|
|
|
|
 |
P54
 |
|
"GLOBAL WARMING" HITS ALASKA.
Record snow in Anchorage as Alaskan communities run out of shovels following 27ft snowfall... and there's more to come!
Prince William Sound community of Cordova has had 172 inches of snow
Nearby coastal community of Valdez has seen an astonishing 318 inches
Russian tanker with 1.3m gallons of fuel moves towards iced-in Nome
Anchorage has experienced snowiest-ever period, with 81.3 inches
|
P54
|
|
THIS WINTER'S WEIRDLY WARM WEATHER EXPLAINED
What's behind this "Marchuary" weather? Experts offer a few explanations (and global warming isn't one of them).
THE GIST
La Niña is partly to blame for this winter’s weirdly warm weather across most of the United States.
The Arctic Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation explain the drastic difference between this and last year's winters.
La Niña is expected to weaken in the spring, allowing moisture to return to much of the country.
ANCHORAGE SMASHES SNOW RECORD
ENVIRONMENT:
THE TOP 8 VIDEOS FROM ALASKA’S MASSIVE, RECORD SNOW
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Interesting analysis using NOAA's data.
The take home from both charts is rather simple and obvious: the urban myths of accelerating, unequivocal, irreversible, unprecedented, rapid, dangerous modern warming from human CO2 are just that - myths. In addition, these two charts reveal that any proposal suggesting that by controlling CO2 emissions it would be like controlling a global temperature "thermostat" is a bogosity bordering on insanity.
Summary: Both global warming and cooling have happened in the recent past, and both will occur again over the next 100 years, regardless of CO2 emissions. |
Even the corrupted ground based data used by NOAA is revealing. And it inflates supposed warming.
The author omitted the word [I[catastrophic: accelerating, unequivocal, irreversible, unprecedented, rapid, dangerous, catastrophic modern warming from human CO2. :)
Still waiting, CR-V9, for your scientifically measured real-world empirical evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest modest cyclic global ATMOSPHERIC warming that ended around 1998.
Still waiting for anyone's evidence.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Interesting real-world data.
In dealing with the supposed greenhouse gas warming supposition, there seem to be three broad classifications of people, including climate scientists:
- alarmists who believe the greenhouse warming supposition is real and will cause catastrophic warming;
- luke-warmists who believe the greenhouse supposition is real and has no effect on climate or, at worst, negligible effect;
- sceptics who believe the greenhouse warming supposition is nonsense.
There are scientists, including prominent scientists in each of the three groups.
Dr David Evans previously worked for the Australian government's climate impact modelling. He is reportedly on the world's top five computer modellers. He initially assumed that global warming was real. Even though he's a very well educated and highly intelligent man familiar with physics he assumed politicians, the UN and loud-mouthed climate scientists shouting doom were correct. He assumed AGW was correct on the basis that he swallowed the media's reports that thousands of scientists and politicians were warning of doom and catastrophe.
Then he casually noticed that a few things didn't fit. So he paused, asked himself some questions, checked for himself. As a result he discovered that AGW was really BS AGW.
He still believes in the greenhouse warming supposition and is now in the second category above: a luke-warmist.
That's despite knowing there's no evidence at all of atmospheric hot-spot as predicted by alarmists. Scientists from the third group argue with him by citing physics, yet David remains in the second group.
Nonetheless, his guest article provides a compelling list of real-world evidence showing that BS AGW is just that, BS.
By the way, Dr David Evans researches and follows finance seriously. Building on that knowledge he's now aware of the financial con driven by the major international banksters.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Let's check the greenhouse warming supposition against real-world empirical evidence:
Let's check against science's ultimate arbiter: real-world empirical measurement and observation.
Let's check against other theories and theoretical arguments.
1. Satellite and weather balloon measurements show no global atmospheric warming since 1998 yet atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising. The supposition is smashed, rendered unfounded. Empirical science contradicts the supposition. It's disproven.
----------------------------------
2. Although less authoritative than empirical scientific data, here is a partial list of papers and articles smashing the rsupposition. They include peer-reviewed papers.
http://www.tech-know.eu/
----------------------------------
3. "Slaying the Sky Dragon" book by an international team of scientists. Available as an e-book or a softback paper book. Both at Amazon. After its release it quickly became the leading seller on Amazon among science books. It's comprehensive and smashes the GHG supposition on all levels.
------------------------------------
Check for yourself the levels of atmospheric CO2 on Mars & Venus: both 97%. Below from an astronomer friend who initially assumed the GHG supposition was true and then after doing his scientific reading realised it's nonsense.
Quote:
"When one makes an effort to simply look at the real world evidence, it is impossible to maintain a belief in greenhouse warming no matter how indoctrinated we may have been for some decades."
"Consider that, just for starters, we have three excellent real world experiments that prove there is no greenhouse effect let alone a 'runaway' effect."
4. "Both Mars & Venus have almost (97%) CO2 atmospheres (that's over 2,550 times more than Earth) so they should have an incredibly powerful runaway greenhouse effect that, over billions of years, should have heated both planets way beyond their present temperatures. The temperatures for both of these planets is stable so how can there be a greenhouse effect?"
"Despite Mars having a 97% CO2 atmosphere, it too has had no greenhouse effect. It is cold because it has a thin atmosphere over 100 times less dense than ours and it is further from the Sun by nearly 80 million kms. Given the billions of years of high CO2, particularly when the planet had a much denser atmosphere when water was in a liquid state on the surface and at that time there was massive volcanism, it should have become increasingly warmer thereby creating more gas. But it didn't. It got colder and lost its atmosphere."
5. "Venus is hot at 470C (compared to Earth) but this is not due to any greenhouse effect: it is due to it having an atmosphere almost 100 times denser that Earth's. This density is a huge heat sink - as Earth's oceans are. At that density the air on its surface is more like a liquid than what we consider air. The clouds retain the heat and can't vent it to space like Earth's comparatively thin and transparent atmosphere can. CEven relaticle thisn low cloud on Earth also retains heat. Also Venus receives a lot more energy from the Sun being 30 million km closer. On top of that its sulphuric acid clouds in it upper atmosphere appear jet black to UV so they absorb a lot of high energy sunlight than our clouds do because they are white at all frequencies and reflect 30% of the sunlight. After millions of years of a so-called greenhouse effect, Venus' surface should not be hundreds of degrees but thousands. The rocks should be like lava but they are not."
"If there is no greenhouse effect operating on either of these planets with atmospheres with over 2,550 times more CO2 then how could our miniscule 0.04% CO2 possibly have any effect whatsoever?"
---------------------------------------
The same astronomer continues:
6. "Another proof is that greenhouses with high levels of CO2 ( to promote plant growth) have no increase in temperature to identical greenhouses with ordinary air."
--------------------------------------
7. "Also, when the temperature of a bottle with 100% CO2 in it is measured against one with just air, there is no difference in temperature. And again this is a difference of over 2,500 times yet no temperature increase is evident no matter how long one wait! Try it yourself. These are real worldf proofs so how can you argue there is any greenhouse effect when ther is none even under extreme examples such as these?"
--------------------------------------
8. The well respected radiative gas physicist R W Wood as well as the highly regarded Neils Bohr both showed in the early part of the 20th C that it was impossible, both by experiment (Wood) and theoretically (Bohr), for a greenhouse effect to occur."
eg, http://sci.tech-archive.net/pdf/Archive/sci.physics/2008-04/msg00498.pdf
and http://globalwarmingnot.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/03/greenhouse_theory_disproved_a_century_ago.thtml
-------------------------------------
Writing to a believer in the greenhouse gas warming supposition, my astronomer friend said, quote:
"You should know as well as anyone that theoretical equations you rely on are only as good as the information put into them. What are the 'long-demonstrated empirical results' you also rely upon that so contradict real world measurements?"
No one has been able to give him any.
Consider the astronomer's advice. Have you seen proof of the GHG supposition? Look closely at the diagrams used by the UN IPCC in spreading its fraudulent supposition. They do not make sense. They do not balance.
Australian astronomer friend continues:
9. "We are in the middle of summer here on the Gold Coast (lat -28) and still we have had no need for air-conditioning because it has been so unusually cool for summer. We have had years of very cold winters in both hemispheres (empirical evidence) yet with all the extra CO2 we are producing it continues to get colder! How does that support you belief? Surely the fact that the Sun has become so much less active is a far more rational explanation. If the Sun keeps going the way it is now - just as it was at the beginning of the Little Ice Age - then you and all other believers will have no credibility with your greenhouse warming belief, no matter how many coal fired power stations China keeps building, because we may be in a much colder global climate than anyone expects. Just think of how many so-called 'scientific people' supported the 2000 Bug and CFCs causing the slight depletion in ozone over the south pole when the Sun was highly active - both proven to be completely false beliefs along with a list that could fill a book."
-------------------------------
10. Joe Postma's excellent papers debunking the GHG supposition are worth reading. They raise serious issues including the Laws of Thermodynamics that the UN IPCC completely ignores.
http://www.tech-know.eu/
----------------------------------
11. Although it is from a peer-reviewed author, this article itself may not be scientifically peer-reviewed.
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/JCao_N2O2GreenGases_Blog.pdf
He's a published authored with many peer-reviewed articles apparently across many fields:
http://en.scientificcommons.org/jinan_cao
----------------------------------
12. Lindzen & Choi's paper on radiation levels being negative. 2009 I think. ie, radiation out to space. More empirical data contradicting your supposition.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
Or http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climate_feedback_erbe.pdf
----------------------------------
A basic early explanation questioning the GHG supposition appears on pages 35-37 here:
http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/dead%20elephants.pdf
----------------------------------
Here's a fundamental question for believers in the greenhouse supposition gas supposition. Advocates claim CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere and radiates heat. Now that's quite a remarkable claim. How does something trap heat AND yet radiate it?
The unfounded greenhouse supposition is becoming a noose around the neck of the alarmists fabricating BS AGW.
Malcolm
:)
At stake is human freedom, your freedom, our freedom
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022226/agw-i-refute-it-thus-central-england-temperatures-1659-to-2009/
Quotes:
Summary: Unprecedented warming did not occur in central England during the first decade of the 21st century, nor during the last decade of the 20th century. As the CET dataset is considered a decent proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures, and since global temperature trends follow a similar pattern to Northern Hemisphere temps, then the same conclusion about recent warming can potentially be inferred globally. Based on the CET dataset, the global warming scare has been totally blown out of proportion by those who can benefit from the fear.
(1) for some 350 years central England, and the world, have been warming. No big surprise there since Earth has been continuously warming since the end of the Little Ice Age; and, at the end of that 350 year trend line of warming is the first decade of the 21st century.
(2) temperatures just seem to have this habit of going up and down, for extended periods. What's really amazing is that they did this consistently before the large increase of human CO2 emissions, pre-1946. Okay, maybe that's not so amazing since this is called temperature variability and represents the natural, dynamic nature of our climate….That variability, as displayed by the CET data in the graph, has experienced temperature changes as much as 2.5°C from one year to the next. A change of 2.5°C in a single year!
(3) In the late 17th and early 18th century, there was clearly a much longer period when the 30-year trends were higher than the recent ones. There is nothing exceptional about the recent era.
(4) let me list the ten 30-year intervals with the fastest warming trends:
1691 – 1720, 5.039 °C/century
1978 – 2007, 5.038 °C/century
1977 – 2006, 4.95 °C/century
1690 – 1719, 4.754 °C/century
1979 – 2008, 4.705 °C/century
1688 – 1717, 4.7 °C/century
1692 – 1721, 4.642 °C/century
1694 – 1723, 4.524 °C/century
1689 – 1718, 4.446 °C/century
1687 – 1716, 4.333 °C/century
You see, the early 18th century actually wins: even when you calculate the trends over the "sufficient" 30 years, the trend was faster than it is in the most recent 30 years.
(6) They all show that, far from being dramatic, dangerous and unprecedented, Central England Temperature changes in the late 20th and 21st Century have in fact been quite tediously uneventful.;/QUOTE]
Additionally, remember that what really matters is trends in atmospheric temperatures. That's because alarmists claim their greenhouse supposition is catastrophically the planet. Yet atmospheric temperatures show no increase for 16 tears. They show no unusual temperature increase at all since 1958 when weather balloon records started and none since the 1970's when satellite measurements started. All is normal. Nature's natural cooling, warming, cooling, warming, cooling cycles.
Now where have I seen that before? Oh yes, that's the title of this thread. Ummm
Nothing in 275 posts since the start of this thread has changed that FACT.
Still waiting, CR-V9, for your scientifically measured real-world empirical evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest modest cyclic global ATMOSPHERIC warming that ended around 1998.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
NASA GISS cooking the books
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/25/another-giss-miss-this-time-in-iceland/
Taxpayers being defrauded so they can be controlled and deprived.
The fraud is being funded by taxpayers own funds.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
http://sppiblog.org/news/7080
Are we real? Or are we alive only in someone's X-Box?
Q: Why do alarmists need to fabricate unvalidated and unfounded computer models contrary to science and the real-world?
A: The real-world contradicts their BS AGW hypothesis.
Quotes:
"which renders the climate envelope approach to assessing species responses to climate change rather useless, if not even deceptive"
And
"suggests that climate envelope models based on species presence-absence alone will not predict the most ecologically and economically significant effects of climate change.”
Deceptive. Thank you. That means I'm not an X-Box output.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Science says we're NOT living in a period of heightened storm activity. Instead, science reveals Earth itself says that over the longer term, the last 150 years shows below average storm frequency:
| A marked decline in the number of large storm deposits, which began around 600 years ago, has persisted through present with below average frequency over the last 150 years when compared to the preceding five millennia. |
As posted previously on this thread, twentieth century real-world data shows no change in storm activity in the shorter term.
Why is it that in BS AGW, reality is the opposite of what alarmists claim?
Because there is no scientific evidence for alarm. Instead, the alarmist case is driven by fraud to achieve a political goal. Control. FACT
Still waiting, CR-V9, for your scientifically measured real-world empirical evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest modest cyclic global ATMOSPHERIC warming that ended around 1998.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Map-makers admit Greenland gaffe
http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/map_makers_admit_greenland_gaffe_1_2077854
From the report:It appeared to provide incontrovertible proof that global warming was accelerating faster than even the most doom-laden scientists had predicted.
There was considerable alarm when the word’s most authoritative atlas printed a map which showed that Greenland was rapidly turning green.
However, experts from around the globe pointed out that the cataclysmic chart had no scientific support and was contradicted by all of the most recent satellite images.
Now the Scottish map-makers responsible for the disappearance of 115,830 square miles of polar ice have admitted publicly they were wrong. |
When the atlas was released there was likely huge alarm and many headlines driving images of massive ice melting. When error admitted, almost silence.
A blogger's comment:| And people wonder why the climate change-global warming brigade are not taken seriously.... .....And then the government come out with yet another "green" tax or restriction to prove the point. It is about time we ditched all this green rubbish and concentrated on things that matter. |
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
The dawn of the cosmic ray era in climate science?
Dr Roy Spencer changes his mind and is now coming around to Svensmark's outstanding work.
https://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/roll-up-roll-up-for-the-paradigm-shift/
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Article signed by 16 leading scientists and engineers.
The Wall Street Journal highly respected for the accuracy of article it publishes.
| There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy. |
There is no argument at all.
Malcolm
:)
|
P54
|
|
GLOBAL WARMING HITS EUROPE HARD:
Dozens freeze to death as 'extreme cold' grips Europe
"We are getting some 'real' winter this week," meteorologist says
A severe and snowy cold snap has killed at least 48 people across central and eastern Europe.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46200659/ns/weather/#.TyhA91xSSHM
Deaths in Ukraine and Poland in freezing Europe weather
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16786877
Norge kaldest i Europa
... og her ble det målt -34 grader (Norway coldest in Europe)
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/vaer/artikkel.php?artid=10077281
A link to you MalcolmR, maybe you'll like it.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1770284/pg1
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Thank you, P54.
From The Oregonian:
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2012/01/presentation_by_global_warming.html
Presentation by global warming skeptics draws big crowd in Portland
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/01/the-cold-sun/
As has been said here many times, quote:IPCC AR4 dismisses solar irradiance changes as too small to have any significant effect on our climate, but at the same time rates understanding of indirect solar effects as “very low”. Despite this, AR4 was still able to claim that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” (Summary for Policymakers, p10).
How the IPCC could have made that leap of faith is a matter of political expediency rather than scientific certainty. But that’s the IPCC for you – a political organisation making political statements. |
Still waiting, CR-V9, for your scientifically measured real-world empirical evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest modest cyclic global ATMOSPHERIC warming that ended around 1998.
Malcolm
:)
|
P54
|
|
| Still waiting, CR-V9, for your scientifically measured real-world empirical evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest modest cyclic global ATMOSPHERIC warming that ended around 1998. |
No need to wait, global warming is dead:
No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "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." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere. |
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Taxing CO2 to 'fix' climate is like taxing ambulances to reduce traffic accidents.
http://carbon-sense.com/2009/10/03/taxing-ambulances/
From a former government research scientist:
Temperature drives CO2 levels.
See past Antarctic temperatures.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Let's go from Antarctica to the Arctic.
http://carbon-sense.com/2009/10/03/climate-always-changing/
It's been much warmer in Earth's recent past.
Why are warmer periods called 'Climate optimums'?
Because life is easier and safer in warmer periods.
Nature controls climate. Currently Earth is cooler than Earth's recent past.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Has anyone here ever scalded their mouth eating hot soup? Have you ever breathed air onto spoonfuls of soup or a hot drink to cool it?
Air contains less than 0.04% CO2.
When we breathe our exhaled air contains 4-5% CO2. That's 125 times greater.
Consider air in the open atmosphere. It moves.
And if it moves, it cools.
As in a nice breeze on a summer day.
When we want to remove heat from our bodies on a hot still day we fan ourselves. The air takes heat from our skin by contact with our skin: conduction. The air moves by our fan and fresh air comes in to remove more heat from our skin.
When we want to cool hot soup before putting it in our mouth we breathe on the spoonful of soup to cool it.
The increased CO2 does not warm the soup. It doesn't even retard cooling. It increases cooling—in a miniscule way.
Here's why:
Conduction and moving air enable heat to be removed.
Remember that air-cooled motors shed heat to the atmosphere
(Air is almost entirely (98%) oxygen and nitrogen.)
The air in the open atmosphere moves. Ask any glider pilot or eagle soaring on a thermal. Differential ground heating from solar energy due to differential surface coverings (forest, water, bare soil, etc) cause thermals: warm air that rises.
In just half an hour, a medium sized thermal can move more than a million tonnes (tons) of air 10,000 feet upward. That's a lot of heat removed from the ground surface and transported 2 miles upward.
Another fact: in a sealed glass container in a laboratory, CO2 can be shown to absorb heat in a narrow band of wavelengths. Thus it becomes slightly warmer than a similar glass container containing air rather than 100% CO2.
Yet we do not live in a laboratory's sealed glass container. Earth is not a sealed glass container in a laboratory. Our Earth a dynamic planet with an open atmosphere that moves and redistributes amazing volumes of air and huge quantities of heat.
Apart from a small proportion of geothermal heat, Earth's heat comes entirely from the sun. That warms Earth's surface.
The UN IPCC and Al Gore claim that when the warmed Earth radiates heat it does so at a frequency that warms the CO2 in the atmosphere. Seems true.
They seem to ignore the fact though that Earth with its free/open atmosphere redistributes the sun's heat through conduction and convection. They ignore the massive cooling through heat redistribution via latent heat.
They ignore that overall, every day, the same quantity of heat that arrives from the sun is released back into space.
Higher CO2 levels in the air mean a very, very, very small increase in heat absorbing by the air AND thus a faster removal of heat from Earth's surface to the upper atmosphere. It would mean miniscule cooling.
By the way, the glass container in the laboratory filled with CO2 does warm slightly more quickly. Yet it also cools slightly faster too. Because, contrary to what the UN IPCC and parts of NASA state, CO2 does NOT trap heat. How can something trap heat yet radiate more heat? It cannot. It's ridiculous. It's a con that defies science, logic and Nature.
Yet on this basis some of the western democracies were duped—for a while. They're now awakening to reality: human production of CO2 does not affect global climate. It cannot.
The claim by the UN IPCC and Al Gore is not a scientific claim. It's a political con.
Remember: real-world science reveals that humans do not even control the level of CO2 in the air. Nature controls the air's level of CO2 entirely. Thankfully.
I've read that every hour the sun sends to Earth more energy than all of man's energy generated in a full year. Slight variations in solar activity swamp human energy generation.
We need to restore respect for Nature, our amazing universe and our beautiful planet.
Next time you breathe on a hot drink or soup, let it remind you we need to be vigilant against control freaks wanting to control the energy and money you used to obtain or make that hot drink. It's your lifestyle that's at stake.
Soup. Marvellous what it reveals when we pause to think of the real-world.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Bert Rutan deals in the real-world. People's lives depend on his analyses.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/28/burt-rutan-on-schooling-the-rogue/#more-55598
And:
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Quote: Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1lBbFPqln
NASA's each way bet?
UK Met Office's stance inexplicable. Well, inexplicable if one relies on data. Explained if one understands that the Met Office has been driven by political pressure for years.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/
CONCLUSIONS
Ice core data provide a low-frequency estimate of atmospheric CO2 variations of the glacial/interglacial cycles of the Pleistocene. However, the ice cores seriously underestimate the variability of interglacial CO2 levels.
GEOCARB shows that ice cores underestimate the long-term average Pleistocene CO2 level by 36ppmv.
Modern satellite data show that atmospheric CO2 levels in Antarctica are 20 to 30ppmv less than lower latitudes.
Plant stomata data show that ice cores do not resolve past decadal and century scale CO2 variations that were of comparable amplitude and frequency to the rise since 1860.
Thus it is concluded that:
CO2 levels from the Early Holocene through pre-industrial times were highly variable and not stable as the Antarctic ice cores suggest.
The carbon and climate cycles are coupled in a consistent manner from the Early Holocene to the present day.
The carbon cycle lags behind the climate cycle and thus does not drive the climate cycle.
The lag time is consistent with the hypothesis of a temperature-driven carbon cycle.
The anthropogenic contribution to the carbon cycle since 1860 is minimal and inconsequential.
That's as we've said above on this thread many times: temperature determines the air's CO2 level.
Still waiting, CR-V9, for your scientifically measured real-world empirical evidence that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest modest cyclic global ATMOSPHERIC warming that ended around 1998.
The empirical real-world science says human CO2 does not drive climate. It explains that human CO2 cannot. Impossible.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
The Germans are awakening. This UN IPCC scientist awoke and realised there is no catastrophic anthropogenic (human-casued) global warming (AGW).
AGW is really BS AGW.
| Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of the green movement, no longer trusts the forecasts of the IPCC. |
http://notrickszone.com/2012/01/30/german-fear-of-warming-plummets-yet-to-be-published-skeptic-book-climbs-to-amazon-de-no-4/
Doubt came two years ago when he was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy. ‘I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate were similarly sloppy.”
In his book he explains how he dug into the IPCC climate report and was horrified by what he had found. Then add the 10 years of stagnant temperatures, failed predictions, Climategate e-mails, and discussions he had with dozens of other skeptical elite scientists. That was more than enough. FOCUS quotes:
I couldn’t take it any more. I had to write this book.” |
And it's not just German scientists. German citizens afraid of climate are now a minority.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Given that mid-ocean ridges constitute the largest volcanic system on Earth, this discovery has important implications for the global carbon cycle which have yet to be explored.
And
Between 75 and 80 per cent of all volcanic activity on Earth takes place at deep-sea, mid-ocean ridges. |
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/03/first-undersea-volcano-explosion-verified.html
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/30/bitter-cold-records-broken-in-alaska-all-time-coldest-record-nearly-broken-but-murphys-law-intervenes/
Record highs, record lows. Many record lows. Very low.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
| Looking at surface temperatures in the temperate zone is looking at an artifact of stratospheric changes and the CO2 overhead in the troposphere is entirely irrelevant to the process. |
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/stratopause-emissions/
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Factors driving past climate and atmospheres
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/ci/30/i12/html/12learn.html#auth
Past changes have been massive.
Remember, scientific real-world empirical measurements show nothing unusual is occurring in today's climate.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Nature's (natural) cooling, warming, cooling, ... cycles
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242202/Could-30-years-global-COOLING.html
Scientists around the world asking: "are we in for 30 years of cooling?". They look at the real-world empirical data and ask the fundamental questions.
Some are already forecasting global cooling similar to that from late 1950's through mid-1970's.
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Snow in the Sahara. Yikes, catastrophic warming caused by human production of CO2?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qid73hqEzGI
Malcolm
:)
|
MalcolmR
|
|
.
Time that climate alarmists fessed up
Malcolm
:)
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 |
| |
|
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
