Another typical MJ post, containing anything but substance. You really were made for anonymous internet forums, where you can insult people and easily avoid having to provide serious answers, of which you obviously have none. I'd really be interested what you do in real life, as with that modus operandi you must find it very difficult out there.
Btw I completely agree with you that a nine-year trend does not mean much, if anything. I am, however, surprised that you, of all people, are saying this, seeing that just a few posts before you have implied that one year where the ice grows a little again is enough to disprove global warming. However it suits you, eh?
Btw I completely agree with you that a nine-year trend does not mean much, if anything. I am, however, surprised that you, of all people, are saying this, seeing that just a few posts before you have implied that one year where the ice grows a little again is enough to disprove global warming. However it suits you, eh?
How do you define it?
aver·sion
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈvər-zhən, -shən\
Function: noun
Date: 1596
1obsolete : the act of turning away
2 a: a feeling of repugnance toward something with a desire to avoid or turn from it <regards drunkenness with aversion> b: a settled dislike : antipathy <expressed an aversion to parties> c: a tendency to extinguish a behavior or to avoid a thing or situation and especially a usually pleasurable one because it is or has been associated with a noxious stimulus
3: an object of aversion <inconstancy is my aversion — Jane Austen>
aver·sion
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈvər-zhən, -shən\
Function: noun
Date: 1596
1obsolete : the act of turning away
2 a: a feeling of repugnance toward something with a desire to avoid or turn from it <regards drunkenness with aversion> b: a settled dislike : antipathy <expressed an aversion to parties> c: a tendency to extinguish a behavior or to avoid a thing or situation and especially a usually pleasurable one because it is or has been associated with a noxious stimulus
3: an object of aversion <inconstancy is my aversion — Jane Austen>
:lolBIG....people still arguing about Global Warming....See folks...you gotta remember that the whole thing is all about the Blame Game...
They Blame you for causing a problem...
And then they provide the solution.....
Your Fat....We'll Make You Skinny
Your Gay....We'll Make you Straight
Your Ugly...We'll Make You Pretty
Your A Sinner...We'll help you get to Heaven
Your Wrecking the Planet...We'll Help Fix It
How Nice of Them....They're always looking out for our best interest...
Problem is....not one of those solutions they offer is FREE....Hmmmm?
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/c_Y50hE5ri8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/c_Y50hE5ri8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
....people still arguing about Global Warming....See folks...you gotta remember that the whole thing is all about the Blame Game...They Blame you for causing a problem...
And then they provide the solution.....
Your Fat....We'll Make You Skinny
Your Gay....We'll Make you Straight
Your Ugly...We'll Make You Pretty
Your A Sinner...We'll help you get to Heaven
Your Wrecking the Planet...We'll Help Fix It
How Nice of Them....They're always looking out for our best interest...
Problem is....not one of those solutions they offer is FREE....Hmmmm?
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/c_Y50hE5ri8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/c_Y50hE5ri8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
:lolBIG:
It doesn't matter who "reports" the source...the source report is the same.
The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.
(Source: Arctic Research Center, University of Illinois)
Punter...come on ...this isn't that hard.:lol:
Yup Punter is an expert on climate...and vocabulary.
:missingte:lol:
hno::lolBIG:Funniest thread ever...this goes in the RX Hall of Fame.
Punter and Preussen both qualify as paid UN Global warming scientists. They are so smart and unbiased...and full of new words and facts.
LMAO! Funny shit.
How about a cogent post from either of you...start small. Tell us what you ate today. :toast: :lol: Morons...utter morons.
Keep it up guys....this is fun! Throw some more insults.
Oh MJ, you are such a cowardly liar it's unreal.
I mean to distort facts in order to make them fit ones agenda is bad enough but you just pull insults out of your ass while avoiding any kind of rational discussion.
How many more times will you claim that I uncritically support the global warming theory when I several times, even in this very thread, expressly told you otherwise? How many more of my question and points will you conveniently leave unanswered, trying to cover up your ignorance with insults? And do you still believe Loren's support is beneficial for your cause?
I still think that you don't really belong in that poll, but I guess threads like these are the reason why you are leading the current "kook of the year" vote. It seems your credibility has reached unprecedented lows. This would give pause to most people, but I'm sure it will not stop you.
Anyway, that's it for me, I already feel embarrassed enough to have so long tried to have a rational debate with the Kook of the Year.
Good night!
I mean to distort facts in order to make them fit ones agenda is bad enough but you just pull insults out of your ass while avoiding any kind of rational discussion.
How many more times will you claim that I uncritically support the global warming theory when I several times, even in this very thread, expressly told you otherwise? How many more of my question and points will you conveniently leave unanswered, trying to cover up your ignorance with insults? And do you still believe Loren's support is beneficial for your cause?
I still think that you don't really belong in that poll, but I guess threads like these are the reason why you are leading the current "kook of the year" vote. It seems your credibility has reached unprecedented lows. This would give pause to most people, but I'm sure it will not stop you.
Anyway, that's it for me, I already feel embarrassed enough to have so long tried to have a rational debate with the Kook of the Year.
Good night!
Oh MJ, you are such a cowardly liar it's unreal.
I mean to distort facts in order to make them fit ones agenda is bad enough but you just pull insults out of your ass while avoiding any kind of rational discussion.
How many more times will you claim that I uncritically support the global warming theory when I several times, even in this very thread, expressly told you otherwise? How many more of my question and points will you conveniently leave unanswered, trying to cover up your ignorance with insults? And do you still believe Loren's support is beneficial for your cause?
I still think that you don't really belong in that poll, but I guess threads like these are the reason why you are leading the current "kook of the year" vote. It seems your credibility has reached unprecedented lows. This would give pause to most people, but I'm sure it will not stop you.
Anyway, that's it for me, I already feel embarrassed enough to have so long tried to have a rational debate with the Kook of the Year.
Good night!
Loren didn't support me...he called you out on your lie,and you admitted he had a right to call you out in one of your later circle logic posts. You can't make this stuff up. Classic Comedy Gold!:lol:
Loren78 <script type="text/javascript"> vbmenu_register("postmenu_6223170", true); </script>
RX Senior
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,486
<!-- icon and title -->
<hr style="color: rgb(253, 222, 130); background-color: rgb(253, 222, 130);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> Quote:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by Preussen
MJ, until you, for a change, exhibit some intellectual honesty and admit that you are in no way qualified to off-handedly dismiss the opinion of the majority of scientists you will never get any kind of credibility.
As I have stated repeatedly, I'm not sure to what extent global warming is real and man-made and whether the drastic measures we are supposed to take are in any way justified. Scientists have been wrong before. But people who act like they know that everything pointing to a global warming is misinterpreted or manipulated are simply stupid. MJ, care to tell us where you got the "facts" you mention in posts 7 and 13?
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
The Majority of Scientists? What Nonsense.....
Have you taken a Census of the Scientists who not only disagreed with the United Nations on Global Warming but have admitted publicly, they were threatened and blackballed when they came out with scientific proof Global warming was not man made...
Preussen: "I will spell it out for you even more clearly: I do not know and I'm too lazy to research the number of scientists who fully or partially support the global warming theory"
:nohead::lol:
hno:If Punter and Preussen represent the best that global warming theory has to offer...we are in for a damn cold winter.
One last comment from me:
Okay, I guess I was wrong. MJ, you are a kook. The way you persist to ignore reality, choosing instead to debate side issues (and even there with a complete disregard for fact or logic), the way you continue to accuse others of lying without even trying to disprove them, the way you intentionally misrepresent others' views (and do it in such a stupid way that it's obvious for everyone) and the way you use insults, emoticons and bold type instead of rational arguments are definite signs of a kooky mindset.
Barman, can I change my KOY vote?
I don't know if you really intend to convince people of your point of view, but if you do you are failing miserably at it. The only thing you achieve with your way of debating is driving people away from your opinion, but I don't think you realise that. This is actually a sad thing, as many of your starting points do have some merit and could lead to a constructive discussion, but apparently this is not something you are capable of (or interested in).
Okay, I guess I was wrong. MJ, you are a kook. The way you persist to ignore reality, choosing instead to debate side issues (and even there with a complete disregard for fact or logic), the way you continue to accuse others of lying without even trying to disprove them, the way you intentionally misrepresent others' views (and do it in such a stupid way that it's obvious for everyone) and the way you use insults, emoticons and bold type instead of rational arguments are definite signs of a kooky mindset.
Barman, can I change my KOY vote?
I don't know if you really intend to convince people of your point of view, but if you do you are failing miserably at it. The only thing you achieve with your way of debating is driving people away from your opinion, but I don't think you realise that. This is actually a sad thing, as many of your starting points do have some merit and could lead to a constructive discussion, but apparently this is not something you are capable of (or interested in).
Even the left wing blogs are now posting articles debunking the global warming hoax of Al Gore. It's hard to ignore the facts...unless you are a kook. Even the HuffPo has now thrown in the towel on the global warming hoax. %^_
============================
Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted
ERIC AMBLER
You are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore.
Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.
What is wrong with the statement? A brief list:
1. First, the expression "climate change" itself is a redundancy, and contains a lie. Climate has always changed, and always will. There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our own climatic era, which began with the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. During the Holocene there have been numerous sub-periods with dramatically varied climate, such as the warm Holocene Optimum (7,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C., during which humanity began to flourish, and advance technologically), the warm Roman Optimum (200 B.C. to 400 A.D., a time of abundant crops that promoted the empire), the cold Dark Ages (400 A.D. to 900 A.D., during which the Nile River froze, major cities were abandoned, the Roman Empire fell apart, and pestilence and famine were widespread), the Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D., during which agriculture flourished, wealth increased, and dozens of lavish examples of Gothic architecture were created), the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850, during much of which plague, crop failures, witch burnings, food riots -- and even revolutions, including the French Revolution -- were the rule of thumb), followed by our own time of relative warmth (1850 to present, during which population has increased, technology and medical advances have been astonishing, and agriculture has flourished).
So, no one needs to say the words "climate" and "change" in the same breath -- it is assumed, by anyone with any level of knowledge, that climate changes. That is the redundancy to which I alluded. The lie is the suggestion that climate has ever been stable. Mr. Gore has used a famously inaccurate graph, known as the "Mann Hockey Stick," created by the scientist Michael Mann, showing that the modern rise in temperatures is unprecedented, and that the dramatic changes in climate just described did not take place. They did. One last thought on the expression "climate change": It is a retreat from the earlier expression used by alarmists, "manmade global warming," which was more easily debunked. There are people in Mr. Gore's camp who now use instances of cold temperatures to prove the existence of "climate change," which is absurd, obscene, even.
2. Mr. Gore has gone so far to discourage debate on climate as to refer to those who question his simplistic view of the atmosphere as "flat-Earthers." This, too, is right on target, except for one tiny detail. It is exactly the opposite of the truth.
Indeed, it is Mr. Gore and his brethren who are flat-Earthers. Mr. Gore states, ad nauseum, that carbon dioxide rules climate in frightening and unpredictable, and new, ways. When he shows the hockey stick graph of temperature and plots it against reconstructed C02 levels in An Inconvenient Truth, he says that the two clearly have an obvious correlation. "Their relationship is actually very complicated," he says, "but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others, and it is this: When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer." The word "complicated" here is among the most significant Mr. Gore has uttered on the subject of climate and is, at best, a deliberate act of obfuscation. Why? Because it turns out that there is an 800-year lag between temperature and carbon dioxide, unlike the sense conveyed by Mr. Gore's graph. You are probably wondering by now -- and if you are not, you should be -- which rises first, carbon dioxide or temperature. The answer? Temperature. In every case, the ice-core data shows that temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide by, on average, 800 years. In fact, the relationship is not "complicated." When the ocean-atmosphere system warms, the oceans discharge vast quantities of carbon dioxide in a process known as de-gassing. For this reason, warm and cold years show up on the Mauna Loa C02 measurements even in the short term. For instance, the post-Pinatubo-eruption year of 1993 shows the lowest C02 increase since measurements have been kept. When did the highest C02 increase take place? During the super El Niño year of 1998.
3. What the alarmists now state is that past episodes of warming were not caused by C02 but amplified by it, which is debatable, for many reasons, but, more important, is a far cry from the version of events sold to the public by Mr. Gore.
Meanwhile, the theory that carbon dioxide "drives" climate in any meaningful way is simply wrong and, again, evidence of a "flat-Earth" mentality. Carbon dioxide cannot absorb an unlimited amount of infrared radiation. Why not? Because it only absorbs heat along limited bandwidths, and is already absorbing just about everything it can. That is why plotted on a graph, C02's ability to capture heat follows a logarithmic curve. We are already very near the maximum absorption level. Further, the IPCC Fourth Assessment, like all the ones before it, is based on computer models that presume a positive feedback of atmospheric warming via increased water vapor.
4. This mechanism has never been shown to exist. Indeed, increased temperature leads to increased evaporation of the oceans, which leads to increased cloud cover (one cooling effect) and increased precipitation (a bigger cooling effect). Within certain bounds, in other words, the ocean-atmosphere system has a very effective self-regulating tendency. By the way, water vapor is far more prevalent, and relevant, in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide -- a trace gas. Water vapor's absorption spectrum also overlays that of carbon dioxide. They cannot both absorb the same energy! The relative might of water vapor and relative weakness of carbon dioxide is exemplified by the extraordinary cooling experienced each night in desert regions, where water in the atmosphere is nearly non-existent.
If not carbon dioxide, what does "drive" climate? I am glad you are wondering about that. In the short term, it is ocean cycles, principally the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the "super cycle" of which cooling La Niñas and warming El Niños are parts. Having been in its warm phase, in which El Niños predominate, for the 30 years ending in late 2006, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation switched to its cool phase, in which La Niñas predominate.
Since that time, already, a number of interesting things have taken place. One La Niña lowered temperatures around the globe for about half of the year just ended, and another La Niña shows evidence of beginning in the equatorial Pacific waters. During the last twelve months, many interesting cold-weather events happened to occur: record snow in the European Alps, China, New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, the Rockies, the upper Midwest, Las Vegas, Houston, and New Orleans. There was also, for the first time in at least 100 years, snow in Baghdad.
Concurrent with the switchover of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to its cool phase the Sun has entered a period of deep slumber. The number of sunspots for 2008 was the second lowest of any year since 1901. That matters less because of fluctuations in the amount of heat generated by the massive star in our near proximity (although there are some fluctuations that may have some measurable effect on global temperatures) and more because of a process best described by the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark in his complex, but elegant, work The Chilling Stars. In the book, the modern Galileo, for he is nothing less, establishes that cosmic rays from deep space seed clouds over Earth's oceans. Regulating the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth's atmosphere is the solar wind; when it is strong, we get fewer cosmic rays. When it is weak, we get more. As NASA has corroborated, the number of cosmic rays passing through our atmosphere is at the maximum level since measurements have been taken, and show no signs of diminishing. The result: the seeding of what some have taken to calling "Svensmark clouds," low dense clouds, principally over the oceans, that reflect sunlight back to space before it can have its warming effect on whatever is below.
Svensmark has proven, in the minds of most who have given his work a full hearing, that it is this very process that produced the episodes of cooling (and, inversely, warming) of our own era and past eras. The clearest instance of the process, by far, is that of the Maunder Minimum, which refers to a period from 1650 to 1700, during which the Sun had not a single spot on its face. Temperatures around the globe plummeted, with quite adverse effects: crop failures (remember the witch burnings in Europe and Massachusetts?), famine, and societal stress.
Many solar physicists anticipate that the slumbering Sun of early 2009 is likely to continue for at least two solar cycles, or about the next 25 years. Whether the Grand Solar Minimum, if it comes to pass, is as serious as the Maunder Minimum is not knowable, at present. Major solar minima (and maxima, such as the one during the second half of the 20th century) have also been shown to correlate with significant volcanic eruptions. These are likely the result of solar magnetic flux affecting geomagnetic flux, which affects the distribution of magma in Earth's molten iron core and under its thin mantle. So, let us say, just for the sake of argument, that such an eruption takes place over the course of the next two decades. Like all major eruptions, this one will have a temporary cooling effect on global temperatures, perhaps a large one. The larger the eruption, the greater the effect. History shows that periods of cold are far more stressful to humanity than periods of warm. Would the eruption and consequent cooling be a climate-modifier that exists outside of nature, somehow? Who is the "flat-Earther" now?
What about heat escaping from volcanic vents in the ocean floor? What about the destruction of warming, upper-atmosphere ozone by cosmic rays? I could go on, but space is short. Again, who is the "flat-Earther" here?
The ocean-atmosphere system is not a simple one that can be "ruled" by a trace atmospheric gas. It is a complex, chaotic system, largely modulated by solar effects (both direct and indirect), as shown by the Little Ice Age.
To be told, as I have been, by Mr. Gore, again and again, that carbon dioxide is a grave threat to humankind is not just annoying, by the way, although it is that! To re-tool our economies in an effort to suppress carbon dioxide and its imaginary effect on climate, when other, graver problems exist is, simply put, wrong. Particulate pollution, such as that causing the Asian brown cloud, is a real problem. Two billion people on Earth living without electricity, in darkened huts and hovels polluted by charcoal smoke, is a real problem.
So, let us indeed start a Manhattan Project-like mission to create alternative sources of energy. And, in the meantime, let us neither cripple our own economy by mislabeling carbon dioxide a pollutant nor discourage development in the Third World, where suffering continues unabated, day after day.
Again, Mr. Gore, I accept your apology.
And, Mr. Obama, though I voted for you for a thousand times a thousand reasons, I hope never to need one from you.
P.S. One of the last, desperate canards proposed by climate alarmists is that of the polar ice caps. Look at the "terrible," "unprecedented" melting in the Arctic in the summer of 2007, they say. Well, the ice in the Arctic basin has always melted and refrozen, and always will. Any researcher who wants to find a single molecule of ice that has been there longer than 30 years is going to have a hard job, because the ice has always been melted from above (by the midnight Sun of summer) and below (by relatively warm ocean currents, possibly amplified by volcanic venting) -- and on the sides, again by warm currents. Scientists in the alarmist camp have taken to referring to "old ice," but, again, this is a misrepresentation of what takes place in the Arctic.
More to the point, 2007 happened also to be the time of maximum historic sea ice in Antarctica. (There are many credible sources of this information, such as the following website maintained by the University of Illinois-Urbana: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg). Why, I ask, has Mr. Gore not chosen to mention the record growth of sea ice around Antarctica? If the record melting in the Arctic is significant, then the record sea ice growth around Antarctica is, too, I say. If one is insignificant, then the other one is, too.
For failing to mention the 2007 Antarctic maximum sea ice record a single time, I also accept your apology, Mr. Gore. By the way, your contention that the Arctic basin will be "ice free" in summer within five years (which you said last month in Germany), is one of the most demonstrably false comments you have dared to make. Thank you for that!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html
============================
Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted
ERIC AMBLER
You are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore.
Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.
What is wrong with the statement? A brief list:
1. First, the expression "climate change" itself is a redundancy, and contains a lie. Climate has always changed, and always will. There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our own climatic era, which began with the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. During the Holocene there have been numerous sub-periods with dramatically varied climate, such as the warm Holocene Optimum (7,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C., during which humanity began to flourish, and advance technologically), the warm Roman Optimum (200 B.C. to 400 A.D., a time of abundant crops that promoted the empire), the cold Dark Ages (400 A.D. to 900 A.D., during which the Nile River froze, major cities were abandoned, the Roman Empire fell apart, and pestilence and famine were widespread), the Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D., during which agriculture flourished, wealth increased, and dozens of lavish examples of Gothic architecture were created), the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850, during much of which plague, crop failures, witch burnings, food riots -- and even revolutions, including the French Revolution -- were the rule of thumb), followed by our own time of relative warmth (1850 to present, during which population has increased, technology and medical advances have been astonishing, and agriculture has flourished).
So, no one needs to say the words "climate" and "change" in the same breath -- it is assumed, by anyone with any level of knowledge, that climate changes. That is the redundancy to which I alluded. The lie is the suggestion that climate has ever been stable. Mr. Gore has used a famously inaccurate graph, known as the "Mann Hockey Stick," created by the scientist Michael Mann, showing that the modern rise in temperatures is unprecedented, and that the dramatic changes in climate just described did not take place. They did. One last thought on the expression "climate change": It is a retreat from the earlier expression used by alarmists, "manmade global warming," which was more easily debunked. There are people in Mr. Gore's camp who now use instances of cold temperatures to prove the existence of "climate change," which is absurd, obscene, even.
2. Mr. Gore has gone so far to discourage debate on climate as to refer to those who question his simplistic view of the atmosphere as "flat-Earthers." This, too, is right on target, except for one tiny detail. It is exactly the opposite of the truth.
Indeed, it is Mr. Gore and his brethren who are flat-Earthers. Mr. Gore states, ad nauseum, that carbon dioxide rules climate in frightening and unpredictable, and new, ways. When he shows the hockey stick graph of temperature and plots it against reconstructed C02 levels in An Inconvenient Truth, he says that the two clearly have an obvious correlation. "Their relationship is actually very complicated," he says, "but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others, and it is this: When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer." The word "complicated" here is among the most significant Mr. Gore has uttered on the subject of climate and is, at best, a deliberate act of obfuscation. Why? Because it turns out that there is an 800-year lag between temperature and carbon dioxide, unlike the sense conveyed by Mr. Gore's graph. You are probably wondering by now -- and if you are not, you should be -- which rises first, carbon dioxide or temperature. The answer? Temperature. In every case, the ice-core data shows that temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide by, on average, 800 years. In fact, the relationship is not "complicated." When the ocean-atmosphere system warms, the oceans discharge vast quantities of carbon dioxide in a process known as de-gassing. For this reason, warm and cold years show up on the Mauna Loa C02 measurements even in the short term. For instance, the post-Pinatubo-eruption year of 1993 shows the lowest C02 increase since measurements have been kept. When did the highest C02 increase take place? During the super El Niño year of 1998.
3. What the alarmists now state is that past episodes of warming were not caused by C02 but amplified by it, which is debatable, for many reasons, but, more important, is a far cry from the version of events sold to the public by Mr. Gore.
Meanwhile, the theory that carbon dioxide "drives" climate in any meaningful way is simply wrong and, again, evidence of a "flat-Earth" mentality. Carbon dioxide cannot absorb an unlimited amount of infrared radiation. Why not? Because it only absorbs heat along limited bandwidths, and is already absorbing just about everything it can. That is why plotted on a graph, C02's ability to capture heat follows a logarithmic curve. We are already very near the maximum absorption level. Further, the IPCC Fourth Assessment, like all the ones before it, is based on computer models that presume a positive feedback of atmospheric warming via increased water vapor.
4. This mechanism has never been shown to exist. Indeed, increased temperature leads to increased evaporation of the oceans, which leads to increased cloud cover (one cooling effect) and increased precipitation (a bigger cooling effect). Within certain bounds, in other words, the ocean-atmosphere system has a very effective self-regulating tendency. By the way, water vapor is far more prevalent, and relevant, in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide -- a trace gas. Water vapor's absorption spectrum also overlays that of carbon dioxide. They cannot both absorb the same energy! The relative might of water vapor and relative weakness of carbon dioxide is exemplified by the extraordinary cooling experienced each night in desert regions, where water in the atmosphere is nearly non-existent.
If not carbon dioxide, what does "drive" climate? I am glad you are wondering about that. In the short term, it is ocean cycles, principally the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the "super cycle" of which cooling La Niñas and warming El Niños are parts. Having been in its warm phase, in which El Niños predominate, for the 30 years ending in late 2006, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation switched to its cool phase, in which La Niñas predominate.
Since that time, already, a number of interesting things have taken place. One La Niña lowered temperatures around the globe for about half of the year just ended, and another La Niña shows evidence of beginning in the equatorial Pacific waters. During the last twelve months, many interesting cold-weather events happened to occur: record snow in the European Alps, China, New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, the Rockies, the upper Midwest, Las Vegas, Houston, and New Orleans. There was also, for the first time in at least 100 years, snow in Baghdad.
Concurrent with the switchover of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to its cool phase the Sun has entered a period of deep slumber. The number of sunspots for 2008 was the second lowest of any year since 1901. That matters less because of fluctuations in the amount of heat generated by the massive star in our near proximity (although there are some fluctuations that may have some measurable effect on global temperatures) and more because of a process best described by the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark in his complex, but elegant, work The Chilling Stars. In the book, the modern Galileo, for he is nothing less, establishes that cosmic rays from deep space seed clouds over Earth's oceans. Regulating the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth's atmosphere is the solar wind; when it is strong, we get fewer cosmic rays. When it is weak, we get more. As NASA has corroborated, the number of cosmic rays passing through our atmosphere is at the maximum level since measurements have been taken, and show no signs of diminishing. The result: the seeding of what some have taken to calling "Svensmark clouds," low dense clouds, principally over the oceans, that reflect sunlight back to space before it can have its warming effect on whatever is below.
Svensmark has proven, in the minds of most who have given his work a full hearing, that it is this very process that produced the episodes of cooling (and, inversely, warming) of our own era and past eras. The clearest instance of the process, by far, is that of the Maunder Minimum, which refers to a period from 1650 to 1700, during which the Sun had not a single spot on its face. Temperatures around the globe plummeted, with quite adverse effects: crop failures (remember the witch burnings in Europe and Massachusetts?), famine, and societal stress.
Many solar physicists anticipate that the slumbering Sun of early 2009 is likely to continue for at least two solar cycles, or about the next 25 years. Whether the Grand Solar Minimum, if it comes to pass, is as serious as the Maunder Minimum is not knowable, at present. Major solar minima (and maxima, such as the one during the second half of the 20th century) have also been shown to correlate with significant volcanic eruptions. These are likely the result of solar magnetic flux affecting geomagnetic flux, which affects the distribution of magma in Earth's molten iron core and under its thin mantle. So, let us say, just for the sake of argument, that such an eruption takes place over the course of the next two decades. Like all major eruptions, this one will have a temporary cooling effect on global temperatures, perhaps a large one. The larger the eruption, the greater the effect. History shows that periods of cold are far more stressful to humanity than periods of warm. Would the eruption and consequent cooling be a climate-modifier that exists outside of nature, somehow? Who is the "flat-Earther" now?
What about heat escaping from volcanic vents in the ocean floor? What about the destruction of warming, upper-atmosphere ozone by cosmic rays? I could go on, but space is short. Again, who is the "flat-Earther" here?
The ocean-atmosphere system is not a simple one that can be "ruled" by a trace atmospheric gas. It is a complex, chaotic system, largely modulated by solar effects (both direct and indirect), as shown by the Little Ice Age.
To be told, as I have been, by Mr. Gore, again and again, that carbon dioxide is a grave threat to humankind is not just annoying, by the way, although it is that! To re-tool our economies in an effort to suppress carbon dioxide and its imaginary effect on climate, when other, graver problems exist is, simply put, wrong. Particulate pollution, such as that causing the Asian brown cloud, is a real problem. Two billion people on Earth living without electricity, in darkened huts and hovels polluted by charcoal smoke, is a real problem.
So, let us indeed start a Manhattan Project-like mission to create alternative sources of energy. And, in the meantime, let us neither cripple our own economy by mislabeling carbon dioxide a pollutant nor discourage development in the Third World, where suffering continues unabated, day after day.
Again, Mr. Gore, I accept your apology.
And, Mr. Obama, though I voted for you for a thousand times a thousand reasons, I hope never to need one from you.
P.S. One of the last, desperate canards proposed by climate alarmists is that of the polar ice caps. Look at the "terrible," "unprecedented" melting in the Arctic in the summer of 2007, they say. Well, the ice in the Arctic basin has always melted and refrozen, and always will. Any researcher who wants to find a single molecule of ice that has been there longer than 30 years is going to have a hard job, because the ice has always been melted from above (by the midnight Sun of summer) and below (by relatively warm ocean currents, possibly amplified by volcanic venting) -- and on the sides, again by warm currents. Scientists in the alarmist camp have taken to referring to "old ice," but, again, this is a misrepresentation of what takes place in the Arctic.
More to the point, 2007 happened also to be the time of maximum historic sea ice in Antarctica. (There are many credible sources of this information, such as the following website maintained by the University of Illinois-Urbana: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg). Why, I ask, has Mr. Gore not chosen to mention the record growth of sea ice around Antarctica? If the record melting in the Arctic is significant, then the record sea ice growth around Antarctica is, too, I say. If one is insignificant, then the other one is, too.
For failing to mention the 2007 Antarctic maximum sea ice record a single time, I also accept your apology, Mr. Gore. By the way, your contention that the Arctic basin will be "ice free" in summer within five years (which you said last month in Germany), is one of the most demonstrably false comments you have dared to make. Thank you for that!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html
2008 being a year with the lowest amount of sunspot activity since 1913 obviously gonna override any man made affects we'll see what 2009 brings as far as our non stagnant heat source goes
definitely in the deepest solar minimum in a long time
now its wait and see how long it stays dormant
definitely in the deepest solar minimum in a long time
now its wait and see how long it stays dormant
quick illustration of how insane the news reports any issue related to climate change
headline in major bold print:
Australia records 14th warmest year on record in 2008!
- now think for a second...when has "14th best" ever received a mention yet alone it's own article and major headline :toast:
then, buried in the story...
The annual climate statement, produced by the weather bureau's National Climate Centre, shows the average temperature for 2008 was slightly lower than the past six years.
Now, wouldn't a far more newsworthy item be headlined Australia records lowest average temperature year since 2002!
:think2:
one more beauty illustration from down under...
headline: Canberra hotter, drier than average!
actual information in the article? The Bureau of Meteorology figures show 2008 was the 17th warmest year on record for Canberra.
i love this stuff!
headline in major bold print:
Australia records 14th warmest year on record in 2008!
- now think for a second...when has "14th best" ever received a mention yet alone it's own article and major headline :toast:
then, buried in the story...
The annual climate statement, produced by the weather bureau's National Climate Centre, shows the average temperature for 2008 was slightly lower than the past six years.
Now, wouldn't a far more newsworthy item be headlined Australia records lowest average temperature year since 2002!
:think2:
one more beauty illustration from down under...
headline: Canberra hotter, drier than average!
actual information in the article? The Bureau of Meteorology figures show 2008 was the 17th warmest year on record for Canberra.
i love this stuff!
January 06, 2009
Global Warm-mongering: More Silk from a Pig's Ear
Gregory Young
[FONT=times new roman,times]It seems that NASA's James Hansen, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), is at it again. He just can't let the data speak for itself. In yet another egregious display of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) arrogance, he changed the temperature data from 1910-2008 to reflect what is clearly a cooling trend to reflect a warming trend. (Y-axis = Annual Mean Temperatures in centigrade; X-axis = Year)[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]These are the USHCN (United States Historical Climatology Network) [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]"raw"[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] and "[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]homogenized[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]" data plots from the GISTEMP (GISS Surface Temperature) website synthesized into one [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]chart[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] with polynomial fit trend lines. As seen in this comparison chart, the Blue Lines represent raw data -- clearly indicating a cooling trend. Whereas the Red Lines are the adjusted trends after subjected to Hansen's own curiously compensating algorithm. Junk in = Junk out. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Indeed this past year (2008) is set to be the [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]coolest since 2000[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released this month by the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Great Britain. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Nevertheless, global warming partisans at the Met and elsewhere have taken to assuring everyone that cool temperatures are "absolutely not" evidence that global warming is on the wane. Yet those warning and cautionary adamancies are always absent when it comes to linking heat waves to global warming. "Curiouser and curiouser," said Lewis Carroll.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]However, One major glitch in the reporting of temperatures has been quietly forgotten by the Met and others of AGW persuasion as documented [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]here[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times].... When the Soviet Union fell in 1990 the number of reporting weather stations around the world declined from a high of 15,000 in 1970 to 5,000 in 2000, no appropriate compensatory weighting mechanism was thereafter applied. Such an absence critically skews everything thereafter to the warmer side of things, since it takes some of the coldest places on the planet (like Siberia) out of the equation. With that absence, it's likely getting colder than we now know. How convenient! [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Said Geophysicist Dr. David Deming, associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma who has published numerous peer-reviewed research articles:[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Amen and Amen![/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Dr. Gregory Young is a neuroscientist and physicist, a doctoral graduate of the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. He currently chairs a privately funded think-tank engaged in experimental biophysical research.[/FONT]
Global Warm-mongering: More Silk from a Pig's Ear
Gregory Young
[FONT=times new roman,times]It seems that NASA's James Hansen, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), is at it again. He just can't let the data speak for itself. In yet another egregious display of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) arrogance, he changed the temperature data from 1910-2008 to reflect what is clearly a cooling trend to reflect a warming trend. (Y-axis = Annual Mean Temperatures in centigrade; X-axis = Year)[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]These are the USHCN (United States Historical Climatology Network) [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]"raw"[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] and "[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]homogenized[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]" data plots from the GISTEMP (GISS Surface Temperature) website synthesized into one [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]chart[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] with polynomial fit trend lines. As seen in this comparison chart, the Blue Lines represent raw data -- clearly indicating a cooling trend. Whereas the Red Lines are the adjusted trends after subjected to Hansen's own curiously compensating algorithm. Junk in = Junk out. [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Indeed this past year (2008) is set to be the [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]coolest since 2000[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times], according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released this month by the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Great Britain. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Nevertheless, global warming partisans at the Met and elsewhere have taken to assuring everyone that cool temperatures are "absolutely not" evidence that global warming is on the wane. Yet those warning and cautionary adamancies are always absent when it comes to linking heat waves to global warming. "Curiouser and curiouser," said Lewis Carroll.[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]However, One major glitch in the reporting of temperatures has been quietly forgotten by the Met and others of AGW persuasion as documented [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]here[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times].... When the Soviet Union fell in 1990 the number of reporting weather stations around the world declined from a high of 15,000 in 1970 to 5,000 in 2000, no appropriate compensatory weighting mechanism was thereafter applied. Such an absence critically skews everything thereafter to the warmer side of things, since it takes some of the coldest places on the planet (like Siberia) out of the equation. With that absence, it's likely getting colder than we now know. How convenient! [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Said Geophysicist Dr. David Deming, associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma who has published numerous peer-reviewed research articles:[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]"Environmental extremists and global warming alarmists are in denial and running for cover.... To the extent global warming was ever valid, it is now officially over. It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history, next to Aristotelean physics, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, phlogiston, and a plethora of other incorrect scientific theories, all of which had vocal and dogmatic supporters who cited incontrovertible evidence. Weather and climate change are natural processes beyond human control. To argue otherwise is to deny the factual evidence." [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Amen and Amen![/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]Dr. Gregory Young is a neuroscientist and physicist, a doctoral graduate of the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. He currently chairs a privately funded think-tank engaged in experimental biophysical research.[/FONT]
