected to move into a position that allows us to see magnetic activity on the whole Sun. This weekend, on January 9 at 0836 UTC, the two satellites will be in position to see 87 percent of the Sun, with the invisible spot on the far side exactly 13 percent. It will achieve 88 percent coverage (with 12 percent invisible) at 0611 UTC on February 25, 2010.

Some interesting links..

AMSU-A Temperatures (http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/)

Roy Spencer, Ph. D. (http://www.drroyspencer.com/)


http://www.drroyspencer.com/IWantToMockAlGoreAllNight.mp3

sbl
01-11-2010, 09:50 AM
I can't remember, is sun spot activity suppose to increase temps or decrease temps?

Interesting looking at the graphs of global temp averages and the fact that current temps are in the range of a half degree warmer than this day last yr at almost all altitudes--it sure doesn't feel like it here--we obviously do not feel the average!

I do not know much about PDO, but I do not disagree that there may be climate effects stored in the ocean's circulation system. It appears to me that the frequency of El Nino is increasing. The entire ocean circulation loop takes about 1200 yrs, but I think the system is pushed by the sinking of deepwater and responds to temps in the North Atlantic. There are others that think the system is pulled by upwelling driven by winds in the Pacific. Both are clearly involved.

Cloud cover has been a big unknown in climate response for a long time--it is still one of the biggest factors affecting climate and we still do not know which way it will go.

djmb74
01-11-2010, 12:39 PM
Could we be in for 30 years of global COOLING?


By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 9:32 AM on 11th January 2010



Britain's big freeze is the start of a worldwide trend towards colder weather that seriously challenges global warming theories, eminent scientists claimed yesterday.

The world has entered a 'cold mode' which is likely to bring a global dip in temperatures which will last for 20 to 30 years, they say.

Summers and winters will all be cooler than in recent years, and the changes will mean that global warming will be 'paused' or even reversed, it was claimed.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/10/article-0-07CE43BB000005DC-125_468x286.jpgthe snow in Richmond Park

Big chill: Scientists have claimed that the world has entered a 'cold mode' which could last three decades, a theory that challenges climate change

The predictions are based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

They are the work of respected climate scientists and not those routinely dismissed by environmentalists as 'global warming deniers'.

Some experts believe these cycles - and not human pollution - can explain all the major changes in world temperatures in the 20th century.


More...

* Panic buying hits supermarkets as Met Office warns of eight inches MORE snow today and tomorrow
* Big freeze gives rise to rarest frosty phenomenon: a snow pipe
* Why does nobody clear the paths outside their homes anymore? Yup, it's all down to health and safety

If true, the research challenges the science behind climate change theories, and calls into question the political measures to halt global warming.

According to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases.

It occurred because the world was in a 'warm mode', and would have happened regardless of mankind's rising carbon dioxide production.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/10/article-0-07D0D710000005DC-748_468x286.jpg
A graphic explaining about the changes in our climate


And now oceanic cycles have switched to a 'cold mode', where data shows that the amount of Arctic summer sea ice has increased by more than a quarter since 2007.

The research has been carried out by eminent climate scientists, including Professor Mojib Latif. He is a leading member of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

He and his colleagues predicted the cooling trend in a 2008 paper, and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva in September.

Working at the prestigious Leibniz Institute in Kiel University in Germany, he has developed methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft under the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.

For Europe, the crucial factor is the temperature in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean. He said such ocean cycles - known as multi-decadal oscillations or MDOs - could account for up to half of the rise in global warming in recent years.

Professor Latif said: 'A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th century was due to these cycles - as much as 50 per cent.

'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. All this may well last two decades or longer.

'The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.'

Many meteorologists have blamed the current freeze on 'Arctic oscillation' - a weather pattern in which areas of high pressure have pushed the warming jetstream away from Britain. They have insisted this temporary change will have no effect on long-term warming patterns.

But another expert, Professor Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, said MDOs will continue to determine global temperatures.

He said: 'They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather, and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st centuries. We have such a change now.'


Could we be in for 30 years of global COOLING? | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242202/Could-30-years-global-COOLING.html?ITO=1490)

jeffreyp
01-11-2010, 02:34 PM
Clouds Dominate CO2 as a Climate Driver Since 2000
January 9th, 2010

Last year I posted an analysis of satellite observations of the 2007-08 global cooling event, showing evidence that it was due to a natural increase in low cloud cover. Here I will look at the bigger picture of what how the satellite-observed variations in Earth’s radiative budget compare to that expected from increasing carbon dioxide. Is there something that we can say about the relative roles of nature versus humanity based upon the evidence?

What we will find is evidence consistent with natural cloud variations being the dominant source of climate variability since 2000.

CERES Observations of Global Energy Budget Changes
The following graph shows the variations in the Earth’s global-average radiative energy balance as measured by the CERES instrument on NASA’s Terra satellite. These are variations in the imbalance between absorbed sunlight and emitted infrared radiation, the most fundamental quantity associated with global warming or global cooling. Also show (in red) are theoretically calculated changes in radiative forcing from increasing carbon dioxide as measured at Mauna Loa.
CERES-Terra-raw

Since there is some uncertainty in the absolute accuracy of the CERES measurements, where one puts the zero line is also somewhat uncertain. Therefore, it’s the variations since 2000 which are believed to be pretty accurate, and the exact dividing line between Earth gaining energy and Earth losing energy is uncertain. Significantly, all of the downward trend is in the reflected sunlight portion, not the infrared portion of the variations. We similarly can not reference where the zero line should be for the CO2 forcing, but the reasons for this are more complex and I will not address them here.

In order to compare the variations in the CO2 forcing (in red) to the satellite observations, we need to account for the fact that the satellite observes forcing and feedback intermingled together. So, let’s remove a couple of estimates of feedback from the satellite measurements to do a more direct comparison.

Inferred Forcing Assuming High Climate Sensitivity (IPCC View)
Conceptually, the variations in the Earth’s radiative imbalance are a mixture of forcing (e.g. increasing CO2; clouds causing temperature changes), and feedback (e.g. temperature changes causing cloud changes). We can estimate the forcing part by subtracting out the feedback part.

First, let’s assume that the IPCC is correct that climate sensitivity is pretty high. In the following chart I have subtracted out an estimate of the feedback portion of the CERES measurements based upon the IPCC 20-model average feedback parameter of 1.4 W m-2 K-1 times the satellite AMSU-measured tropospheric temperature variations
CERES-Terra-1.4-fb-removed

As can be seen, the long-term trend in the CERES measurements is much larger than can be accounted for by increasing carbon dioxide alone, which is presumably buried somewhere in the satellite-measured signal. In fact, the satellite observed trend is in the reflected sunlight portion, not the infrared as we would expect for increasing CO2 (not shown).

Inferred Forcing Assuming Low Climate Sensitivity (”Skeptical” View)
There has been some published evidence (our 2007 GRL paper, Lindzen & Choi’s 2009 paper) to suggest the climate system is quite insensitive. Based upon that evidence, if we assume a net feedback parameter of 6 W m-2 K-1 is operating during this period of time, then removing that feedback signal using AMSU channel 5 yields the following history of radiative forcing:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CERES-Terra-6.0-fb-removed.jpg

As can be seen, the relative size of the natural forcings become larger since more forcing is required to cause the same temperature changes when the feedback fighting it is strong. Remember, the NET feedback (including the direct increase in emitted IR) is always acting against the forcing…it is the restoring force for the climate system.

What this Might Mean for Global Warming
The main point I am making here is that, no matter whether you assume the climate system is sensitive or insensitive, our best satellite measurements suggest that the climate system is perfectly capable of causing internally-generated radiative forcing larger than the “external” forcing due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Low cloud variations are the most likely source of this internal radiative forcing. It should be remembered that the satellite data are actually measured, whereas the CO2 forcing (red lines in the above graphs) is so small that it can only be computed theoretically.

The satellite observed trend toward less energy loss (or, if you prefer, more energy gain) is interesting since there was no net warming observed during this time. How could this be? Well, the satellite observed trend must be due to forcing only since there was no warming or cooling trend during this period for feedback to act upon. And the lack of warming from this substantial trend in the forcing suggests an insensitive climate system.

If one additionally entertains the possibility that there is still considerable “warming still in the pipeline” left from increasing CO2, as NASA’s Jim Hansen claims, then the need for some natural cooling mechanism to offset and thus produce no net warming becomes even stronger. Either that, or the climate system is so insensitive to increasing CO2 that there is essentially no warming left in the pipeline to be realized. (The less sensitive the climate system, the faster it reaches equilibrium when forced with a radiative imbalance.)

Any way you look at it, the evidence for internally-forced climate change is pretty clear. Based upon this satellite evidence alone, I do not see how the IPCC can continue to ignore internally-forced variations in the climate system. The evidence for its existence is there for all to see, and in my opinion, the IPCC’s lack of diagnostic skill in this matter verges on scientific malpractice.

Roy Spencer, Ph. D. (http://www.drroyspencer.com/)

sbl
01-11-2010, 04:55 PM
Clouds have always been the big unknown in the warming theory. Warming puts more moisture in the atmosphere, if the moisture turns to clouds, it cools the earth. One of the key components of cloud formation is sulfur compounds in the upper atmosphere that form the nucleus for condensation, but sources of these compounds are unpredictable to my knowledge. However, they could well be the feedback mechanism that does counter the effects of CO2--question is can we depend on it?

jeffreyp
01-11-2010, 05:00 PM
It's an interesting point of view but the discussion on man made climate change is far from settled as man-bear-pig would suggest...by the way, how did your plants fare in the cold this past weekend? I've been watching this big pool of cold water expanding around nw Florida. So far down here in the west palm beach area we've had some patchy frost (thank God that's it) and some slight burn on some of the real tender stuff. The good news the days are getting longer and hopefully stay warmer.

Marine Weather : Weather Underground (http://www.wunderground.com/MAR/flm.html)

Could we be in for 30 years of global COOLING? | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242202/Could-30-years-global-COOLING.html?ITO=1490)


Not sure if this was a related article, but some interesting photos nevertheless


DAVID ROSE: The mini ice age starts here | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html)!

sbl
01-11-2010, 05:19 PM
how did your plants fare in the cold this past weekend? I've been watching this big pool of cold water expanding around nw Florida.
Marine Weather : Weather Underground (http://www.wunderground.com/MAR/flm.html)

It was brutal--very extended long cold-- 21 several nights. Lots of damage, but still waiting to see how bad it was to some things.

jeffreyp
01-11-2010, 07:29 PM
BRRRRR!!!

CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES Climate Summary (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html)

Is energy 'miracle' finally taking off? (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121955)


watch the video:

Bell Bio-Energy, Inc. - Home (http://www.bellbioenergy.com/)

Glacier scientists says he knew data had not been verified | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html)

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Read more: Glacier scientists says he knew data had not been verified | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0de27Pd0P)

all it the mystery of the missing thermometers.

Two months after “climategate” cast doubt on some of the science behind global warming, new questions are being raised about the reliability of a key temperature database, used by the United Nations and climate change scientists as proof of recent planetary warming.

Two American researchers allege that U.S. government scientists have skewed global temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes, such as Canada.

In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.

Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada.

Yet as American researchers Joseph D’Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses “just one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees.”

Both the authors, and the institute, are well-known in climate-change circles for their skepticism about the threat of global warming.

Mr. D’Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and another U.S. agency, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have not only reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database, but have “cherry picked” the ones that remain by choosing sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea -- which has a warming effect on winter weather.

Over the past two decades, they say, “the percentage of [Canadian] stations in the lower elevations tripled and those at higher elevations, above 300 feet, were reduced in half.”

Using the agency’s own figures, Smith shows that in 1991, almost a quarter of NOAA’s Canadian temperature data came from stations in the high Arctic. The same region contributes only 3% of the Canadian data today.

Mr. D’Aleo and Mr. Smith say NOAA and GISS also ignore data from numerous weather stations in other parts of the world, including Russia, the U.S. and China.

They say NOAA collects no temperature data at all from Bolivia -- a high-altitude, landlocked country -- but instead “interpolates” or assigns temperature values for that country based on data from “nearby” temperature stations located at lower elevations in Peru, or in the Amazon basin.

The result, they say, is a warmer-than-truthful global temperature record.

“NOAA . . . systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler,” the authors say. “The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs.”

The NOAA database forms the basis of the influential climate modelling work, and the dire, periodic warnings on climate change, issued by James Hanson, the director of the GISS in New York.

Neither agency responded to a request for comment Wednesday from Canwest News Service. However Hanson did issue a public statement on the matter earlier this week.

“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis,” he said. “The agency is confident of the quality of this data and stands by previous scientifically-based conclusions regarding global temperatures.”

In addition to the allegations against NOAA and GISS, climate scientists are also dealing with the embarrassment this week of the false glacier-melt warning contained in the 2007 report of the UN Panel on Climate Change. That report said Himalayan glaciers are likely to disappear within three decades if current rates of melting continue.

This week, however, the panel admitted there is no scientific evidence to support such a claim.

The revelations come only two months after the “climategate” scandal, in which the leak or theft of thousands of e-mails -- private discussions between scientists in the U.S. and Britain -- showed that a group of influential climatologists tried for years to manipulate global warming data, rig the scientific peer-review process and keep their methods secret from other, contrary-minded researchers.
© Copyright (c) National Post

Scientists using selective temperature data, skeptics say (http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists+using+selective+temperature+data+skeptics/2468634/story.html)

In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.

These glaciers provide the headwaters for Asia's nine largest rivers and lifelines for the more than one billion people who live downstream. Melting ice and snow would create mass flooding, followed by mass drought. The glacier story was reported around the world. Last December, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, warned, “The deal reached at Copenhagen will have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty.” To dramatize their country's plight, Nepal's top politicians strapped on oxygen tanks and held a cabinet meeting on Mount Everest.

But the claim was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change.

“The global warming movement as we have known it is dead,” the brilliant analyst Walter Russell Mead says in his blog on The American Interest. It was done in by a combination of bad science and bad politics.

The impetus for the Copenhagen conference was that the science makes it imperative for us to act. But even if that were true – and even if we knew what to do – a global deal was never in the cards. As Mr. Mead writes, “The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet.” Copenhagen was never going to produce a breakthrough. It was a dead end.

And now, the science scandals just keep on coming. First there was the vast cache of e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia, home of a crucial research unit responsible for collecting temperature data. Although not fatal to the science, they revealed a snakepit of scheming to keep contradictory research from being published, make imperfect data look better, and withhold information from unfriendly third parties. If science is supposed to be open and transparent, these guys acted as if they had a lot to hide.

Despite widespread efforts to play down the Climategate e-mails, they were very damaging. An investigation by the British newspaper The Guardian – among the most aggressive advocates for action on climate change – has found that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed, and that documents relating to them could not be produced.

Meantime, the IPCC – the body widely regarded, until now, as the ultimate authority on climate science – is looking worse and worse. After it was forced to retract its claim about melting glaciers, Mr. Pachauri dismissed the error as a one-off. But other IPCC claims have turned out to be just as groundless.

For example, it warned that large tracts of the Amazon rain forest might be wiped out by global warming because they are extremely susceptible to even modest decreases in rainfall. The sole source for that claim, reports The Sunday Times of London, was a magazine article written by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. One scientist contacted by the Times, a specialist in tropical forest ecology, called the article “a mess.”

Worse still, the Times has discovered that Mr. Pachauri's own Energy and Resources Unit, based in New Delhi, has collected millions in grants to study the effects of glacial melting – all on the strength of that bogus glacier claim, which happens to have been endorsed by the same scientist who now runs the unit that got the money. Even so, the IPCC chief is hanging tough. He insists the attacks on him are being orchestrated by companies facing lower profits.

Until now, anyone who questioned the credibility of the IPCC was labelled as a climate skeptic, or worse. But many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they're bailing out. Among them is Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria who acknowledges that the climate body has crossed the line into advocacy. Even Britain's Greenpeace has called for Mr. Pachauri's resignation. India says it will establish its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the IPCC.

None of this is to say that global warming isn't real, or that human activity doesn't play a role, or that the IPCC is entirely wrong, or that measures to curb greenhouse-gas emissions aren't valid. But the strategy pursued by activists (including scientists who have crossed the line into advocacy) has turned out to be fatally flawed.

By exaggerating the certainties, papering over the gaps, demonizing the skeptics and peddling tales of imminent catastrophe, they've discredited the entire climate-change movement. The political damage will be severe. As Mr. Mead succinctly puts it: “Skeptics up, Obama down, cap-and-trade dead.” That also goes for Canada, whose climate policies are inevitably tied to those of the United States.

“I don't think it's healthy to dismiss proper skepticism,” says John Beddington, the chief scientific adviser to the British government. He is a staunch believer in man-made climate change, but he also points out the complexity of climate science. “Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can't be changed.” In his view, it's time to stop circling the wagons and throw open the doors. How much the public will keep caring is another matter.
The great global warming collapse - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-great-global-warming-collapse/article1458206/)

snow in all 50 states....

OU Student Collecting Pictures of Snow in All 50 States - NewsOn6.com - Tulsa, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports - KOTV.com | (http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=11973034)

harveyc
03-05-2010, 07:53 PM
Brrrr.... More than 50 ships stuck in Baltic Sea ice: maritime authorities (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=TX-PAR-HOJ05&show_article=1)

Jack Daw
03-06-2010, 04:42 AM
Lol, yes, сlimate change. Are you kidding me?
I guess the permafrost Greenland was always white, that's why it was called Greenland, right? Or for example viticulture in Scotland and Scandinavia 2000 years ago... and we could go on and on! :)

Let's just agree that there's no such thing as global warming and the only reason why people are scared by such a thing is that governments like scaring people with something. Besides, it's profiting to have the global warming, ain't it? :ha:

Quotation from our Biology book regarding the fictious warming up:
Annual CO<sub>2</sub> production: 27 000 000 000 000kg (27 billions of tons)
Daily worldwide CO<sub>2</sub> production: 73 972 602 739kg (73,9 billions of kg)
Hourly worldwide CO<sub>2</sub> production: 3 082 191 780kg (3,1 billions of kg)
Astonishing numbers, right! But let's have another look!

One mature tree produces in average<sub></sub>: 1,7kg O<sub>2 </sub>an hour
Estimated number of forests in the world: 3 900 000 000ha (3,9 billions of hA, 1ha = 100mx100m)
Amount of trees living in the forests: 390 000 000 000 (1 hA ~ 100 trees, one tree each 10m)
Hourly worldwide (O<sub>2</sub>) production of these trees: 663 000 000 000kg (663 billions ofd kgs)
Daily worldwide (O<sub>2</sub>) production of these trees: 15 912 000 000 000kg (15,9 billions of tons)
Annual worldwide (O<sub>2</sub>) production of these trees: 5 807 880 000 000 000kg (5 807 billions of tons)

This would also mean, that all the forests all over the world are capable of compensating our yearly mankind activity within 2 days. That means that at least 363 days a year they would produce only to compensate for our breathing.

And that excludes horticultural products, but growing most of these products means another CO2 consumption and O2 production.
SO LOL on everyone trying to sell emission quotients, lol on overyone raising food prices due to growing crops for oil that nobody can eat!!!
It's a new form of extortion by our beloved governments.

I wonder how we will be able to tell Africans one day, that this was just a business, when they won't be able to grow or do anything because of restrictions we put on machines and the amount of money we pay on something that doesn't exist. These resources could have gone there to build schools, infrastructure, wells, improve health system... But no, let's rather restrict and pay for CO2, even if it really doesn't do anything! That's more human, now I feel like a real member of a group called mankind, defined by our solidarity.