Princeton Physicist: Global Warming is Bullshit

[tiznow]

the polar bears as well as humans won't be around forever just like the dinosaurs the most successful species our planet has seen to date

------------------------------------------------

Historical evidence shows that the climate of the world since the planet was formed more than 4,000 million years ago has fluctuated greatly.


Key Points

* The Earth is currently in the middle of an ice epoch.
* Within an ice epoch there are ice ages, which alternate with shorter warmer periods known as interglacials.
* It is unique for the Earth to have two polar ice caps.

Also in this Series

The Ice Age (Part Two)

Disclaimer
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external websites.

On many occasions the world has borne little resemblance to what we experience today. For example, we are currently in the middle of an ice epoch (longer than an ice age) which has lasted millions of years and is likely to continue for millions more.

Yet, in the context of the history of the planet, this is not a normal period. More average conditions would be significantly warmer, producing the lush vegetation and hot conditions that prevailed aeons ago, when dinosaurs walked the Earth for millions of years.

The reason why we are in the middle of such a cold epoch has a great deal to do with the positioning of the land masses. Almost imperceptibly, the great continents are constantly moving and changing location. Throughout the history of the Earth it has been unusual to have one polar ice-cap; it is unique for us now to have two of them.

Normally the circulation of the warm currents of the oceans helps distribute the heat and ensure a general uniformity of temperatures. However, the land mass that has become known to us as Antarctica has temporarily (in global terms!) positioned itself over the South Pole thereby blocking off warm currents. This has allowed ice some 1,800 metres (6,000 feet) thick to form a sheet over that now most inhospitable of continents.

Similarly, by another quirk of the slow drift of the continents, land has encircled the North pole, causing the waters there to be largely cut off from the worldwide drift of oceanic currents. This too has allowed an ice-cap to develop at the North Pole. Eventually – in tens of millions of years – the land masses of North America and Europe, which are moving away from each other, will be far enough apart to allow the warmer currents from the Atlantic to warm up the Arctic and melt the ice-cap. However, as far as humans are concerned at present the existence of two polar ice-caps is, for all practical purposes, a permanent one.

Within an ice epoch there are ice ages, which alternate with shorter warmer periods known as interglacials. At the moment the Earth is passing through an interglacial period. This has lasted for around 10,000 years following the last Ice Age, which in turn went on for some 100,000 years. It would appear from historical climatic evidence that this ice age/interglacial pattern was established at the beginning of this ice epoch. Perhaps ominously for man, the pattern suggests that ice ages last around 100,000 years on average and the shorter, warmer interglacials around 10,000 – so we are nearing the end of our current warmer period.

However, there is no need for any alarm at this thought. The next ice age could be up to 1,000 years or more away – a short period in climatology but a comfortingly lengthy one for us. And in any case no one can yet predict what effect the greenhouse effect may have on the overall pattern of global cooling and in arresting a return to glacial conditions.

What does seem apparent is that within the current interglacial period, starting some 10,000 years ago, there have been smaller patterns emerging – periods of warmer weather, followed by colder weather and so on. These have been broken down by climatologists into four main periods.

The first followed the end of the last Ice Age, indeed it caused it to end. The Earth probably reached its warmest about 5,000 or 6,000 years ago. At this time the temperature would have been on average about 2C (3.6F) warmer than the present day.

This period has acquired the name the Optimum period as a result, and was followed by a much colder spell. This more or less coincided with the historical period called the Iron Age, which reached its coldest around 2,500 years ago. (It should be remembered that these changes are gradual and do not occur overnight).

 

[tiznow]

in the end humans just feel they need a purpose, or need to feel like they have an impact and that sort of things and global warming and saving the poor polar bears is all part of that....

i'm not saying man doesn't have any impact and if anything we a pretty good of a job messing up the environment....but not in the global warming sense....more in the pollution and footprint on the environment category

but in the end mother nature will work it out over the long haul....

also now that i think about it more as far as successful species goes guess it kinda depends on how you define it

cockroaches and insects in general been around the longest....if you using length of survival as a yardstick

dinosaurs made it 180 million years before the meteor and other shit extincted them

humans only like half a million years along the evolutionary path

something tells me we won't make 180 million......

 

[TomKing]

Earth was here long before Man.

Earth will be here long after Man.

 

[tiznow]

thursday morning records

City: New Record Low [Old Record]

* Aberdeen, SD: -42 [-35 in 1972]
* Sioux City, IA: -20 [-18 in 1972]
* Cedar Rapids, IA: -26 [-23 in 1994]
* Bismarck, ND: -44 [-36 in 1971]
* Dubuque, IA: -25 [-25 way back in 1888]
* Burlington, IA: -18 [-18 in 1994]
* Spencer, IA: -27 [-27 in 1972]
* Mobridge, SD: -33 [-30 in 1972]
* Sisseton, SD: -31 [-29 in 1972]

more coming for friday morning

 

[RobFunk]

It was so cold today the republicans thought they were back in China.

 

[tiznow]

records for friday morning

Maine

* Caribou: -37 [-27 in 1984]
* Houlton: -36 [-26 in 2004]
* Bangor: -25 [-20 in 1994]

New Hampshire

* Concord: -24 [-19 in 1984]

Vermont

* Burlington: -21 [-20 in 1920]
* Montpelier: -25 [-21 in 1994]

Iowa

* Waterloo: -34** [-26 in 1977]
* Ottumwa :-20 [-19 in 1977]
* Mason City: -31 [-25 in 1977]
* Dubuque: -30 [-30 in 1888]
* Cedar Rapids: -27 [-23 in 1982]
* Spencer: -28 [-26 in 1977]

Minnesota

* St. Cloud: -34 [-31 in 1977]

Illinois

* Moline: -29 [-23 in 1888]
* Rockford: -25 [-24 in 1982]
* Peoria: -21 [-20 in 1977]

Michigan

* Detroit: -15 [-14 in 1972]

**ties coldest temp on record 3/1/1962

 

[MinnesotaEconMajor]

Currently 61 degrees in Minneapolis. Average high is 83 degrees in July.

 

[Mistermj]

Looks like 110 year record low temps in Wisconsin today.

The year without summer remains...

 

[festeringZit]

Yet more evidence that charlatan Al Gore and the scammers were screwing us all along, and the ignorant lemmings ate it up.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/01/were-not-screwed/

We’re not screwed?

Republish Reprint




Ross McKitrick, Special to Financial Post | 13/04/01 | Last Updated: 13/04/02 8:49 AM ET
More from Special to Financial Post

Left, global temperature variation over the past 11,000 years based on analysis of fossils from 73 sites around the world, with addition of 20th-century temperature records, from the Marcott et al. Science paper. At right, the same graph without the current temperature records. Sources: left, Science; right, Roger Pielke Jr.

• Twitter
• Google+
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Comments
• More

What scientists and media said last month

We’re screwed: 11,000 years’ worth of *climate data prove it.
— The Atlantic, March 10
The modern rise that has recreated the temperatures of 5,000 years ago is occurring at an exceedingly rapid clip on a geological time scale, appearing in graphs in the new paper as a sharp vertical spike.
— Justin Gillis, New York Times,
March 7
“Rapid” head spike unlike anything in 11,000 years. Research released Thursday in the journal Science uses fossils of tiny marine organisms to reconstruct global temperatures …. It shows how the glode for several thousandscof years was cooling until an unprecedented reversal in the 20th century.
— The Associated Press, March 7
What we’ve found is that temperatures increased in the last hundreds years as much as they had cooled in the lst six or seven thousand. In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we’ve seen in the whole Holocene.
— Shaun Marcott, Oregon State University, co-author of A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the last 11,300 Years, media interview, March 7.
In 100 years, we’ve gone from the cold end of the spectrum to the warm end of the spectrum. We hever seen something this rapid. Even in the ice age the global temperature never changed this quickly.
— Shaun Marcott, Oregon State *University, quoted by Associated Press, March 8
What that history shows, the researchers say, is that during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit — until the last 100 years, when it warmed about 1.3 degrees F.
— press release, National Science Foundation, March 7
The rate of warming in the last 150 years is unlike anything that happened in at least 11,000 years, says Michael Mann of the Pennsylvania State University in University Park, who was not involved in Marcott’s study.
— New Scientist magazine, March 7


11,000-year study’s 20th-century claim is groundless

On March 8, a paper appeared in the prestigious journal Science under the title A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. Temperature reconstructions are nothing new, but papers claiming to be able to go back so far in time are rare, especially ones that promise global and regional coverage.
The new study, by Shaun Marcott, Jeremy Shakun, Peter Clark and Alan Mix, was based on an analysis of 73 long-term proxies, and offered a few interesting results: one familiar (and unremarkable), one odd but probably unimportant, and one new and stunning. The latter was an apparent discovery that 20th-century warming was a wild departure from anything seen in over 11,000 years. News of this finding flew around the world and the authors suddenly became the latest in a long line of celebrity climate scientists.
The trouble is, as they quietly admitted over the weekend, their new and stunning claim is groundless. The real story is only just emerging, and it isn’t pretty.
The unremarkable finding of the Marcott et al. paper was that the Earth’s climate history since the end of the last ice age looks roughly like an upside down-U shape, starting cold, warming up for a few thousand years, staying warm through the mid-Holocene (6,000 to 9,000 years ago), then cooling steadily over the past five millennia to the present. This pattern has previously been found in studies using ground boreholes, ice cores and other very long-term records, and was shown in the first IPCC report back in 1990. Some studies suggest it was, on average, half a degree warmer than the present, while others have put it at one or even two degrees warmer. A lot of assumptions have to be made to calibrate long-term proxy measures to degrees Celsius, so it is not surprising that the scale of the temperature axis is uncertain.
Another familiar feature of long-term reconstructions is that the downward-sloping portion has a few large deviations on it. Many show a long, intense warm interval during Roman times 2,000 years ago, and another warm interval during the medieval era, a thousand years ago. They also show a cold episode called the Little Ice Age ending in the early 1800s, followed by the modern warming. But the Marcott et al. graph didn’t have these wiggles, instead it showed only a modest mid-Holocene warming and a smooth decline to the late 1800s. This was odd, but probably unimportant, since they also acknowledged using so-called “low frequency” proxies that do not pick up fluctuations on time scales shorter than 300 years. The differences between the scale of their graph and that of others could probably be chalked up to different methods.
The new, and startling, feature of the Marcott graph was at the very end: Their data showed a remarkable uptick that implied that, during the 20th century, our climate swung from nearly the coldest conditions over the past 11,500 years to nearly the warmest. Specifically, their analysis showed that in under 100 years we’ve had more warming than previously took thousands of years to occur, in the process undoing 5,000 years’ worth of cooling.

This uptick became the focus of considerable excitement, as well as scrutiny. One of the first questions was how it was derived. Marcott had finished his PhD thesis at Oregon State University in 2011 and his dissertation is online. The Science paper is derived from the fourth chapter, which uses the same 73 proxy records and seemingly identical methods. But there is no uptick in that chart, nor does the abstract to his thesis mention such a *finding.
Stephen McIntyre of climateaudit.org began examining the details of the Marcott et al. work, and by March 16 he had made a remarkable discovery. The 73 proxies were all collected by previous researchers, of which 31 are derived from alkenones, an organic compound produced by phytoplankton that settles in layers on ocean floors, and has chemical properties that correlate to temperature. When a core is drilled out, the layers need to be dated. If done accurately, the researcher could then interpret the alkenone layer at, say, 50 cm below the surface, to imply (for example) the ocean temperature averaged 0.1 degrees above normal over several centuries about 1,200 years ago. The tops of cores represent the data closest in time to the present, but this layer is often disturbed by the drilling process. So the original researchers take care to date the core-top to where the information begins to become useful.
According to the scientists who originally published the alkenone series, the core tops varied in age from nearly the present to over a thousand years ago. Fewer than 10 of the original proxies had values for the 20th century. Had Marcott et al. used the end dates as calculated by the specialists who compiled the original data, there would have been no 20th-century uptick in their graph, as indeed was the case in Marcott’s PhD thesis. But Marcott et al. redated a number of core tops, changing the mix of proxies that contribute to the closing value, and this created the uptick at the end of their graph. Far from being a feature of the proxy data, it was an artifact of arbitrarily redating the underlying cores.
Worse, the article did not disclose this step. In their online supplementary information the authors said they had assumed the core tops were dated to the present “unless otherwise noted in the original publication.” In other words, they claimed to be relying on the original dating, even while they had redated the cores in a way that strongly influenced their results.
Meanwhile, in a private email to McIntyre, Marcott made a surprising statement. In the paper, they had reported doing an alternate analysis of their proxy data that yielded a much smaller 20th-century uptick, but they said the difference was “probably not robust,” which implied that the uptick was insensitive to changes in methodology, and was therefore reliable. But in his email to McIntyre, Marcott said the reconstruction itself is not robust in the 20th century: a very different thing. When this became public, the Marcott team promised to clear matters up with an online FAQ.
It finally appeared over the weekend, and contains a remarkable admission: “[The] 20th-century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”
Now you tell us! The 20th-century uptick was the focus of worldwide media attention, during which the authors made very strong claims about the implications of their findings regarding 20th-century warming. Yet at no point did they mention the fact that the 20th century portion of their proxy reconstruction is garbage.
The authors now defend their original claims by saying that if you graft a 20th-century thermometer record onto the end of their proxy chart, it exhibits an upward trend much larger in scale than that observed in any 100-year interval in their graph, supporting their original claims. But you can’t just graft two completely different temperature series together and draw a conclusion from the fact that they look different.
The modern record is sampled continuously and as a result is able to register short-term trends and variability. The proxy model, by the authors’ own admission, is heavily smoothed and does not pick up fluctuations below a time scale of several centuries. So the relative smoothness in earlier portions of their graph is not proof that variability never occurred before. If it had, their method would likely not have spotted it.
What made their original conclusion about the exceptional nature of 20th-century warming plausible was precisely the fact that it appeared to be picked up both by modern thermometers and by their proxy data. But that was an illusion. It was introduced into their proxy reconstruction as an artifact of arbitrarily redating the end points of a few proxy records.
In recent years there have been a number of cases in which high-profile papers from climate scientists turned out, on close inspection, to rely on unseemly tricks, fudges and/or misleading analyses. After they get uncovered in the blogosphere, the academic community rushes to circle the wagons and denounce any criticism as “denialism.” There’s denialism going on all right — on the part of scientists who don’t see that their continuing defence of these kinds of practices exacts a toll on the public credibility of their field.

Financial Post
Ross McKitrick is professor of economics and CME fellow in sustainable commerce at the Department of Economics, University of Guelph.

 

[festeringZit]

“[The] 20th-century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”

Now you tell us! The 20th-century uptick was the focus of worldwide media attention, during which the authors made very strong claims about the implications of their findings regarding 20th-century warming. Yet at no point did they mention the fact that the 20th century portion of their proxy reconstruction is garbage.

 

[festeringZit]

It's amazing how many idiots there are still out there that believe this man-made global-warming scam.

 

[SmallDaddy]

It's amazing how many idiots there are still out there that believe this man-made global-warming scam.

Yeah like all the Academy of Sciences out there.

Btw I hope they are incorrect. However even if they were (which I doubt) there is no reason why companies cant clean up their own messes or take measures of preventing them---- which is what the opposition is about

 

[fletchisrhsm]

Yeah like all the Academy of Sciences out there.

Btw I hope they are incorrect. However even if they were (which I doubt) there is no reason why companies cant clean up their own messes or take measures of preventing them---- which is what the opposition is about

The problem is they want to tax business into oblivion. The problem with that (as we have seen too often) is that when you over taxa business they leave and/or pass the cost onto the consumer. So, in essence it would really make things hard for the average consumer.

 

[mplastered]

Yeah like all the Academy of Sciences out there.

Btw I hope they are incorrect. However even if they were (which I doubt) there is no reason why companies cant clean up their own messes or take measures of preventing them---- which is what the opposition is about

SD, I really don't think that's what the opposition is about. I do believe any business could do more, but it's all about taxing them. More gov money to waste and hijack.

 

[festeringZit]

[h=1]Leaked draft of climate report struggles with drop in warming[/h] Published August 20, 2013FoxNews.com

• 
  
  The cover of the IPCC's fourth assessment report to the U.N., "Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report," more frequently referred to as AR4. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC))
  

An unreleased draft of the U.N.’s next major climate report reportedly states that scientists are more certain than ever that man’s actions are warming the planet -- even as the report struggles to explain a slow-down in warming that climate skeptics have seized upon.
Global surface temperatures rose rapidly during the 70s, but have been relatively flat over the past decade and a half

, according to data from the U.K.’s weather-watching Met Office. Climate skeptics have spent months debating the weather pattern, some citing it as evidence that global warming itself has decelerated or even stopped.
"The absence of any significant change in the global annual average temperature over the past 16 years has become one of the most discussed topics in climate science," wrote David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in June. "It has certainly focused the debate about the relative importance of greenhouse gas forcing of the climate versus natural variability."
A draft of the upcoming AR5 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is set for final release in Oct. 2014 and used by governments around the world, offers a variety of explanations for the mystery, Reuters reported, from ocean storage of heat to volcanoes.

'Causes could include ash from volcanoes, a decline in heat from the sun, more heat being absorbed by the deep oceans ...'​

- A Reuters report

“Scientists believe causes could include: greater-than-expected quantities of ash from volcanoes, which dims sunlight; a decline in heat from the sun during a current 11-year solar cycle; more heat being absorbed by the deep oceans; or the possibility that the climate may be less sensitive than expected to a build-up of carbon dioxide,” explained Reuters

environment correspondent Alister Doyle.
The draft expresses “medium confidence” that the slowing in global warming "due in roughly equal measure" to those factors, Reuters said.
"It might be down to minor contributions that all add up," said Gabriele Hegerl, a professor at Edinburgh University told the news agency. Or maybe the latest decade is simply a statistical blip, an anomaly in a larger trend.
Climate bloggers were quick to dismiss all of the possible explanations for the slow down in heating up.
"All of these fatuous figures are pulled out of the air to support the IPCC ideologies and not based upon any statistical analysis or science," said Marc Morano, a particularly outspoken climate skeptic who writes the popular blog Climate Depot

.
The U.N. arm responsible for the report released a statement to FoxNews.com on Monday stating that it was premature to draw conclusions from the leaked draft.
“The text is likely to change in response to comments from governments received in recent weeks and will also be considered by governments and scientists at a four-day approval session at the end of September,” the statement said. “It is therefore premature and could be misleading to attempt to draw conclusions from it.”
The report stresses that scientists are now 95 percent certain that man’s actions are responsible for global warming, and that action is key to avert a coming crises.
“The report is simply an exclamation mark on what we already knew: Climate change is real and it continues unabated, the primary cause is fossil fuel burning, and if we don’t do something to reduce carbon emissions we can expect far more dangerous and potentially irreversible impacts on us,” climate scientist Michael Mann wrote to Climate Progress.
The U.N. agency's report is sure to face intense scrutiny. The 2007 iteration was widely lambasted over flaws and sloppy information, notably the claim that global warming would cause the Himalayas to melt by 2035.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013...rop-in-warming/?intcmp=features#ixzz2cXceac9J
​

 

[festeringZit]

[ So many fucking idiots in this world... ]


Morrissey Attacks 'Thankskilling,' Says Eating Turkey Spurs Global Warming

65
0
85
0

---

Email Article Print article Send a Tip


by Christian Toto 27 Nov 2013 277 post a comment
Don't expect Morrissey to have a happy Thanksgiving.

The British singer and outspoken vegetarian is blasting both the annual holiday's menu as well as President Barack Obama for engaging in the traditional turkey pardon Wednesday.
Morrissey dubbed the American holiday "Thankskilling," adding the murder of so many turkeys each November yields unhealthy food while warming the planet.

Please ignore the abysmal example set by President Obama who, in the name of Thanksgiving, supports torture as 45 million birds are horrifically abused; dragged through electrified stun baths, and then have their throats slit. And President Obama laughs. Haha, so funny!
...Further, the meat industry is responsible for 51% of human-caused greenhouse-gas emission, therefore the embarrassingly stupid White House 'turkey pardon' is open support for a viciously cruel and environmentally irresponsible industry.
​

Livestrong says turkey meat provides a healthy boost of protein, can fight cancer and offers a generous supply of Vitamin B.

 

[festeringZit]

[h=1]Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating[/h] By Michael Fumento
December 5, 2013 | 12:14am
Modal Trigger

Photo: HO/AFP/Getty Images


[h=3]MORE ON:[/h] [h=6]Weather[/h]
[h=5]Beloved dog survives 9 days under tornado rubble[/h] [h=5]Buzz Lightyear injures worker, Spider-Man punctured[/h] [h=5]Rebuilding Philippines could take 10 years[/h] [h=5]Macy's could blow! Wind threat to balloons[/h]


The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960. But don’t expect anyone who pointed to last year’s hurricanes as “proof” of the need to act against global warming to apologize; the warmists don’t work that way.
Warmist claims of a severe increase in hurricane activity go back to 2005 and Hurricane Katrina. The cover of Al Gore’s 2009 book, “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis,” even features a satellite image of the globe with four major hurricanes superimposed.
Yet the evidence to the contrary was there all along. Back in 2005 I and others reviewed the entire hurricane record, which goes back over a century, and found no increase of any kind. Yes, we sometimes get bad storms — but no more frequently now than in the past. The advocates simply ignored that evidence — then repeated their false claims after Hurricane Sandy last year.
And the media play along. For example, it somehow wasn’t front-page news that committed believers in man-made global warming recently admitted there’s been no surface global warming for well over a decade and maybe none for decades more. Nor did we see warmists conceding that their explanation is essentially a confession that the previous warming may not have been man-made at all.
That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this “pause” could extend into the 2030s.
Mind you, the term “pause” is misleading in the extreme: Unless and until it resumes again, it’s just a “stop.” You don’t say a bullet-ridden body “paused” breathing.
Remarkably, that stoppage has practically been a state secret. Just five years ago, the head of the International Panel on Climate Change, the group most associated with “proving” that global warming is man-made and has horrific potential consequences, told Congress that Earth is running a “fever” that’s “apt to get much worse.” Yet he and IPCC knew the warming had stopped a decade earlier.
Those who pointed this out, including yours truly, were labeled “denialists.” Yet the IPCC itself finally admitted the “pause” in its latest report.
The single most damning aspect of the “pause” is that, because it has occurred when “greenhouse gases” have been pouring into the atmosphere at record levels, it shows at the very least that something natural is at play here. The warmists suggest that natural factors have “suppressed” the warming temporarily, but that’s just a guess: The fact is, they have nothing like the understanding of the climate that they claimed (and their many models that all showed future warming mean nothing, since they all used essentially the same false information).
If Ma Nature caused the “pause,” can’t this same lady be responsible for the warming observed earlier? You bet! Fact is, the earth was cooling and warming long before so-called GHGs could have been a factor. A warm spell ushered in the Viking Age, and many scientists believe recent warming was merely a recovery from what’s called “the Little Ice Age” that began around 1300.
Yet none of this unsettles the rush to kill debate. The Los Angeles Times has even announced that it will no longer print letters to the editor questioning man-made global warming. Had the Times been printing before Columbus, perhaps it would have banned letters saying the Earth was round.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to push to reduce supposed global-warming emissions. Last month, the president even signed an executive order establishing a Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience that could dramatically expand government bureaucrats’ ability to restrict Americans’ use of their property, water and energy to reduce so-called “greenhouse gas emissions.”
Such attempted reductions in other countries have proved incredibly expensive, while barely reducing emissions. But damn the stubbornly weak economy, says President Obama, full speed ahead!
This, even as new data show that last year the US median wage hit its lowest level since 1998 and long-term unemployment is almost the highest ever.
People have a right to religious and cult beliefs within reason. But the warmists have been proved wrong time and again, each time reacting with little more than pictures of forlorn polar bears on ice floes and trying to shut down the opposition. (More bad timing: Arctic ice increased by almost a third this past year, while that at the South Pole was thicker and wider than it’s been in 35 years.)
In war and in science, the bloodiest conflicts always seem to be the religious ones. Time for the American public to say it’s no longer going to play the victim in this one.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Anyone who ever bought into Gorebull Warming is a complete idiot.

 

[festeringZit]

[h=1]CryoSat Satellite Finds Arctic Ice Increased 50% in Volume[/h]

92
12
1266
2

---

Email Article Print article Send a Tip


by Robert Wilde 17 Dec 2013 1372 post a comment
[h=2]Polar sea ice increased 50% over last year, growing from 6,000 to 9,000 cubic kilometers when compared to the same period in 2012. Moreover, this year’s multi-year ice is 30 cm thicker than last year, and scientists claim that thick, multi-year ice indicates healthy Arctic sea-ice cover.[/h] The results were revealed by the European Space Agency (ESA) CryoSat satellite mission. The CryoSat-2 was launched in April 2010 and is designed to measure sea-ice thickness across the entire Arctic Ocean. The satellite’s findings indicate that the volume of Arctic sea ice has increased substantially. These findings prove to be at odds with Al Gore's predictions back in 2009 when he spoke at the United Nations Climate Change Conference. Gore stated that computer models reflect "that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polarized cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice free during the next 5-7 years."
Past satellite missions showed a decline in Arctic Ocean ice over the last few decades. However, the actual volume of sea ice has proven difficult to determine because it moves around, so its thickness can change. The CryoSat-2 satellite has provided Scientists with information that, for the first time, allows them to accurately measure ice thickness.
“We didn't expect the greater ice extent left at the end of this summer’s melt to be reflected in the volume. But it has been, and the reason is related to the amount of multi-year ice in the Arctic,” said Rachel Tilling from the UK’s Center for Polar Observation and Modeling, who spearheaded the study.
Climate Change advocates still warn that this increase in ice volume does not indicate a reversal in the long-term trend. CryoSat-2 measurements demonstrate that the Earth’s climate might not be warming, but it is changing.

 

[SheriffJoe]

10 Headlines Show Why Global Warming Alarm Is Bunk

26 Comments

Posted 12/17/2013 06:54 PM ET

Junk Science: Our secretary of state can't stop talking about the climate change threat. Allow us to cite some recent headlines that should encourage him to rethink his position.

When John Kerry and other alarmists talk about climate change, he means man-made global warming. Climate change is a meaningless description because the climate is always changing, always has, always will.

The alarmists moved on from "global warming" to "climate change" because it was obvious that not only was the world not getting hotter, winter kept arriving with intense cold and mountains of snow.

How could they sell the oppressive swelter of global warming as a threat when Washington and New York kept being slammed by winter storms? Or when global warming rallies had to be canceled because it was just too darned frigid or snowy?

Changing the name also let alarmists blame every weather event, no matter how cold, wet or windy, on man's emissions of carbon dioxide.
But back to Kerry. While visiting Vietnam over the weekend, the Massachusetts Democrat noted the differences he saw in the Mekong River Delta since he had patrolled the waters in his Swift boat during the war in the late 1960s. He identified the delta as a victim of climate change and asked that "all of us" "work together and focus in on these issues.

"This is one of the two or three most potentially impacted areas in the world with respect to the effects of climate change," he said, adding a moment later that "Vietnam is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world when it comes to climate change."
As if he hadn't already acted foolishly enough, Kerry, according to the Associated Press, pledged $17 million to "a program that will help the region's rice producers, shrimp and crab farmers and fisherman adapt to potential changes caused by higher sea levels that bring salt water into the delicate ecosystem."

That $17 million, we might add, was not withdrawn from one of Kerry's bank accounts. It was "contributed" by U.S. taxpayers.

It would be bad form for us to ask our secretary of state — who's so well versed in world affairs that he apparently doesn't know North Korea is a nuclear power — to shut up about climate change, though, if he did, it would be a welcome event.

But we will point him to a few recent print and Web headlines that should make him think a bit harder about what he says. Here are 10 reasons Kerry should find something else to focus on:

• "Record low temperature recorded in Antarctica: scientists" — Chicago Tribune, Dec. 9

• "National Weather Service says stretch of Arctic temperatures coldest since 1972" — Minneapolis Star Tribune, Monday

• "Al Gore wasn't even warm about the disappearance of Arctic ice" — New Jersey Star-Ledger, Sept. 16

• "Scientists: Antarctic set record cold temperatures" — examiner.com, Dec. 10

• "Study: Earth was warmer in Roman, Medieval times" — Daily Caller, Friday

• "Global warming? Satellite data shows Arctic sea ice coverage up 50 percent!" — Daily Caller, Monday

• "Cairo Witnesses First Snowfall in 112 Years" — Pakistan Tribune, Sunday

• "Over half the USA covered in snow, the most in 11 years" — wattsupwiththat.com, Monday

• "Are tornadoes getting stronger? No" — wattsupwiththat.com, Sunday

• "Fire And Ice — Volcanoes, Not CO2, Melt West Antarctic" — IBD, Dec. 11

Before it was climate change, it was global warming. We were all supposed to be terrified that greenhouse gas emissions were trapping heat near the surface and the subsequent warming was going to bring cataclysm.

Somehow the greenhouse effect that was going to burn us up was also responsible for colder and snowier weather in the winter.

Eventually, the alarmists decided that any weather that looked like it was outside the normal range was caused by man. They couldn't lose. But they have. Just look at the headlines.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...-nonexistent-global-warming.htm#ixzz2nqZM3R1w