Figure 1: Predicted greenhouse warming (left) versus reality (right) as a function of latitude (x) and altitude (y)
Lord Monckton has written down a convincing paper showing that the greenhouse effect predicts a "hot spot" at certain rather high altitudes above the equatorial zones, something that isn't really observed:
Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
Overturning the "Consensus" in One Fell SwoopNew research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC assumes. Schwartz’s study is “in press” at the Journal of Geophysical Research and you can download a preprint of the studyhere.
November 17, 2007:LISTEN to Interview with NRSP Executive Director Tom Harris on The Roy Green Show on the Corus Radio Network across Canada. The real numbers of scientists who reviewed the most important part of the IPCC assessment reports is discussed.
UN Climate Panel Accused of Possible Research Fraud!
At virtually the same time NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies was correcting historical climate data with the assistance of Climate Audit's Steve McIntyre, a British mathematician discovered serious flaws in papers used and cited by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its most recent Assessment Report.
The essential point here is that the quoted statements from Jones et al. and Wang et al. cannot be true and could not be in error by accident. The statements are fabricated.
Readers are encouraged to review Keenan's ENTIRE REPORT, as well as the summary available at his website Informath.org, to make their own conclusions.
See with your own eyes the IPCC Expert Reviewer Comments; The REAL scientists that are being censored & opinions ignored if they dissagree with the already pre-determined "consensus"!
(Chicago IL - June 29, 2007) On June 28, in an historic move the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released the expert review comments and responses to its latest assessment of the science of climate change. The IPCC report is the primary source of data for Al Gore's movie and book titled "An Inconvenient Truth."
Many of the comments by the reviewers are strongly critical of claims contained in the final report, and they are directly at odds with the so-called "scientific consensus" touted by Gore and others calling for immediate government action. For example, the following comment by Eric Steig appears in Second Order Draft Comments, Chapter 6; section 6-42:
In general, the certainty with which this chapter presents our understanding of abrupt climate change is overstated. There is confusion between hypothesis and evidence throughout the chapter, and a great deal of confusion on the differences between an abrupt "climate change" and possible, hypothetical causes of such climate changes.
"It is now abundantly clear why Al Gore will not accept our (or any) debate challenge. The supposed scientific consensus on global warming is pure fiction. Hopefully, the public release of comments and responses will enable the debate over global warming to turn to facts and less fiction," stated Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit think tank based in Chicago.
Because he's at odds with the IPCC, Morner would be about as welcome at this year's meeting as the International Climate Science Coalition has been. That group of international scientists, skeptical of the global warming theory, was told it could not present its information at the conference.Claim That Sea Level Rising Is
a Total Fraud!"Suddenly it changed," Morner said of the IPCC's 2003 sea-level chart, which is intended to convince the public that warming due to man's activities is melting ice that will cause the oceans to rise to dangerous levels.The change "showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 millimeters per year," which just happens to be the same increase that was measured by one of six Hong Kong tide gauges. Morner said that particular tide gauge is "the only record which you shouldn't use" because "every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It's the compaction of sediment."A simple error by the IPCC? Not in Morner's mind. "Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that," he said. "It is a falsification of the data set."
THE SOLAR CONNECTION
An Ominous Prediction
Watch video response to the Lockwood Paper (High Speed Connection)
The Lockwood paper was designed to rebut Durkin's "Great Global Warming Swindle" film but it is in fact an absolute gift to climate atheists. What the paper says was of course all well-known already but the concession from a Greenie source that fluctuations in the output of the sun have driven climate change for all but the last 20 years really is invaluable. And the one fact that the paper documents so well - that solar output is on the downturn - is also hilarious, given its source. Surely even a crazed Greenie mind must see that the sun's influence has not stopped and that reduced solar output will soon start COOLING the earth! Unprecedented July 2007 cold weather throughout the Southern hemisphere might even be the first sign that the cooling is happening. And the fact that warming plateaued in 1998 is also a good sign that we are moving into a cooling phase. As is so often the case, the Greenies have got the danger exactly backwards. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/the_unruly_sunne_cannot_be_ruled_out_as_a_cause_of_recent_climate_variation.html
**NEW**Next Solar Cycle Late and Likely to be a Dud - the Implications
I agree with those who call for a much weaker maximum. I base this on studies published by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt of the Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity in Waldmuenchen, Germany. The late Dr. Landscheidt was a giant in the field of climatology. He has also successfully predicted many of the extreme events of recent past decades in advance based solely on his SOLAR FORCASTING TECHNIQUE! Based on his achievements, it would be unwise to ignore his predictions of the comming colder climate.
The numbers are compelling: For more than a century, "the speed of the belt has been a good predictor of future solar activity."
If the trend holds, Solar Cycle 25 in 2022 could be, like the belt itself, "off the bottom of the charts."
Here's what Dr. Landscheidt said: "The current 11-year sunspot cycle 23 with its considerably weaker activity seems to be a first indication of the new trend, especially as it was predicted on the basis of solar motion cycles two decades ago. As to temperature, only El Niño periods should interrupt the downward trend, but even El Niños should become less frequent and strong."(if you follow this kind of thing like I do you would know that James Hansen et al. predicted the 2007 El Nino to as bad as 97,98 based on the models - as fate would have it we are now in a weak La Nina(May/June 07) The polar opposite...so far Dr. Landscheidt has been incredibly accurate & models continue to fail! I've seen this time and time again...models feed back on a short term trend like the one we're leaving and incorrectly continue it until it finally catches on and corrects...this is where long range weather guru's come in to sort out the inherant problems with these models...the human element is needed to avert mistakes such as the ones the IPCC and other alarmists are engaged in.
"Analysis of the sun's activity in the last two millennia indicates that, contrary to the
IPCC's speculation about man-made global warming, that we could be headed into
a Maunder minimum type of climate (a Little Ice Age)."
Richard S. Lindzen, professor of meteorology at M.I.T., notes that despite increasing carbon emissions, the rise in earth's temperature is less than you would expect and not consistent, interrupted by repeated cooling periods.
In a column posted on MSNBC.com, Lindzen writes that "average temperatures have risen only about 0.6 degree since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn't been uniform — warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between." Is solar activity the determining factor in earth's climate?Says Patterson, the Canadian geologist: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on earth." Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again. If we're to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."Al Gore, call your office
Global Warming:
A Chilling Perspective Putting things in perspective, geologists tell us our present warm climate is a mere blip in the history of an otherwise cold Earth. Frigid Ice Age temperatures have been the rule, not the exception, for the last couple of million years. This kind of world is not totally inhospitable, but not a very fun place to live, unless you are a polar bear.
Some say we are "nearing the end of our minor interglacial period" ,and may in fact be on the brink of another Ice Age. If this is true, the last thing we should be doing is limiting carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, just in case they may have a positive effect in sustaining present temperatures. The smart money, however, is betting that there is some momentum left in our present warming cycle. Environmental advocates agree: resulting in a shift of tactics from the" global cooling" scare of the 1970s to the "global warming" threat of the 1980s and 1990s.Now, as we begin the 21st century the terminology is morphing toward"climate change,"Whereby no matter the direction of temperature trends-up or down-the headlines can universally blame humans while avoiding the necessity of switching buzz-words with the periodicity of solar cycles. Such tactics may, however, backfire as peoples' common sensibilities are at last pushed over the brink.
Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon. We currently enjoy a warm Earth. Can we count on a warm Earth forever? The answer is most likely...NO!
Since the climate has always been changing and will likely continue of it's own accord to change in the future, instead of crippling the U.S. economy in order to achieve small reductions in global warming effects due to manmade additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide, our resources may be better spent making preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and precipitation that accompany climatic change.Supporting this view is British scientist Jane Francis, who maintains:"What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within our big icehouse climate." Dismissing political calls for a global effort to reverse climate change, she said: "It's really farcical because the climate has been changing constantly...What we should do is be more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to adapt to the change."
Ice AgesMother Nature is not gentle and loving in either hot or cold periods of significant changing world climate and temperature. The Greenhouse Effect creates the Atmospheric Insulation by utilizing about 2% of the atmospheric gases which provide Global Warmth for the earth.Ice ages have a normal period of development of 90,000 to 100,000 years. Warm periods historically have abnormally short lives representing only 10% of that time. A normal range between the ice ages and warm interglacial periods is 5°F to 20°F variation in temperature.An Ice Age would be much more destructive to our way of life than increasing warmth. The world population as we know it, could not be sustained during an Ice Age.
From study of past geologic events, it seems we are near a pending arrival of a beginning new ice age, which eventually could create related catastrophic results which perhaps could be modified and reduced with increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
In the last 2 million years, the earth has gone through about 17 Ice Ages. It is scientifically illogical to assume these repetitive periods of major climate and temperature change have now stopped without some measured scientific indication or proof. Changes in the earth's topography and ocean currents and continental drift all have had an earthbound effect on the changing climate. The tilt of the earth, and the output of the sun and the changes in the elliptical path of the earth around the sun also have major effects over geologic time on the climate and temperatures of the earth. Some of these changes are not necessarily slow.
Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming
Dr.Shariv a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer acceptsthis logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye." "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic-ray flux has on our atmosphere. "So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."
“Climate change models, no matter how powerful, can never give a precise prediction of how greenhouse gases will warm the Earth, according to a new study. The result will provide ammunition to those who argue not enough is known about global warming to warrant taking action.” Well, well. Now there is a surprise. [The study in question will be found in the journal, Science (October 26, 2007: 318 (5850), 629.|DOI: 10.1126/science.1144735) Why Is Climate Sensitivity So Unpredictable?’ by Gerard H. Roe and Marcia B. Baker of the Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle An associated commentary (October 26, 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5850, pp. 582 - 583|DOI: 10.1126/science.1149988): ‘Call Off The Quest’ is especially illuminating. The commentators are Myles R. Allen and David J. Frame, from the Department of Physics and the Centre for Environment respectively, the University of Oxford] In essence, to the frustration of policy makers, model temperature estimates have not become more precise over the last 20 years. Moreover: “It now appears that the estimates will never get much better”, while... better computer models or observational data will not do much to reduce that uncertainty.”
Ultimately, the papers also illustrate the limits to which models, even those produced by powerful supercomputers, can help politicians make decisions Absolutely. Taking all the models and temperature ranges proposed for the UK alone, there is an error bar of over 8 degrees C. What use is that to farmers, to business planners, or to anybody else for that matter, especially when nobody has the foggiest idea about precipitation or regional variations?
FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE
* Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
* CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life - plants and animals alike - benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
* CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
** If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!
*"Greenhouse gases" in Earth's atmosphere also influence Earth's temperature, but in a much smaller way. Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect.
CO2 MYTHS, FACTS & REALITIES - PROOF that todays CO2 levels are NOT Unnatural or Unusual!
Notice this is the undisputed absorption properties of all GHG's in our atmosphere. This clearly displays the true forcing CO2 rightfully diservers...which to say the least isn't much!
FALSE LOW PRE-INDUSTRIAL CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE
There is substantial proof that today's claimed 'abnormally high' CO2 is a victim of weakensses in proxy studies
(I/O a thousand years from now today's CO2 levels will show up as a little bump in proxy studies, spikes etc will be smoothed out. Proxies give good indications of the past but do not pick up every little detail)
180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods
Historic (CO2 Peak) papers Data - Methods - All provide substantial proof there have been much higher CO2 amounts than today's as recent as the 1940's without any ill effect on our climate.
Me-Why were the higher reading ignored? Answer: To make it appear that "today's C02 levels are highest it's been in 650k years!" Alot easier to make false claims than it is to scientifically dissprove them. When that daunting & expensive task is completed and studies like these are completed; the Pro-MMGW crowd engages in a smear campaign too easily accepted with the all too familiar accuastion of "Their in the pay of oil or coal.
See study here:
READ PEER REVIEWED STUDY
**********************************************************
The Manipulation of Reality, The Falsified History of C02
The historical record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the justification for greenhouse gas reduction, is a fraud. Research by a Freiburg, Germany professor, Ernst-Georg Beck of the Merian-Schule, shows that the IPCC construed and concocted the pre-1957 CO2 record from measurements on recently drilled ice cores, ignoring more than 90,000 direct measurements by chemical methods from 1857 to 1957.
The IPCC's hoked-up record attempts to prove that CO2 concentrations have been steadily increasing with the progress of human industrial civilization. Beck's work confirms a wealth of previous investigations which demonstrate that the IPCC cherrypicked its data in an attempt to prove that we must stop industrial development and return to the horse-and-buggy age, or face oppressive heat and melting of the polar ice caps. It shows that the Kyoto Treaty on reduction of greenhouse gases was based on a scientific fraud which violates the laws of the universe, denying the well-established determination of climate by cyclical variations in the Earth-Sun orbital relationship and in the Sun's heat output.
In a thorough review of 175 scientific papers, Professor Beck found that the founders of modern greenhouse theory, Guy Stewart Callendar and Charles David Keeling (a special idol of Al Gore's), had completely ignored careful and systematic measurements by some of the most famous names of physical chemistry, among them several Nobel prize winners. Measurements by these chemists showed that today's atmospheric CO2 concentration of about 380 parts per million (ppm) have been exceeded in the past, including a period from 1936 to 1944, when the CO2 levels varied from 393.0 to 454.7 ppm.
ABC's 20/20 John Stossel segment on Global WarmingClimate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 2Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 3Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 4Global Warming or Global Governance? See: http://www.globalwarmingglobalgovernance.comEnviron-Mentalism: A New Religion for a New AgeGreenpeace BULL SHITCO2 & Glaciers, what you're not being toldGlobal Cooling: The Coming Ice AgeMore of GORE's LIES EXPOSED!An Inconvenient Truth... or Convenient Fiction? Part IAn Inconvenient Truth... or Convenient Fiction? Part IIGlobal Warming Smokings Guns; Exposing the Myths by The Internet Skeptic. Long but very good study on cause and effectGlobal Warming: An Unsettled ScienceScare tactics in An Inconvenient Truth - Parental disgression advised!Green House Conspiracy
Television
The Other Side of the Global Warming Debate:
(A very partial list - If you want to have one added, send me the link and I'll put it on the list)
They call this a consensus?! Straight from IPCC report - Note the 'level of scientific understanding' See how many 'VERY LOW' there are!?
See how "SOLAR" is portrayed? It's given a tiny positive forcing value...In reality it is both a positive and negative forcing at much greater value than shown!Meanwhile CO2 continues to enjoy the limelight.
Climate Change Bill Has a Cost: $494 a Year for Every U.S. Man, Woman and Child
What's another $500 taken out of your paycheck over the course of a year? It probably isn't much to global warming alarmists like Al Gore, but that's what it could cost you if legislation pending in the U.S. Senate is passed into law. Does that $500 have your attention? Well, multiply that times every member of your immediate family.
According to a November 11 Washington Times editorial, a bill introduced in the Senate by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) that would require companies to scale back greenhouse-gas emissions could cost Americans $4 trillion to $6 trillion over the next 40 years. If that bill were passed and made law, the tax would cost every man, woman and child - more than 303 million Americans - $494 a year, a significant burden on the U.S. economy.
If you're not yet skeptical of this global warming initiative, listen to former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who warns the effects of carbon caps would be limited unless imposed globally. He said in his book, "The Age of Turbulence," that caps imposed only on the United States could be detrimental.
"There is no effective way to meaningfully reduce emissions without negatively impacting a large part of an economy," Greenspan wrote. "Net, it is a tax. If the cap is low enough to make a meaningful inroad into CO2 emissions, permits will become expensive and large numbers of companies will experience cost increases that make them less competitive. Jobs will be lost and real incomes of workers constrained."
Cap-and-Trade Could Cost Average Family $10,800 in Lost Incomeh
A cap-and-trade scheme for controlling greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) would impose significant economic costs on the U.S. economy and is not a sound policy response to current concerns about global warming, says renown economist Arthur Laffer in a new study released today.
Senate Environment & Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have proposed the “Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act” aimed at combating climate change. The proposed partisan bill (S.309) is supported by another 15 senators, including: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY); Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL); Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT) and more...
FACT: A new MIT study concludes that the Sanders-Boxer approach would impose a tax-equivalent of $366 billion annually, or more than $4,500 per family of four, by 2015. And the annual costs will grow after 2015. [Read full MIT study]
The Kyoto Protocol would have imposed an equivalent tax of over $300 billion a year, 10 times the size of the Clinton-Gore tax increase of 1993. In addition to the MIT study, a new Congressional Budget Office study released recently, details how a carbon cap-and-trade system would result in massive wealth redistribution from the poor and working class to wealthier Americans. [Read more on CBO study]
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), EPW Ranking Member, said today: “Carbon caps would artificially and needlessly raise the cost of energy the most on the people least able to afford it. It astounds me that any Senator could support such a proposal.”
Read Senator Inhofe’s full opening statement from today’s EPW subcommittee hearing [Link]
High price for load of hot air
In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $60 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one.
Yet that expenditure will pale into insignificance compared with the squandering of money that is going to accompany the introduction of a carbon trading or taxation system.READ MORE HERE
Probability of Sudden Global Cooling - 94% as we have reached the end of our Inter-Glacial Period
The attached data is well known and was derived mathematically by Quinn et al. in 1991 and it shows the effect of orbital geometry on solar forcing or insolation, and displays global climate as glaciation data on the same time scale. What seems to have been overlooked is the remarkable degree of correlation between insolation (shown in yellow) and sudden changes in global climate which are reflected in the glaciation data.
A close review of the attached data shows that over the past 400KY there have been 18 down cycles in insolation and these correlate with 17 sudden downturns in global temperature. We have a rapid decline in insolation now. The data also clearly shows the nominal 100KY cycle for glaciation and the interglacial phases and it shows that we have reached the end of the typical Interglacial cycle and are due for a sudden cooling climate change. (See top chart in this section)
- Global surface temperatures have increased only about 0.6°C in the last 100 years but high quality satellite measurements show ~0.3deg;C(IPCC) - Global average sea level has risen only about 6 inches in the last 100 years. (Based on tidal guage data) (IPCC) - Global mean sea level rise is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr. (Based on tidal guage data) (IPCC) - No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected. (IPCC) - 20 feet of sea level rise would take 3048-6096 years. (Based on tidal guage data) (IPCC) - Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen by about 30% (280-370 ppmv) over the past 100 years. (IPCC) - Ice core records show Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels lag behind Temperature changes by hundreds of years. (Source) - Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is only about 0.038% of the atmosphere. (NASA) - Carbon Dioxide accounts for about 4.2-8.4% of the greenhouse effect. (Source) - Humans can only claim responsibility for about 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually. (Source) - Water Vapor + Clouds account for about 90-95% of the greenhouse effect. (Source) (NASA) - Global temperature has averaged only 57°F in the last 100 years. (NOAA) - The warmest year in the United States was 1934. (NASA)
* Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming is an unproven Theory. * There is no "scientific consensus" that global warming will cause catastrophic climate change. * Science is not determined by "consensus" but by the Scientific Method.
DISCLAIMER: I am NOT affiliated With any organization or paid! I WILL NOT TOLLERATE SPAM, PERSONAL ATTACKS OR OTHER OFFENSIVE COMMENTS, THANK YOU.
At the very heart of the IPCC's calculations lurks a very large error. The IPCC says: "The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent during the last 10 years (1995-2005)." Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5% higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.
Why so large and crucial an exaggeration? Answer: the IPCC has repealed the fundamental physical the Stefan-Boltzmann equation - that converts radiant energy to temperature. Without this equation, no meaningful calculation of the effect of radiance on temperature can be done. Yet the 1,600 pages of the IPCC's 2007 report do not mention it once.The IPCC knows of the equation, of course. But it is inconvenient. It imposes a strict (and very low) limit on how much greenhouse gases can increase temperature. At the Earth's surface, you can add as much greenhouse gas as you like (the "surface forcing"), and the temperature will scarcely respond.That is why all of the IPCC's computer models predict that 10km above Bali, in the tropical upper troposphere, temperature should be rising two or three times as fast as it does at the surface. Without that tropical upper-troposphere "hot-spot", the Stefan-Boltzmann law ensures that surface temperature cannot change much.For half a century we have been measuring the temperature in the upper atmosphere - and it has been changing no faster than at the surface. The IPCC knows this, too. So it merely declares that its computer predictions are right and the real-world measurements are wrong. Next time you hear some scientifically-illiterate bureaucrat say, "The science is settled", remember this vital failure of real-world observations to confirm the IPCC's computer predictions. The IPCC's entire case is built on a guess that the absent hot-spot might exist.
Even if the Gore/IPCC exaggerations were true, which they are not, the economic cost of trying to mitigate climate change by trying to cut our emissions through carbon trading and other costly market interferences would far outweigh any possible climatic benefit.
Joe Bastardi
Expert Senior Forecaster at AccuWeather, and he is heard daily on a number of radio stations. His daily weather column is the most extensive in the business and has helped establish him, along with his videos, as the internet's go-to guy for long-range and hurricane forecasting. He is also the one who first opened my eyes to the many facits of long range forcasting. "The key to this is understanding and using the past as tools for 'clues' about the future climate, not just computer models. A one sided approach to something as complex and chaotic as our atmosphere is a recipe for dissaster."
Dr. Vincent Gray, Expert Reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001', Wellington, New Zealand , Ph.D., is a pioneer in the science of forecasting hurricanes. William M. Gray pioneered the concept of "seasonal" hurricane forecasting — predicting months in advance the severity of the coming hurricane season. Gray's prognostications, issued since 1983, are used by insurance companies to calculate premiums. He is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences. Gray is noted for his forecasts of Atlantichurricane season activity. Professor Gray served as a weather forecaster for the United States Air Force, and as a research assistant in the University of Chicago Department of Meteorology. He joined Colorado State University in 1961. He has been advisor of over 70 Ph. D. and M. Sc. students. His team has been issuing seasonal hurricane forecasts since 1984. After the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Gray cited that he was devoting more time to the issue of global warming. Gray said "They've been brainwashing us for 20 years, starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was." Gray also stated, "I'll take on any scientist in this field to talk about this,I predict that in 5 to 8 years the globe will begin to cool". “Al Gore is one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about.”
Lord Monckton,
a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher during her years as
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said, "A careful study of the
substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An
Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and
errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide. Monckton calls on the former Vice President to "step up to the plate and
defend his advocacy of policies that could do grave harm to the welfare of the
world's poor. If Mr. Gore really believes global warming is the defining issue
of our time, the greatest threat human civilization has ever faced, then he
should welcome the opportunity to raise the profile of the issue before a
worldwide audience of billions by defining and defending his claims against a
serious, science-based challenge."
Dr. Timothy F. Ball, Former Lead Author IPCC, an environmental consultant, well-known public speaker and former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg will serve as NRSP’s Chairman as well as Chair of the NRSP Scientific Advisory Committee. "Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification."
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, USA
He is a former Lead Author IPCC, an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun. Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted."
Dr. Theodor Landscheidt
of the Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity in Waldmuenchen, Germany."Contrary to the IPCC's speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years," said Landscheidt, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It can be seen, added Landscheidt, that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth."
Dr. Piers Corbyn
A Meterologist, Solar Physicist an astrophysicist, is the originator of the revolutionary solar weather technique of long-range forecasting and a founder of Weather Action Long Range Forecasters. His first scientific publications were on aspects of meteorology and astronomy. He also carried out astrophysics research at Queen Mary College London and published work on galaxy formation and the mean matter density of the universe.
From his research into the causes of weather change, he totally rejects the carbon dioxide-based theory of global warming and climate change. Corbyn is one of the scientists featured in the wagTV film-produced "The Great Global Warming Swindle," shown on Channel 4 in Britain in March.
In a letter to the U.K. Govt
"I ask you to campaign to redress the present one-sided political climate on this matter and campaign for C4's 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' to be circulated to all schools in the same way that the Government has agreed to circulate Al Gore's brainwashing movie."
Dr. Ian Clark
Professor, Department of Earth Sciences (arctic specialist)
Isotope Hydrogeology and Paleoclimatology
University of Ottawa
Ottawa, CA
The role of solar activity on climate warming has been observed in real data sets collected at many different time scales. All are consistent in showing a relationship between changes in solar activity and temperature. Before spending futile billions on Kyoto implementation measures, perhaps we should pay more attention to the role that the sun plays. We know that it was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle.
Dr. John Cristy
Lead Author IPCC, Professor and Director
Earth System Science Center, NSSTC
University of Alabama in Huntsville
PhD University of Illinois, 1987, Atmospheric Science
M.S. University of Illinois, 1984, Atmospheric Science
M.Div. Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1978
B.A. California State University, Fresno, 1973, Mathematics
"I've often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist - and there are many - that simply think that is not true."
The Late John L. Daly Originally from Britain, I came to live in Tasmania in 1980, settling near Launceston, and for the last 9 years have been one of the numerous ..skeptics' speaking out publicly against the Global Warming scare, which makes exaggerated claims that the earth will warm by +1.5 to +6 deg. C. due to an enhanced Greenhouse Effect.
Climate and climate change has been a lifelong study of mine since my early days as a ship's officer in the British Merchant Navy. I have lived through and traced the progress of the ..ice age' scare of the 1970's, the ..nuclear winter' scare of the 1980s, and now the ..global warming' scare of the present. All these scares have advanced the interests of what was a small academic discipline 30 years ago to become a mammoth global industry today. It is my view that this industry has, through the ..politics of fear' which it has promoted, acted against the interests of the public.
Read more about John Daly here:
http://www.john-daly.com/dalybio.htm
Patrick J. Michaels Former author & reviewer & senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and professor of natural resources at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists." The Kyoto Protocol will have no discernible effect on global climate--in fact, it is doubtful that the current network of surface thermometers could distinguish a change on the order of .19 degree from normal year-to-year variations. The Kyoto Protocol will result in no demonstrable climate change but easily demonstrable economic damage."
Patrick Moore, Ph.D.
Dr. Patrick Moore has been a leader in the international environmental field for over 30 years. He is a founding member of Greenpeace and served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International. As the leader of many campaigns Dr. Moore was a driving force shaping policy and direction while Greenpeace became the world's largest environmental activist organization.
In recent years, Dr. Moore has been focused on the promotion of sustainability and consensus building among competing concerns. He was a member of British Columbia government-appointed Round Table on the Environment and Economy from 1990 - 1994. In 1990, Dr. Moore founded and chaired the BC Carbon Project, a group that worked to develop a common understanding of climate change
Dr. Moore served for four years as Vice President, Environment for Waterfurnace International, the largest manufacturer of geothermal heat pumps for residential heating and cooling with renewable earth energy.
As Chair of the Sustainable Forestry Committee of the Forest Alliance of BC, he leads the process of developing the "Principles of Sustainable Forestry" which have been adopted by a majority of the industry.
In 1991 Dr. Moore founded Greenspirit, a consultancy focusing on environmental policy and communications in natural resources, biodiversity, energy and climate change
In 2000, Dr. Moore published Green Spirit - Trees are the Answer, a photo-book that provides a new insight into how forests work and how they can play a powerful role in solving many of our current environmental problems.
“There were always extreme, irrational and mystical elements within our movement, but they tended to be kept in their place during the early years. Then in the mid-Eighties the ultraleftists and extremists took over. After Greenham Common closed and the Berlin Wall came down these extremists were searching for a new cause and found it in environmentalism. The old agendas of class struggle and anti-corporatism are still there but now they are dressed up in environmental terminology.”
Senator James Inhofe
Ranking member of the minority Republican party on U.S. Senate Commitee on Environment & Public Works.
MY WIFE = MY HERO
All our troops, the brave men and women in our armed forces! All of the courageous people from the 911 Terrorist attack that have died, lost loved ones and still suffering today. Any so-called '911 truthers' out there are only causing more harm with their pathetic conspiracy theories that only further the confusion and are helping further devide the USA with absolutely no justification or basis in reality! Just some doctored up photos, videos and celebrities that prove nothing...none of were there...really sad and dangerous
Looks like they forgot to add alot..but you get the picture...Add in CMP/MPS & you get a taste of what it's like to be me...invisible my ass!
To make clear where I stand on the issue of climate change & environmentalism: (PLEASE READ FIRST)
There are 4 basic messages here.
1. Global warming and cooling are natural and all part of a cyclical phenomenon known since the birth of our planet and are primarily driven by variations in the output of the sun along with the various Malconvich Cycles, then the oceans with their oscillating positive and negative phases of the AMO, PDO and more that ultimately make up the primiary causes for warming and cooling.
2. CO2 and other GHG's that are of human origin cannot and will not alter the earths temperature now or ever due to their extremely small amount in comparison to naturally occuring GHG's. Current policies and cap and trade schemes will serve only to make the rich richer and poor poorer period while accomplishing no measurable temp reduction.
3. Every major ice core (including the one Gore used in an AIT) reveals that CO2 levels follow temp increases AND decreases, which is quite telling in that temps go down well before CO2 does alluding to a forcing not even included in today's GCM's
4. Global Cooling poses a far greater threat than warming does. This is supported in the statistics and in basic common sense. Because I belive the various scientists that are predicting a cooling event in the not too distant future that may rival 'The Little Ice Age' both in severety and duration the current hysterics have the danger exactly backwards in my and many reputable opinions
The stand I have is one that seems to me intuitive, examining the big picture and incorporating in a rationale fashion new information weighted against the test of time. I don't see what is so revolting about that. But it don't stop the occasional looney alarmist from attacking me and accusing me of being paid by big oil, coal or even HUMMER! I'm actually flattered....RFK Jr. says we're all being paid by EXXON, Southern Company etc...to do what? Keep humanity from saving itself? What's the incentive for them to do that if we're all going to die?...Every major corporation will go bankrupt essentially...they'll loose business and/or die...does any of that make sense? You will never hear that the David Suzuki Foundation takes money from BIG OIL though and if you do, that's OK? Do the alarmists really believe what they preach?
Further, alarmist responses to valid problems risk foreclosing potentially useful responses based on ingenuity and progress. There are many examples from the energy sector where, in the presence of demands for economy, efficiency, or less pollution, the marketplace has responded by developing better alternatives. That is not to say that we should blissfully squander our energy resources; on the contrary, we should be careful to utilize them wisely. But energy-resource hysteria should not lead us to circumvent scientific advancement by cherry-picking and favoring one particular replacement technology at the expense of other promising technologies.
Environmental alarmism should be taken for what it is-a natural tendency of some portion of the public to latch onto the worst, and most unlikely, potential outcome. Alarmism should not be used as the basis for policy. Where a real problem exists, solutions should be based on reality, not hysteria.
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of
carbon dioxide, 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. 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.”
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
**NEW** Oregon Petition, from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, signed by over 31,0720 - including 9,021 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties - have signed a petition rejecting “global warming,” the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate.
Petition to STOP AL GORE and Reject the Un's KYOTO Treaty!
To President George Bush, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Republican Leader John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:
We urge the United States Senate to reject the 1997 United Nations Kyoto Protocols Treaty purporting to address global warming by constraining economic growth in the United States while allowing unmitigated growth in 129 other nations, included two of the largest world economies in China and India.
The Senate overwhelmingly rejected this Treaty (95-0) by way of the 1997 Byrd-Hagel Senate resolution in 1997, which objected to the lack of any "specific scheduled commitments" in regard to the CO2 output of "developing" countries."
We reject the Orwellian solutions proposed by Albert Arnold Gore and others who claim that the Kyoto Protocols must be adopted to stop global warming. The science of climate change is very imprecise, and current trends in climate change may have little or nothing to do with production of so-called "greenhouse gasses" such as carbon dioxide.
Albert Gore's solutions will only impede the advancement of scientific and technological innovation, and would impoverish hundreds of millions of people around the world.
Numerous scientists claim that the global warming experienced in the 20th century has nothing to do with man-made carbon dioxide, as you claim. Their arguments are compelling, and a debate would allow you to address these issues and prove that your arguments are based on science, rather than politics.
On March 14, 2007 Lord Monckton of Brenchley challenged you to debate your position on global warming, but your refusal only strengthens their position. We urge you to debate Lord Monckton of Brenchley, or otherwise admit that the causal link between man and global warming is spurious.
"I believe that it is the inadequate handling of precipitation systems -- specifically, how they adjust atmospheric moisture contents during changes in temperature -- that is the reason for climate model predictions of excessive warming from increasing greenhouse gas emissions. To believe otherwise is to have faith that climate models are sufficiently advanced to contain all of the important processes that control the Earth's natural greenhouse effect. Roy W. Spencer, an expert on global temperature monitoring with satellites
Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN: Attempting To Control Climate Is 'Futile'
The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."
The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, released an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN's so-called "solutions."
"Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems," the letter signed by the scientists read. The December 13 letter was released to the public late Thursday.
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen HERE. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C—a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year’s time. For all four sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down. Read more HERE.
"Contrary to the IPCC's speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years," said Landscheidt, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It can be seen, added Landscheidt, that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth."
Gore barely mentions the Kyoto Protocol in his film and says nothing about what sacrifices people will have to make in order to reduce CO2 emissions. He does say, however, that combating CO2-induced global warming will take a commitment similar to what the country had to make to win World War II. At some point in this climate war the government will ration CO2 and issue "carbon credits" – CO2 ration cards. In World War II Americans had to have the appropriate ration card to purchase gasoline, tires, coffee, sugar, meat, and shoes; a certificate to purchase a stove; and an authorization for vacation travel. At the height of the War on CO2 global governance, which only a socialist state can provide, will be required to rein in CO2 emissions, with international inspectors at one’s doorstep prosecuting and confiscating property of people and industries that make "greedy [CO2-producing] choices," like using an air-conditioner and driving a SUV.
Gore As Religious Figure
10 May 07 -
"For those who have disavowed conventional religion and have decided that man is the ultimate power - by which they mean themselves in particular, not just humanity in general - the thought that they alone can save the planet is heady stuff, indeed.
"Who needs a god when they have placed themselves at that pinnacle?
Environmentalists have been gestating their religious fervor for a decade or more but it lacked a central, savior-like figure who they could all worship together. I think it is safe to say, though, that they have found their Christ redux.
For Al Gore has come.
On Saturday, May 5th, Gore spoke the words that sent him from advocate to religious figure. Speaking to an Architect’s convention in San Antonio, Gore likened his quest to a "spiritual crisis" and placed himself and his followers into the role of savior of the planet.
Gore is no longer trying to advance a scientific theory and solution. He thinks of himself in messianic terms and views his followers as the last hope of the planet.
Global warming is now a full-blown religion and Al Gore is their messiah."
Alarmist Global Warming Claims Melt Under Scientific Scrutiny
June 30, 2007
BY JAMES M. TAYLOR
In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.
If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.
Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims
READ IT HERE
Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN: Attempting To Control Climate Is 'Futile'
The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."
The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, released an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN's so-called "solutions."
"Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems," the letter signed by the scientists read. The December 13 letter was released to the public late Thursday.
Forthcoming 21st century cooling
Projection of the cyclic historic pattern of sunspot activity suggests that a 21st century cooling will be driven by falling solar activity, perhaps even to the level of the cold Maunder minimum in the 17th century. By Professor Bob Carter
"New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK)
The Cost of Global Frauding From Marc Morano, Senate Staffer October 19, 2007
The Lieberman-Warner bill will burden American families with additional energy costs and significantly harm the United States economy...
CO2 cap-and-trade schemes were exposed by a recent CBO (Congressional Budget Office) study as creating massive wealth redistribution from the poor and working class to wealthier Americans. Further, according to a MIT study released earlier this year, cap-and-trade legislation introduced earlier in the Senate this year by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Senator Boxer (D-CA) would cost energy sector consumers an amount equal to $4,500 per American family of four. The same study found a bill sponsored by Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain (R-AZ) would cost consumers $3,500 per family of four. And a new EPA analysis shows the Lieberman - McCain bill would cost up to half a trillion dollars by 2030 and $1.3 trillion by 2050 - and that was based on assumptions designed to low-ball the number, begging the question of how high the real figure would be. MORE
The Science of Global Warming in Perspective
When an ice age begins, global Warming occurs exactly as it is doing now. Heated oceans cause precipitation to increase. Eventually, increased snowfall will reflect away solar energy and trigger a cool-down.
Ocean Temperatures over 800,000 Years. Each cycle is an ice age. Now is above the dotted line on the right side. The oceans have been heating continuously since the last ice age. see below
Arctic ice has melted faster than expected, because oceans are heating more than the atmosphere. (We're in a warm cycle of the AMO and stronger than normal wind patterns ushered sea ice out of the Greenland sea much faster than normal)
No atmospheric temperature increase has been found in nine years and is actually in a cooling trend.
Alarmists are not promoting science; they are promoting propaganda justified through a black-box analysis which generates contrived numbers. Science requires evidence and logic.
There is no mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming
"Greenhouse gases" absorb all radiation available to them in a few meters. More of the gas cannot absorb more radiation. A thick sheet of plastic does nothing more than a thin sheet. Doubling the CO2 would only shorten the distance for absorption of radiation from 10 meters to 5 meters, which is not an increase in temperature.
Here's a quantitative reason why carbon dioxide does not create global warming:
The sun's energy goes through the atmosphere and strikes the earth's surface.
claimed heat due to atmosphere --- 33°C
95-99% due to various things --- 31.4°C
1-5% due to infrared radiation from earth's surface --- 1.65°C
8% of infrared bandwidth available to CO2 --- 0.13°C
3% of CO2 produced by humans --- 0.0039°C
5% of absorption "unsaturated" for global warming --- 0.0002°C
This means carbon dioxide cannot trap radiant energy near the surface of the earth. To get around this, an obfuscated mechanism is contrived for heat leaving the atmosphere. But it is a miniscule effect in the stratosphere, with little influence over the lower atmosphere.
How could all of those scientists be wrong? They get paid to be wrong through billions of dollars from government; and they are not a consensus.
It's important to realize that radiation from the sun cannot be absorbed by carbon dioxide, because the sun must give off high frequency radiation in the area of visible light, which goes through the atmosphere. Something as hot as the sun cannot give off low frequency radiation, called infrared. This means that the sun's radiation heats the surface of the earth, and then the heat moves from the earth's surface into the atmosphere through conduction, convection, evaporation and infrared radiation. The infrared radiation can be absorbed by so-called greenhouse gases.
The real cause of global warming could be an increase in solar energy, but there is some evidence that it is due to variations in heat from the earth's core. Ice ages are caused by oceans heating, which appears to result from increased heat from inside the earth. The primary evidence is the exact cycling of ice ages. Environmental factors would not be so precise. Also, the oceans heating more than the atmosphere points to the heat coming from inside the earth.
Atmospheric changes can result from variations in solar activity, but they are superficial compared to heat from the earth's core which may drive ice age cycles.
Ice over the Arctic is melting much faster than expected. The reason is because the oceans are heating, not the atmosphere. Heated oceans can melt ice rapidly, while heated air cannot. Ninety percent of ice is below the surface—exposed to water, not air—and water has the heat capacity needed for melting.
News Item: "Carbon dioxide - the greenhouse gas considered most responsible for global warming..."
Wrong. There isn't a scientist alive who doesn't say water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It absorbs three times the bandwidth of radiation and has thirty times as many molecules in the atmosphere.
Why don't people know more about the science which they are using to bankrupt the world with? They don't want to know, because global warming is a convert war against the lower classes, not a science and technology issue.
List of Critical Facts
1. Everything in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas including water vapor which does a hundred times as much of what CO2 does, and in a much more varied way, which totally swamps the miniscule effects of CO2. In other words, a one percent variation in water vapor effect would be equivalent to doubling the CO2 effect. Water Vapor Fraud
2. Oceans regulate CO2 in the atmosphere to the minutest detail. measurements by Segalstad This is shown by an El Nino in the Pacific Ocean, which causes CO2 measurements in the air to increase, and then they renormalize when the El Nino disappears. External Link on El Nino If regulation were not occurring, there would be so much CO2 in the air that life would be impossible, because nothing else defines the amount in the air, and huge quantities have been accumulating in the oceans. (Note)
3. There is no "delicate balance" for humans to upset, because the CO2 going in from decay has no relationship to the CO2 coming out through photosynthesis. Nature produces 33 times as much CO2 as humans, and the total in the atmosphere was five times as much during the dinosaur years.
4. The reason why CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been increasing is because warmer oceans release more CO2.
5. Greenhouse gases absorb all radiation available to them in short distances, which means more greenhouse gas only shortens the distance of absorption, which is not an increase in heat. The first 20% of the CO2 in the atmosphere does most of what CO2 does.
6. Carbon dioxide absorbs radiation in narrow bands, which means most radiation goes around it.
7. Very little radiation is emitted from the surface of the earth. It's about 1-5% of the energy, not the 41-115% which is variously claimed. The 41% Fraud
8. Supposedly, shoulders on the CO2 absorption peaks create global warming high in the atmosphere, because they separate from water vapor peaks; but the shoulders become miniscule, which is why they separate, and the height is in the stratosphere, which doesn't mix with the lower atmosphere. Stratospheric Hype
9. Only the last cycle of emission high in the atmosphere is relevant, because only then do more molecules capture radiation which would not otherwise be captured. But the last cycles are usually too high in the atmosphere to have much effect upon the lower atmosphere.
10. Climate scientists know that heating caused by CO2 is indeed small, but supposedly it's effect is amplified by a factor of 3 or more by creating more water vapor. If multiplying the heat were possible, it would create thermal runaway, as the heat from the water vapor would also be multiplied. The Water Vapor Fraud
11. Humans add 3% of the CO2 to the atmosphere, while nature adds 97%. To claim the human addition accumulates to 30%, while the nature addition does not is absurd. The 30% Fraud
13. The known increase in precipitation is being attributed to increased air temperature causing more evaporation. But relative humidity must be reduced with increased temperature, which precludes increased precipitation. Only oceans heating can cause increased precipitation. (You can't imagine what a bunch of idiots there are in science.)
14. Oceans are only rising 1.8mm per year (7 inches per century), and sea level will be decreasing, because increased precipitation is causing ice to accumulate over Antarctica and Greenland. See Oceans Page
15. The latest claim is that humans are putting 8.3 giga tons of carbon into the air per year, which is 1% of the 750 giga tons in the air. If one percent per year were relevant, natural variations would have been catastrophic long ago. External Link Showing Past Variations
16. Ice is melting faster than expected over oceans, particularly the Arctic. This is because oceans are heating, not the atmosphere. Increased precipitation also shows oceans are heating. A hot spot in the earth's core is the most likely cause. See Below
17. Several years ago, more than seventeen thousand scientists signed a petition saying humans producing carbon dioxide is not the cause of global warming. But now many are intimidated and afraid to speak out. External Link
18. Propagandists have nothing but a black box for science—not even a mechanism to explain how CO2 creates global warming.
The public has a responsibility in determining whether social realities are based on rationality or fraud. There are highly visible differences. Rationality doesn't look anything like fraud. Rationality includes explanations and evidence. Fraud is forced down peoples' throats without explanations or evidence based on a fake consensus, which is nothing but mob rule.
Oceans are Warming
There are two points of evidence indicating that oceans are warming: One is that precipitation is increasing; and the other is that ice is melting over oceans more than over land.
The oceans have a heat capacity 1,000 times that of the atmosphere. This means the air cannot easily heat the oceans, but oceans can easily heat the air. The atmosphere would have to heat a lot, before it could heat the oceans a little; yet the opposite is occurring. The atmosphere is only said to have warmed 0.6°C in recent times.
The ice which is suspended over the oceans is 90% submerged. To melt it, the water has to provide the heat, not the air. Not only is the water surrounding 90% of the ice, but water has the heat capacity needed to transfer a large amount of heat, while air has little heat capacity.
*NOTE by ME: Sea ice at the South pole reached a RECORD MAXIMUM, it is the North pole that is in a warm cycle of the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Ocillation) ALSO check out NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do An About-Face
The ultimate test of whether the oceans or atmosphere is heating more is precipitation, and it is increasing. If the atmosphere were heating more than the oceans, there would be less precipitation, because warmer air holds more moisture. If the oceans are heating more than the air, more precipitation occurs, because evaporation increases, while there is less change in the amount of moisture the air will hold.
Because of the increase in precipitation, ice is thickening over land at Antarctica and Greenland, as shown by satellites which use radar to measure thickness of ice. (Details and references are on Oceans Page).
The present global warming is part of a natural ice age cycle. It's what always happens at the beginning of an ice age.
Ice ages cycle at precise 100 thousand year intervals. The next one is scheduled to begin now. The temperature reversal will begin between 100 and 200 years from now. The time can be determined from the amount of precipitation. Cold temperatures alone cannot create an ice age. There has to be more snow than can melt during the summer to create an accumulation of ice. There is not enough moisture in the air at this time to do that. But it's increasing. There should be enough precipitation in a century or two to produce more snow than can melt during the summers in low enough latitudes to reflect away enough solar energy to trigger an irreversible cool-down.
The amount of moisture in the air is increasing because oceans are warming. The warming of oceans is observable in the amount of ice melting at the poles. Measurement of long term trends show ocean temperatures to be peaking at a level where ice age reversals begin.
Such precise cycling of temperatures cannot be caused by environmental factors such as greenhouse gases, because there would be too many variations. The variations would be like trying to use the clouds for a calendar. The cause of ice ages must be some force which overrides environmental influences. Two possible sources are cyclic variation in solar energy and motion of a hot spot in the earth's core. An underlying factor is that ice age cycles correlate with a variable in the earth's orbit.
Orbital influences could explain either variations in solar energy or motion of a hot spot in the earth's core. No one has been able to clearly identify a factor in the orbit of the earth which would increase solar intensity in a way which correlates with ice age cycles, not the least reason being that there is a huge amount of complexity in several variables in the orbit of the earth. There are additional problems in explaining ice age cycles in terms of solar intensity. There are many environmental factors which interact with solar energy creating variations in the result. But it's not impossible that solar variations could override all environmental complexities and create the ice age cycles as shown on the graph.
There is however a clearer impression that the oceans are being heated from within the earth's core. The main factor creating this impression, besides total immunity of the cycles to environmental influences, is that all other changes show clear evidence of following the ocean temperature increases rather than responding to some other influence. The most significant factor is that precipitation is increasing.
Areas where weather patterns indicate warming are all microclimates resulting from nearby oceans being warmer. The most obvious example of this is Greenland and parts of Europe, which are warmed by the Gulf Stream. North America is showing milder winters due to less ice around Alaska, where the winter air often comes from. But satellite measurements show little warming in evaluating total global conditions. Global warming is occurring, but it's not the frying pan situation that it is portrayed as.
Movement of a hot spot in the earth's core could correlate with changes in the earth's orbit. The central core of the earth could be pulled farther south due to gravitational effects, and this would heat the oceans more, since there is less land area in the southern hemisphere. For details on earth's orbit see external link here: Tilt in Earth's Orbit
Heat from Earth's Core
Heat constantly migrates from the core of the earth to the surface. This heat keeps lakes from freezing solid, after ice forms on the surface. It keeps the ground from freezing more than six feet deep in the winter. It causes deep well water to be hot, which can sometimes be used for geothermal heating.
Therefore, the cause of global warming could be oceans increasing in temperature due to increased heat flowing from the earth's core. The increased heat could be due to a hot spot which rotates in the molten fluid within the earth. As it rotates, it could get closer to the surface in an area where the heat can diffuse into the oceans.
Or it could be the central core being pulled closer to the surface due to gravitational forces in the solar system related to changes in the earth's orbit. The central core of the earth is highly dense, consisting largely of iron, which would cause it to respond to gravitational forces. Magnetic north constantly migrates demonstrating that masses move around in the molten fluid within the earth.
There is new evidence for the earth's core heating based on variations in the earth's magnetic field. There is about a six year lag for "global warming" correlating with the amount of time required for the heat to conduct through the mantle. A summary article is here: http://www.gsaaj.org/articles/TempPaperv1n22007.pdf
Some Data
"Total human CO2 emissions primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement are currently about 5.5 GT C per year (giga tons of carbon per year). A recent update says 8.6 GT, which probably includes the usual stretching.
To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the atmosphere contains 750 GT C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 GT C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,200 GT C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 GT C. Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 GT C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 GT C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 GT C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 GT C."
Notice that humans only add 1% as much CO2 to the atmosphere per year as already in it. If such a miniscule amount were as critical as propagandists claim, all life would have been destroyed long ago. Nature hasn't been sitting on a 1% knife edge for millions of years.
Climate Change:
The carbon creates the droughts, and the oxygen creates the floods. Since it does two things, they call it CO2. If you don't believe that, it's because you promote big oil and big tobacco, and you refuse to look at the science of the subject. The IPCC said so; and it's peer reviewed science.
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC & Al Gore.
"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again, in fact, we should be more afraid of a cooling trend because of a solar minimum that will peak in 2030 that could be fairly large. As we saw from a minor solar minimum in the mid 1900s, the earth suddenly started to cool. If we were to have even a medium sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."
Help Stop Al Gore - Add my Banner(s) to Your Site!
Heading to one of the Colorado Tea Parties tomorrow to celebrate the fourth....I'll post some pics as soon as I can - have an awesome 4th!! Gods Bless America...and God D**N Obammy!!!
The online voting has begun! The polling is now up for the best "ranter", sponsored by the Houston Tea Party Society. I would seriously appreciate a vote for me, Eddie Gallegos, in the online poll. The winner will be awarded with a guest speaker spot at the upcoming July 3rd Tea Party at Discovery Green in Houston. I would ask you to ask your friends to vote for me as well. Polling closes at midnight (CST) on Tuesday, June 23rd.
Also, it has been confirmed: Steven Crowder will be the guest speaker at the Houston Tea Party!!
I wish everyone learned the truth before they jumped on board with this stupid GW. I constantly am treated like a heretic for speaking against Al Gore and the puddle of lies he sold the world! STOP AL GORE AND THE LIES OF MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!
My Heart is Very Sad today ! I'm so angry at My Leaders in Washington ! They Are a Terror to The Whole World by Not Closing Our Border with Mexico ! America is The Hub of The Activity Of All The Nations Of The World ! Every Country that does Business with The United States will be infected with This Virus ! The First Case was found in Mexico March 9th ! Over 100 people are dead Now in Mexico , and Yesterday was The first Death here in The U.S . ! I Have a Theory that in One Month Every State in America Will Have This Flu , and There will be Over 100 Deaths already in America ! This Flu should For Now on and until The End Of Time be Called The Obama Flu , because He had the chance to Stop this thing This Week !! The window to shut The Door To Mexico will soon be Too Late , and America Will be Swarmed with this New VIRAL Invader ! If Obama Loved The People of his country and The People of The World He Would Act Now !! Like all the Communist Legends Of The Past Obama must want to go down in History as A Killer Of The The Innocents , and for now on I will never call him Mr. President , but I will Call Him Mr.
Glad to be your friend! We've got to get the word out on this issue. In case people missed it in the mainstream media... oh wait, it just wasn't discussed in the msm. There was a huge conference this March for the "non-consensus" folks put on by the Heartland Institute. Acclaimed scientists from 25 countries showed up and it was amazing! I had the privilege of covering it for the New American magazine. Go look it up.
In other news, happy Earth Day! Check out my most recent blog. It's an extended rant about responsible environmentalism in general. While you might not agree with all of it, the final section is my official brief on "Global Warming" and I'd appreciate your comments!
I'm an environmental chemist, biologist and a geologist, Al Must be drunk there's no other excuse, OH YEAH!!! HE'S JUST STOOOOOPID!!!!!!!!!, along with all his followers!!!!! IDIOTSSSSS, Keep up the fight, the truth is out there, if only the fools would open there eyes, L8r
..
