Skip to comments.Obama Proposes New Global Warming Agency(Just when a record storm hits DC we get this!!!)
Posted on 02/08/2010 12:59:27 PM PST by bestintxas
The Obama administration on Monday proposed a new agency to study and report on the changing climate.
Also known as global warming, climate change has drawn widespread concern in recent years as temperatures around the world rise, threatening to harm crops, spread disease, increase sea levels, change storm and drought patterns and cause polar melting.
Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, announced NOAA will set up the new Climate Service to operate in tandem with NOAA's National Weather Service and National Ocean Service.
"Whether we like it or not, climate change represents a real threat," Locke said Monday at a news conference.
Lubchenco added, "Climate change is real, it's happening now." She said climate information is vital to the wind power industry, coastal community planning, fishermen and fishery managers, farmers and public health officials.
NOAA recently reported that the decade of 2000-2009 was the warmest on record worldwide; the previous warmest decade was the 1990s. Most atmospheric scientists believe that warming is largely due to human actions, adding gases to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas.
Researchers and leaders from around the world met last month in Denmark to discuss ways to reduce climate-warming emissions, and a follow-up session is planned for later this year in Mexico.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
WE HAVE NO MONEY!!! WE ARE GOING BROKE!!!!
We survived 240 years without a “global warming agency”, there’s no point in trying to create one NOW when we can’t afford the agencies we already have.
Instead, we should start by zeroing the budgets of every agency created in the last 50 years, and let them all justify every dollar they are spending.
THEREFORE..., its also absolutely necessary for people to know the information in the following documentary. If there were simply one video that you could see and/or show people you know... this would be the one...
The following is an excellent video documentary on the so-called Global Warming I would recommend it to all FReepers. Its a very well-made documentary.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
If you want to download it, via a BitTorrent site (using a BitTorrent client), you can get it at the following link. Information about BitTorrent protocol and BitTorrent clients and their comparison at these three links (in this sentence). Some additional BitTorrent information here and here.
Download it here...
[This is a high-quality copy, of about a gigabyte in size. This link is the information about it, and you have to click the download link to get it on your BitTorrent client software. You'll also find users' comments here, too.]
Its worth seeing and having for relatives, friends, neighbors and coworkers to see.
Also, see it online here...
[this one is considerably lower quality, is a flash video and viewable online, of course..., and also, you can download flash video on a website either yourself or some software doing it.]
Buy it on DVD here...
[this would be the very highest quality version, on a DVD disk, of several gigabytes in size...] At Amazon, it seems to be high-priced now and have only a few copies right now.
At WAGtv (a UK shop), but don't know about shipping. The price is reasonable, though.
[And..., some information from WAGtv about this item.]
Also, in split parts on YouTube...
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 1 of 9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 2 of 9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 3 of 9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 4 of 9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 5 of 9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 6 of 9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 7 of 9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Part 8 of 9)
The Great Global Warming Swindle - Credits (Part 9 of 9)
Yep gotta cur-tail them thar CO2 to save the crops...that thar is sci-ance...yep.
Until recently, global temperatures were more than a degree Fahrenheit warmer when compared to the overall 20th Century mean. From August of 2007 through February of 2008, the Earths mean reading dropped to near the 200-year average temperature of 57 degrees. Since that time, the mean reading has been fluctuating.
We, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, believe that the warming and even the cooling of global temperatures are the result of long-term climatic cycles, solar activity, sea-surface temperature patterns and more. However, Mankinds activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the Urban Heat Island Effect, are making conditions worse and this will ultimately enhance the Earths warming process down the meteorological roadway in the next several decades.
From the late 1940s through the early 1970s, a climate research organization called the Weather Science Foundation of Crystal Lake, Illinois, determined that the planets warm, cold, wet and dry periods were the result of alternating short-term and long-term climatic cycles. These researchers and scientists also concluded that the Earths ever-changing climate likewise has influenced global and regional economies, human and animal migrations, science, religion and the arts as well as shifting forms of government and strength of leadership.
Much of this data was based upon thousands of hours of research done by Dr. Raymond H. Wheeler and his associates during the 1930s and 1940s at the University of Kansas. Dr. Wheeler was well-known for his discovery of various climate cycles, including his highly-regarded 510-Year Drought Clock that he detailed at the end of the Dust Bowl era in the late 1930s.
During the early 1970s, our planet was in the midst of a colder and drier weather cycle. Inflationary recessions and oil shortages led to rationing and long gas lines at service stations worldwide. The situation at that time was far worse than it is now, at least for the time being.
The Weather Science Foundation also predicted, based on these various climate cycles, that our planet would turn much warmer and wetter by the early 2000s, resulting in general global prosperity. They also said that we would be seeing at this time widespread weather extremes. Theres little doubt that most of their early predictions came true.
Our recent decline in the Earths temperature may be a combination of both long-term and short-term climate cycles, decreased solar activity and the development of a strong long-lasting La Nina, the current cooler than normal sea-surface temperature event in the south-central Pacific Ocean. Sunspot activity in the past 18 months has decreased to the lowest levels since The Little Ice Age ended in the mid-to late 1800s. This "cool spell," though, may only be a brief interruption to the Earths overall warming trend. Only time will tell.
Based on these predictions, it appears that much warmer readings may be expected for Planet Earth, especially by the 2030s, that will eventually top 1998's global highest reading of 58.3 degrees. Its quite possible we could see an average temperature in the low 60s. Until then, this cooling period may last from just a few months to as long as several years, especially if sunspot activity remains very low.
We at Harris-Mann Climatology, www.LongRangeWeather.com, believe that our prolonged cycle of wide weather extremes, the worst in at least 1,000 years, will continue and perhaps become even more severe, especially by the mid 2010s. We should see more powerful storms, including major hurricanes and increasing deadly tornadoes. There will likewise be widespread flooding, crop-destroying droughts and freezes and violent weather of all types including ice storms, large-sized hail and torrential downpours.
We are already seeing on virtually every continent an almost Biblical weather scenario of increasing droughts and floods. In both the southwestern and southeastern corners of the U.S, there are severe water shortage problems associated with chronic long-term dryness. In some cases, the water deficits are the worst in at least 400 years.
Dr. Wheeler also discovered that approximately every 102 years, a much warmer and drier climatic cycle affects our planet. The last such warm and dry peak occurred in 1936, at the end of the infamous Dust Bowl period. During that time, extreme heat and dryness, combined with a multitude of problems during the Great Depression, made living conditions practically intolerable.
The next warm and dry climatic phase is scheduled to arrive in the early 2030s, probably peaking around 2038. It is expected to produce even hotter and drier weather patterns than we saw during the late 1990s and early 2000s.
But, we should remember, that the Earths coldest periods have usually followed excessive warmth. Such was the case when our planet moved from the Medieval Warm Period between 900 and 1300 A.D. to the sudden Little Ice Age, which peaked in the 17th Century.
By the end of this 21st Century, a big cool down may occur that could ultimately lead to expanding glaciers worldwide, even in the mid-latitudes. We could possibly see even a new Great Ice Age. Based on long-term climatic data, these major ice ages have recurred about every 11,500 years. Well, you guessed it. The last extensive ice age was approximately 11,500 years ago, so we may be due. Again, only time will tell.
The Green Police!
It’s really no wonder why he has zero credibility!
Guest Post by David Archibald
NASAs David Hathaway has adjusted his expectations of Solar Cycle 24 downwards. He is quoted in the New York Times here Specifically, he said:
Still, something like the Dalton Minimum two solar cycles in the early 1800s that peaked at about an average of 50 sunspots lies in the realm of the possible.
NASA has caught up with my prediction in early 2006 of a Dalton Minimum repeat, so for a brief, shining moment of three years, I have had a better track record in predicting solar activity than NASA.
The graphic above is modified from a paper I published in March, 2006. Even based on our understanding of solar climate relationship at the time, it was evident the range of Solar Cycle 24 amplitude predictions would result in a 2°C range in temperature. The climate science community was oblivious to this, despite billions being spent. To borrow a term from the leftist lexicon, the predictions above Badalyan are now discredited elements.
Lets now examine another successful prediction of mine. In March, 2008 at the first Heartland climate conference in New York, I predicted that Solar Cycle 24 would mean that it would not be a good time to be a Canadian wheat farmer. Lo and behold, the Canadian wheat crop is down 20% this year due to a cold spring and dry fields. Story here.
The oceans are losing heat, so the Canadian wheat belt will just get colder and drier as Solar Cycle 24 progresses. As Mark Steyn recently said, anyone under the age of 29 has not experienced global warming. A Dalton Minimum repeat will mean that they will have to wait to the age of 54 odd to experience a warming trend.
Where to now? The F 10.7 flux continues to flatline. All the volatility has gone out of it. In terms of picking the month of minimum for the Solar Cycle 23/24 transition, I think the solar community will put it in the middle of the F 10.7 quiet period due to the lack of sunspots. We wont know how long that quiet period is until solar activity ramps up again. So picking the month of minimum at the moment may just be guessing.
Dr Hathaway says that we are not in for a Maunder Minimum, and I agree with him. I have been contacted by a gentleman from the lower 48 who has a very good solar activity model. It hindcasts the 20th century almost perfectly, so I have a lot of faith in what it is predicting for the 21st century, which is a couple of very weak cycles and then back to normal as we have known it. I consider his model to be a major advance in solar science.
What I am now examining is the possibility that there will not be a solar magnetic reversal at the Solar Cycle 24 maximum.
A 2000-year historical perspective
The other supercycle, besides the Gleissberg, that most often is referred to in the present-day data, is a 200-year supercycle. The Gleissberg cycle is usually cited with one of two values, accurately as 78 years, inaccurately as 80 years, but the 200-year cycle has no agreed-upon value, mostly the values referred to are from 180 to 220 years.
Explicitly there is no 200-year cycle in the Elatina data, but I have interpreted that the 29.2 "sawtooth pattern" represents a cycle of 173 years, which means that it may be a variant of the 200-year cycle. In addition, the longest of the remaining Elatina supercycles is 105 years. There is also a 52-year cycle, which is not seen in today's data. One interpretation could be that the corresponding cycles today are 105 (weak) and 210 (strong) years. There are indications that the possible 200-year cycle really oscillates today. Would this hint to limits of 170 and 210 years in Elatina data, corresponding to from 180 to 220 years in today's data. That may mean a change in the Sun's cyclicity or in the Earth's rotation rate or rather a mixup of these both factors.
The Gleissberg cycle has no obvious subcycles (other than the seven basic cycles), but the 200-year cycle clearly consists of two parts of 100 years, which oscillate between 80 and 120 years and is intertwined with the Gleissberg cycle. It seems that the cycle 120/60/30 years or maybe more accurately 26.5/53/106/212 years are also weather cycles. At least at the moment (2001) the 200-year cycle seems to have a value of 211.4 years.
The following minima are minima smoothed by one sunspot cycle or 11 years (actually they are low maxima per cycle). The minima between the Sporer minimum in 1496+-1 and the Maunder minimum in 1695 is 198-200 years. The minima between the Maunder minimum and the Dalton minimum in 1815 is 120 years. There are indications of a warm spell beginning around 1755. Thus we have here a 55-60-year weather cycle: around 1870 began a cold spell which had its coldest phase around 1900, 1930's had a warm spell, 1960's had a cold spell, 1990's again a warm spell, which culminated in 1998. I predict that the Sun is now going towards low intensity, and the warm spell ends in the 2010's. The 2020's will again be a cold decade.
But everything is relative. The colder spells are not so cold as the earlier ones and warmer spells are a little warmer than the previous ones. This is caused by a larger oscillation, the 100/200/400-year oscillation. The Medieval warm lasted from about 930 to 1300, with an aftermath about 1350-1370. The Little Ice Age began after that getting a real escalation about 1400 and having two great (Sporer and Maunder) and some smaller really cold periods. After the first warm period about 1760-1800, there was the Dalton minimum from 1800 to 1830, from which we are now going again towards a warmer period, compared to the Medieval maximum.
"The disturbances of the early third century were nothing compared with what would follow the end of the Severan dynasty in 235 AD. The half century from 235 to 284 AD was a period of unparalleled crisis, during which the Roman Enmpire nearly came to an end... This is a period for which comparatively little documentation exists, but that in itself may be symptomatic... Barbarian incursions were frequent and ruinous between 248 and 268... It was Diocletian who, in a reign from 284 to his voluntary abdication in 305, quelled the barbarians, defeated usurpers, and at the same time initiated sweeping political and economic changes that transformed the nature of the Empire, and ensured its survival for a while longer... In the mid fifth century the West was gradually lost. Areas like Spain and Africa were temporarily or permanently lost to the barbarians... In 439 Vandals took Carthage... In the 20 years following the death of Valentinian III (455 AD), the Roman Army proper dwindled to nothing." (Tainter 1988, pp. 137-148).
Was there something like the Sporer minimum in the 200's and Maunder minimum in the 400's or rather vice versa as the following shows? What makes this a relevant question is that according to Schove there was only 7 cycles from 192 AD to 302 AD. This means that there most probably was 7 Jovian years plus a 27 year cessation. A real mother of all Maunders. Was this the reason for the Barbarian invasions at that time? Did they escape the terrible cold? And when the second cold spell came 200 years later, were also the Vandals attacking for the reason of the cold weather? Did the mighty Roman Army dwindle to nothing in just 20 years for this same reason?
There were 220 years between the Barbarian incursions from 230 AD to 270 AD and demise of the Roman Army after the Vandals from 450 AD to 490 AD.
Was it the warming of the climate that gave Diocletian and his followers the chance to revive The Roman Empire? There is one other historical moment whose simultaneous appearance gives this thought some credence. "The earliest inscriptions so far discovered in recognized Mayan lands are dated AD 292 and 320, dates on the threshold of the splendid Classic Period... The earliest date mentioned on inscriptions at Uaxactun is AD 328..." (Whitlock 1976). There is no known Columbus or other connector at that time between The Roman Empire and the Mayans.
Now it seems like this 100/200-year Maunder-like cyclity continued. The period of 200 years seems to oscillate between 180 and 220 years. The 220 is best approximated by 100+120 years and the 180 years by 60+120 years.
120 years of warm period passed. Then in 608 AD Euphrates froze. After the warm 700's, in 829 AD Nile froze (Cambridge CCNet 1998). The century of 800's belong to the dark ages. Again we have here 220 years.
"Another period of expansion [of the Mayas] extended from AD 731-90, when three splendid new centres were founded... Soon afterwards decline set in..." (Whitlock 1976)." "...the Maya of the Southern Lowlands, whose society underwent a rapid, dramatic, and justly famous collapse between about 790 and 890 AD." (Tainter 1988, pp. 152-153). "There is no trace of the large-scale destruction and fires which would have marked an invasion or an earth-quake." (Whitlock 1976, p. 26).
"The Norwegian farmer Folke Vilgerdson made the first attempt to settle in Iceland in about 865 AD... He lost his cattle in a severe winter and disappointed went back to Norway after having seen a fjord filled up by sea ice. Therefore he called the country Iceland. Only a few years later, in 874, Ingolf Arnason succeeded. He was followed by many others, and settlement was completed in 930 AD... In 982, Erik the Red discovered new land West of Iceland. He called it Greenland; according to the Greenlander Saga this was only to persuade people to follow him... But the O(18) curve suggests that the name described a reality... So the drastic climatic change [warming] late in the ninth century may be part of the reason why Iceland and Greenland did not get the opposite names." (Dansgaard: Palaeo-Climatic Studies on Ice Cores, in Oeschger, Messerli and Svilar, 1980).
"The beneficent times came to an end. Sea ice and stormier seas made the passages between Norway, Iceland and Greenland more difficult after AD 1200... In mainland Europe, disastrous harvests were experienced in the latter part of the thirteenth and in the early fourteenth century." (Grove 1988, pp. 1-2). The cold decades of 1680-1700 are very well documented, at least in Europe. (See for example Rothlisberger 1986). The glaciers in Alps increased, there was no good wine, harvests were a catastrophe and famine killed like the black death centuries before. Cold was also the decade of 1810-1820, including "the summer that did not come" or a "year without summer". The Tambora volcanic eruption has been accused for this summerless year 1816. Maybe it helped a little, but the cold spell had already begun from the spotless year 1810, with which Tambora had nothing to do.
If we take the Schove estimates of the maximum magnitudes (R(M)) from the period 1500-1750 and the measurements from 1750, we get (the rounding for exact centuries done only to make the general picture clear):
So the supercyclic rise is a very long process, maybe a 1000- or a 2000-cycle or even longer. The Sun seems to be much more irregular than we ever have imagined. The historical data seem to show that the 200-year oscillation has been there at least since 200 AD. The even centuries seem to be have been cold, odd ones warm, not to the accuracy of year, but in the average anyway. If a spotless sun during the third century caused the process of the Great Roman Empire demise to begin, we have to write the history books anew.
The other thing that seems apparent is that the general warming trend has been going on at least 1,800 years so that the third century AD may be the coldest century for at least 2000 years. Its only rival is the latter part of the 17th century. 1690's may have been almost as cold as the years 250 to 270. The cold periods later during the first millennium AD are more dramatical than the Little Ice Age thousand years later. On the other hand we may now live in the second mildest climate Anno Domini. Warmer periods seem to have occurred only from about 930 to 1200 AD with an interruption about 1030-1080. In mind the Roman Warm Period 1000 years earlier in mind, we may speculate that warm periods last about 350 years and really warm episodes don't exceed 100 years. Does this imply a sudden end to today's warm period in 2030-2050 (warming began in 1700, and the real warm period in 1930). This may even have greater implications to the whole Holocene climate study and possibly to ice age theories also. Considering the evidence it looks like a megalomaniac idea that the recent rise of half a degree would have been caused by man. So great are the natural variations. But man has always wanted to be in the center of the world.
One solar-based climate change may have a period of about 1050 years. There are many reports of a cold period beginning about 850BC (Geel et al.: Solar Forcing of Abrupt Climate Change around 850 Calendar Years BC), there begins around 200 AD a period of low cycles which transforms into a cold period around 230 AD (see above), consisting of a maximum length Gleissberg cycle and lastly the low periods beginning in 1200 AD (Schove) with an interruption in 1250-1280 leading to the rapid deterioration of the climate beginning about 1300 AD, which led to the end for the Medieval Maximum and for example to the demise of the Greenland habitat and forced Europeans to invent the warming system for their houses. The cold and warm period seems to have some 1000-1100 year oscillation.
More about Gleissberg cycle: click here
This AH is totally insane.
Posted by thunder pig
Monday, January 11, 2010
The Ocean Cycle Theory
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the worlds most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans challenge some of the global warming orthodoxys most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.
According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a warm mode as opposed to the present cold mode.
This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming deniers or sceptics.
However, both main British political parties continue to insist that the world is facing imminent disaster without drastic cuts in CO2.
This image of the UK taken from NASA's multi-national Terra satellite on Thursday shows the extent of the freezing weather
Last week, as Britain froze, Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband maintained in a parliamentary answer that the science of global warming was settled.
Among the most prominent of the scientists is Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been pushing the issue of man-made global warming on to the international political agenda since it was formed 22 years ago.
Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germanys Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.
He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.
Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles perhaps as much as 50 per cent.
'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.
Smashing the Greenhouse
Pray for America’s Freedom
What planet are these people living on?
>> Is there anyone as stupid as this POTUS?
This has nothing to do with Obama’s intellect or judgment. It’s about pushing Socialism forward. It’s about persistence.
“Is there anyone as stupid as this POTUS?”
Sure. His handlers and henchmen and all his allies in both houses of Congress. Then there are all the true believers who think everything he says and does is right as rain...that he could do no wrong.
And we will be stupid if we continue to elect the same old idiots to Congress this year.
What planet are these people living on?
Forrest Gump is a genius compared to Barrak Gump.
You won’t regret it... :-)
Certainly not in the public eye. Most idiots know how to lie low...at least Obama got the "lie" part down pat.
Fixed for accuracy.
It all makes sense when you understand that it has nothing to do with climate. That is a but a convenient cover for what they really desire: Power. Money. Control.
I’m starting to wonder if Obama is trying to throw the midterms and the 2012 election. The timing of this announcement is even more idiotic than the religion of the Warmers. He couldn’t wait for a nice, sunny, unseasonably warm day to make the announcement, as opposed to a day when Washington DC is under 3 feet of snow?
Maybe Barry has placed big bets on Intrade that the GOP will take Congress in the November elections.
Well, none of the other agencies have been able to make the earth warm up.
Thanks for the great information.
Just think of all the jobs created and saved by this worthy endeavor.
oh yeah..just what we need.
Another damn agency when what we REALLY need is to abolish the OTHER 117 agencies full of deadwood.
Maybe Obama should have to shovel his own “driveway”..... then it would hit him that the snow is “real”.
This has nothing to do with Obamas intellect or judgment. Its about pushing Socialism forward. Its about persistence.
Yeah, that's right. And that's how the "problem" should be approached... and not on the basis that someone is stupid or intellectually-challenged (LOL...), because in this case, that's not the problem... :-)
Maybe Obama should have to shovel his own driveway..... then it would hit him that the snow is real.
LOL... but if you look at the calendar, you'll see it's still "Winter" -- and I don't know about you, but I figure to get snow in winter... :-)
Yep - it's as real as global warming, the Club of Rome, the population bomb, global freezing, nuclear winter and all the other liberal bullsh*t.
I agree, but man has zero, zilch, nada to do with it.
Obama Proposes New Global Warming Agency because the federal government just isn’t big enough already /sarc
>> and not on the basis that someone is stupid or intellectually-challenged (LOL...)
Are “you saying” the advancement of Socialism is inconsequential when realized through stupidity?
Are you saying the advancement of Socialism is inconsequential when realized through stupidity?
I'm saying that the people who are in charge of advancing it are not the stupid ones... LOL...
Gotcha. The hysteria was throwing me off :)
A federal agency appointed by Obama will find that there is man made global warming and that we need global socialism to combat it.
A federal agency appointed by a Republican would find the opposite.
A bureaucracy can not do science and neither can scientists supported by political funding. We have NWS, NOAA, NASA and many more and still we need another government agency? I’m sure that to ensure that there will be a fair result, a former vice-president will head it.
Healthcare, cap and tax, and don’t ask don’t tell are all pending and Obama wants a new agency on global warming? Next will be amnesty. I guess Obama figures that if the American people eat bullfrogs the first year he’s in office, that we’ll develop a taste for them.
....Please make it stop.
I can't handle any more nonesense, it makes my head hurt...