Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Whatever Happened to Global Warming?
New American ^ | Thursday, 05 February 2009 | Ed Hiserodt

Posted on 02/07/2009 8:42:10 PM PST by Delacon

Now that record-cold temperatures across the globe are making a mockery of human-caused global warming, we look to see if this is merely a "weather hiccup."

Judge: Counselor, do you have anything to say before I pronounce sentence on the accused?

Attorney: Yes, your honor. Might I remind you that the victim my client was accused of murdering showed up earlier and is very much alive, sitting there in the front row?

Judge: Sir, this court does not deal in trivialities.

Attorney: But your honor, I'd respectfully suggest that since there is no victim, there has been no crime and my client is obviously innocent.

Judge: Counselor, you are very close to being in contempt of this court. I am the one who determines guilt or innocence here and your client is going to hang.

Attorney: But judge ...


In 1970, I recall New Orleans schoolchildren taking a 185-mile field trip to Jackson, Mississippi, so students might experience something they had never seen before: snow. This year they didn't have to bother, as Southern Louisiana was blanketed with four inches of the white stuff, the first major snow in 45 years, and only two inches shy of the all-time record of six inches set in 1895. It was also the earliest snow since record keeping began in 1850.

Not to be outdone, Las Vegas checked in with what local meteorologist Jerome Jacquest said was the most snow since 1979. With no snow removal or de-icing equipment, the airport was closed along with most roads. Gambling, however, was not affected.

Snow wasn't the only problem. Freezing temperatures in Denver set a new low of minus 18, eclipsing a record from 1901. White Sulfur Springs, Montana, reported 29 below, shredding the previous record mark of minus 17, set in 1922. For the week of December 15, 2008 alone, HAM Weather Service reports 1,537 record low temperatures in the United States and 1,110 record snowfalls — not exactly what one would expect while on the way to climate catastrophe owing to global warming.

Weather watchers know this isn't just an anomaly or freak occurrence. For the past 10 years, the summers have been cooler and the winters more severe. In Little Rock, for example, a chart in the newspaper shows there have been five consecutive months with average temperatures below normal. Since Little Rock is situated near the geographical center of the country, one would suspect that this is not an unusual condition, and indeed, such a suspicion is borne out by satellite measurements that cover the entire globe and are not subject to the "urban heat island" effect that has been shown to add as much as 10°F to recording stations in urban areas as compared to rural counterparts. An NBC crew sent out to show the Northwest Passage was ice free had their icebreaker stranded for three weeks because of thick ice.

With such obvious disputations of "global warming," one might also suspect that the convictions of some honest, objective members of the weather establishment would begin to waver — after seeing the victim alive and sitting in the courtroom.

Tip of the Iceberg

And in fact, it is apparent that more than just a few experts are wavering. When the news was reported of a British court announcing that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth was unfit for school "because it is politically biased and contains scientific inaccuracies and sentimental mush," CNN meteorologist Rob Marciano — who was off-camera preparing to give the weather report — applauded and said, "Finally, finally!" He was particularly incensed that Gore blamed Hurricane Katrina on anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW). During the period of December marked by low temperatures, mentioned above, CNN severe-weather expert Chad Meyer commented during Lou Dobbs Tonight, "You know, to think we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant."

In a July 18, 2008 widely circulated article entitled "No Smoking Hot Spot," Australian Greenhouse Office scientist David Evans came out of the global-warming skeptics' closet. Although having written the carbon accounting model used to measure Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, Evans was wrestling with a problem: the greenhouse-gas signature is missing. If CO2 is the cause of global warming, then it must be absorbing solar energy and warming the air, which in turn warms the surface. Both alarmists and skeptics agree that all models predict a "hot spot" at 10 kilometers above the tropics. But there is no such hot spot. Quoting Evans:

We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes — weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever. If there is no hot spot, then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature, then I would be an alarmist again.

The Rest of the Iceberg

A U.S. Senate minority report entitled More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims, subtitled Scientists Continue to Debunk "Consensus" in 2008, was released on December 11, 2008. [The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has made available a downloadable PDF of the full report at their minority website http://epw.senate.gov/minority/. Click on "White Papers and Reports"; the PDF is listed as "Senate Minority Report 2."] These 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the 52 government-supported scientists who gave us the 2007 Summary for Policy Makers — the abbreviated version of the climate assessment by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — to which the major media looks adoringly for news about global warming. (There were, however, diplomats from 115 countries aiding the IPCC, making sure the warnings produced the greatest gloom and fear.)

The Senate report includes names, biographies, academic institutional affiliations, and quotes from hundreds of international scientists who have publicly dissented against man-made climate fears. Here are a few condensed remarks typical of the group as a whole:

• "I am a skeptic.... Global warming has become a new religion." — Nobel Prize winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

• "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.... As a scientist I remain skeptical.... The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system." — Atmospheric scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been named "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."

• Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in ... history.... When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." — UN IPCC Japanese scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

• "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds.... I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." — Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia of Punjab University, a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

• "So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming." — Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications, and former Greenpeace member.

• "Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time." — Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior adviser to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

• "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." — U.S. Government atmospheric scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

• "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" — Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130-plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

• "The 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities." — Award-winning NASA astronaut/geologist and moonwalker Jack Schmitt, who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and is formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey.

International Panel on Climate Change

The IPCC, the entity that has generated the go-to documents that politicians and most media turn to for global-warming proclamations, doesn't have the credibility of the dissenters. The IPCC was formed in 1988 by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization. It is a single-purpose, single-interest organization. The entire reason for the IPCC's being is to provide evidence for anthropogenic global warming. Had it not been for the IPCC's activities, it is unlikely you would have ever heard the terms "global warming" or "climate change."

The IPCC has issued four "assessments" about the likelihood of AGW — in 1991, 1996, 2001, and 2007 — and the likely effects around the world should catastrophic warming occur. These assessments are typically 800 pages or so in length and (except for the last one) without indices, making them virtually worthless for any but the most dedicated reader. But one might not bother reading them anyway, as the importance of the reports is completely eclipsed by the "Summary for Policy Makers" (SPM) — or as some would suggest, Summary by Policy Makers. This document is what is released to the media and, as we shall see, is often quite different from the report itself.

Let us look at how the IPCC "Summary for Policy Makers" handled the assessments written by committees of scientists. The following are statements from the original document of the second IPCC report (1996), which had been approved by the scientific writers' committees. The first statement says: "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

That's pretty clear, so how about this one: "No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of climate change observed to date) to anthropogenic (manmade) causes."

There's not any waffling there, so let's look at one more: "Any claims of positive change of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total nature variability of the climate system are reduced."

As Al Gore would say, that is "UN-EE-QUIV-o-cal."

Yet the three statements above were removed by the political influences, and in their place was substituted: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, in a June 12, 1996 letter to the Wall Street Journal, accused the IPCC of censoring the scientific content of the assessment report to agree with a position favored by bureaucrats, governments, and NGOs. Said Seitz: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the re-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."

The bias of the IPCC was established by the lead editor of the first three IPCC reports, Sir John Houghton, who set the tone for the organization with the statement, "Unless we announce disaster, no one will listen." If you've been hired by the United Nations to provide evidence of global warming, you can't be pussyfooting around with statements that suggest it is not only unproven but well might not be happening at all. One is certainly comforted by such objectivity.

The IPCC and the Temperature Record

There is general agreement that the last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago. With the temperature some 20°F below today's norms and continuing that way for about 100,000 years, some 400 feet of the oceans' depth evaporated, fell as snow, was compressed into ice and covered the Northern United States to an estimated depth of one mile. With intermittent backslides and pauses, the Earth has generally been warming since that time. Yet the warming alarmists would have us believe that the warming that we have experienced recently is unprecedented, human-caused, and likely catastrophic. Oh really?

About 7,000 years ago, a warm period known as the Holocene Optimum coincided with the time that agriculture arose worldwide that, in turn, ushered in the Bronze Age. It is a period the IPCC simply ignores, as temperatures then were much warmer than their worst predictions under CO2-generated warming, yet catastrophe did not ensue. Polar bears had been around for the previous 190,000 years and survived the Holocene Optimum quite nicely, thank you very much.

After a few ups and downs, another warm period called the Roman Optimum is considered by historians to be a large factor in the rise of the Roman civilization, as society had the ability to produce more food than required to sustain the farmers, thus allowing others to construct the infrastructure of roads, buildings, and aqueducts upon which the empire was built. The Dark Ages, on the other hand, may not have been dark, but they were cold.

Then warmth came back in the form of what we call the Medieval Warm Period in about 950 A.D., known by historians as the Age of the Cathedrals. The Medieval Warm Period presents problems for alarmists because it can't be simply ignored. It is easy to prove that it was warmer than today. Not only do temperature proxies such as ice cores show it, but the flourishing Viking civilization on Greenland confirms it. Land that today is frozen solid then supported cattle, pigs, sheep, and goats for the "settlers."

Existence of the Greenland civilization is a source of embarrassment to the global warmers as it leads to a logical inconsistency:

Q. Was Greenland warmer during the period 950 A.D. to 1450 A.D. than it is today?

A. Without question. Crops and pastures were grown where today is permanently frozen ground.

Q. Could this be a localized temperature anomaly?

A. Only if such an anomaly can stay around for approximately 500 years.

Q. Were port cities such as London and Venice flooded by high sea levels during this period of high temperatures — temperatures several degrees higher than today?

A. No. [The Tower of London was built in 1078 A.D. on the north bank of the River Thames, a few feet above the high tide mark. Today it remains a few feet above the high tide mark.]

Q. So why would one expect them to be flooded today if temperatures rose considerably, to the level that would allow agriculture again in Greenland?

A. Duh. Because Al Gore said so?

Sadly for our ancestors, the warm climate didn't last. Europe experienced a prolonged cold, wet spell, causing crop failures and famine. Always being on the verge of starvation resulted in a general weakness that is thought to have prolonged and exacerbated the "black death," which killed approximately half of Europe's population. This cool period — from which many climatologists consider the Earth to be still emerging — is known as the Little Ice Age. It too is a difficult period to explain away, as there are records of "frost fairs" on the Thames in London from the early 1600s to 1814, with ice on the order of 11 inches thick supporting tents, wagons, and even a visiting elephant. Since temperatures obviously have been increasing for several hundred years, is it so unusual for them to still be increasing? (Except that they're not.)

In North America the weather was cold enough for New York harbor to freeze so that one could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. During the Civil War, army reports indicated that in Little Rock, for several weeks each year, wagon teams could cross the iced-over Arkansas River, something no one alive today has ever seen.

The period between about 1645 and 1715 was particularly cold and coincides with the Maunder Minimum, where only about 50 sunspots appeared, compared to an expectation of from 40,000 to 50,000. (More sunspots mean greater solar activity. See sidebar on page 16.)

Summing up, the Medieval Warm Period was far warmer than the temperatures global-warming alarmists expect us to reach, without any of the catastrophes predicted by alarmists, and the Little Ice Age clearly shows that Earth had a cold spell from which it has been warming for some 200 years, benefiting plant, animal, and human existence on Earth. Enter the "hockey stick."

The Hockey Stick

The term "hockey stick" refers to the shape of a 1998 graph of temperature versus time as displayed by global warmers Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcom Hughes. It performs several amazing functions for the alarmists, namely:

• Eliminates the Medieval Warm Period;

• Eliminates the Little Ice Age; and

• Shows recent temperatures to be rising catastrophically.

It was a blessing for the IPCC and, according to Christopher Monckton — writer and producer of the informative and entertaining video Apocalypse? NO! [Apocalypse? NO! is available from the Science & Public Policy Institute, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/.] — the hockey stick was used in full color no fewer than six times in the 2001 IPCC assessment report.

Unfortunately for Mann et al., two Canadians were suspicious of their results and finally were able to obtain sufficient information to challenge the methodology that produced the "convenient" graph. Businessman Steven McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick examined the construction and use of the data set of proxies for past climate that Mann had used to estimate the temperature from 1400 to 1980 and found collation errors, unjustified truncation and extrapolation, use of obsolete data, and calculation mistakes.

Global alarmists challenged the challengers, and the matter was taken to the Academy of Sciences and to a panel headed by Edward Wegman of George Mason University, commissioned by the U.S. Congress. Both referees found in favor of McIntyre over Mann. The Wegman panel fully endorsed the findings of McIntyre and McKitrick. "The NAS panel," as Christopher Horner puts it in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, "specifically repudiated three-fourths of Mann's record, specifically accused the IPCC of misrepresentation, and specifically accused the Mann team of down-playing historical uncertainties." Nonetheless, the once-proud and respected Nature magazine brazenly opined, "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph."

All of these investigations had been completed and were well known by early summer of 2006. Nonetheless, Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, not released until late November 2006, used the hockey stick as the centerpiece of his argument.

Goodbye Free-market Capitalism

If the IPCC and internationalists everywhere were content to let global warming remain an object of discussion and monitoring, its pronouncements would likely inspire the same type of humor as that elicited by an eccentric old uncle who tells about inventing the light bulb and sailing on the Titanic, but such is not the case. They want (demand) worldwide changes - decreasing levels of CO2 emissions through a worldwide cap-and-trade system for CO2. It is difficult to imagine any policy more destructive to our economy than "cap and trade." Today's bailouts are horrid and give government an equity stake in businesses — about as socialist as you can get. But "cap and trade" would gut the very system that has made the United States the wealthiest country in the world.

While there are a number of plans under discussion, most have the same basic elements:

• The government, or governments, would issue "carbon certificates" allowing a commercial or industrial user to consume a specified amount of carbon-based fuel. [Programs to extend this to individuals are already well underway in EU countries.] The total amount would be less than the currently used amount, making these instruments instantly valuable. If, for example, a manufacturer desired to expand or continue production (since the number of existing credits would be continually reduced to meet some Kyoto-type protocol), he would be required to purchase them from another manufacturer or on "the open market."

• The "open market" — the reason Ken Lay and Enron were such fans of global-warming alarmism — could be anywhere in the world. A self-coronated potentate from Cowabunga, Africa, might sell the credits he is given by an international body for not destroying a rain forest (formerly known as a jungle) to an American entrepreneur who wanted to open a shoestring repair business. Or an up-and-coming corporate executive might see a huge profit from moving his manufacturing plant to a Third World country (with no carbon certificate requirements), benefiting nicely from sales of the carbon credits obtained by closing his U.S.-based manufacturing plant.

The possibilities for corruption are endless. It would make all U.S. enterprises beggars to controllers of the carbon-credit apparatus. Carbon producers would become de jure criminals, and de facto criminals would become rich and powerful. Competition for the ever-decreasing credits would increase their value and the power the issuers had over our entire energy-dependent economy.

But in Our Arsenal ...

Saving the day may be a new organization, the NIPCC — the NON-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change. It has hundreds of scientists with varying backgrounds to show its objectivity. With bulldog Dr. S. Fred Singer at the helm, one should feel confident that the position of skeptics to climatic catastrophe will be well upheld.

Underpinning the global realism rebellion is the Petition Project of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Now with signed petitions from over 31,000 scientists with a minimum of a bachelor's degree, but including over 9,000 Ph.D.s, it is a force to be reckoned with now and in the future as the battle lines are drawn between skeptics and alarmists. For more information or to check on qualifications go to www.petitionproject.org.

If you want to hear from the finest minds on the subject of climate change, you should hurry to make reservations for the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change sponsored by the Heartland Institute in New York City on March 8-10. For the second year, TNA plans to be there for interviews with national and international speakers. For more information or reservations, contact ncomerford@heartland.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or call 312-377-4000.

Humor: Bane of the Absurd

More and more people worldwide are asking, "Hey, I'm freezing my buns off and the weather is getting cooler every year. But I'm going to have to change my lifestyle and reduce my standard of living because 52 scientist-lackeys say that carbon dioxide is causing global warming? Give me a break." The emperor has no clothes, and it's up to us to reinforce what is already known. Let us take every opportunity to ask, "Whatever Happened to Global Warming?" and at the same time point out that it's not a sin against the planet to drive an SUV or burn a peat bog. And — one last fact — in geologic time, our present level of CO2 is relatively low compared to earlier levels that were some 12 times the amount of concern to alarmists. Plants were very happy then, and oceans didn't boil away. Remember, plants thrive on CO2 — "Trees Love SUVs."



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: climatechange; globalwarming; hockeystick; ipcc; michaelmann; tna

1 posted on 02/07/2009 8:42:10 PM PST by Delacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith; xcamel; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; neverdem

ping


2 posted on 02/07/2009 8:43:05 PM PST by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

“Global warming” hysteria is a seasonal thing. Algore and his band of bozos have toned it down until summer.


3 posted on 02/07/2009 8:45:11 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer ( Elections have consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

It’s global climate change. Warming, cooling and staying the same are caused by Chevrolet Suburbans.

Get with program and pay up......


4 posted on 02/07/2009 8:46:08 PM PST by ButThreeLeftsDo (FR......Monthly Donors Wanted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

It has been cold. It’s just ‘climate change’ now. Send them your money. Be green.


5 posted on 02/07/2009 8:46:09 PM PST by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
In the Winter it's “Climate Change” but in the Summer it's “Global Warming”.
6 posted on 02/07/2009 8:46:38 PM PST by tobyhill (Obama gets no free pass from Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ButThreeLeftsDo

“It’s global climate change. Warming, cooling and staying the same are caused by Chevrolet Suburbans.”

Its all Gorebullwarming to me.


7 posted on 02/07/2009 8:49:36 PM PST by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

Placemark for later.


8 posted on 02/07/2009 8:50:27 PM PST by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

They are running this silly crap on the history channel now.Man, you just cant get away from this nonsense.Over to the speed channel.Its my last hope.


9 posted on 02/07/2009 8:52:47 PM PST by HANG THE EXPENSE (Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

The Global Warming Hoax is our most powerful weapon against the socialists in charge. In every communication with gov officials — including resistance to the stimulus, we should include a statement that all goverment regulations of CO2 must be cut as CO2 is not causing global warming and all effots to control CO2 emissions reveal an un-American proposal to cripple the US economy for other reasons.


10 posted on 02/07/2009 8:59:10 PM PST by Bhoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

I really find it difficult to understand why you insist on insulting the elite few that can grasp the global warming concept. If you had any intelligence you would clearly see the correlation that any temperature fluctuations, or stagnation are the result of global warming. It only gets worse by the hour. Just 5 hours ago we were blanketed in global warming and it was 5pm, it is now 10pm and its definatly colder mainly because of global warming.

I hope you can get your pea brain wrapped around this before its too late. Even 10am will be too late, by then we will be in the middle of global warming and temperatures will be rising, by 6pm the global warming will be so awful that the temperatures will be dropping.

/sarc


11 posted on 02/07/2009 9:05:14 PM PST by pennyfarmer (Shiite Muslim named Bob.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pennyfarmer

I love this part:

Existence of the Greenland civilization is a source of embarrassment to the global warmers as it leads to a logical inconsistency:

Q. Was Greenland warmer during the period 950 A.D. to 1450 A.D. than it is today?

A. Without question. Crops and pastures were grown where today is permanently frozen ground.

Q. Could this be a localized temperature anomaly?

A. Only if such an anomaly can stay around for approximately 500 years.

Q. Were port cities such as London and Venice flooded by high sea levels during this period of high temperatures — temperatures several degrees higher than today?

A. No. [The Tower of London was built in 1078 A.D. on the north bank of the River Thames, a few feet above the high tide mark. Today it remains a few feet above the high tide mark.]

Q. So why would one expect them to be flooded today if temperatures rose considerably, to the level that would allow agriculture again in Greenland?

A. Duh. Because Al Gore said so?


12 posted on 02/07/2009 9:16:51 PM PST by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

AllBore is a bloated fool and should return his Nobel Prize money for his falsehoods.


13 posted on 02/07/2009 9:20:12 PM PST by jws3sticks (Hillary can take a very long walk on a very short pier, anytime, and the sooner the better!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pennyfarmer

“I never was a very good english student”

What you meant to say was that you were never a good student of english. Unless, of course, you were schooled in England. ;)


14 posted on 02/07/2009 9:20:58 PM PST by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: allmost

Bttt


15 posted on 02/07/2009 10:41:02 PM PST by feedback doctor (The first female president will be a Conservative Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

God will NOT be MOCKED!! It’s FREEZING EVERYWHERE because people of Uber Hubris convinced other people that WE could CONTROL the temperature.....God said “you THINK so”.


16 posted on 02/08/2009 2:26:12 AM PST by Ann Archy (Abortion.....The Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

The simple fact is this:
A drastic warming OR a drastic cooling would have monumental, cataclysmic effects on man.

But between the two, cooling would be far, far more disastrous. A twelve month period of cooling could kill five billion people.

Man cannot make it happen or stop it from happening.


17 posted on 02/08/2009 2:37:43 AM PST by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon; pennyfarmer
What you meant to say was that you were never a good student of english.

Actually I think what Delacon meant to say was that you were never a good student of English.

All in fun, but I couldn't resist. :)

18 posted on 02/08/2009 4:53:18 AM PST by TN4Liberty (The first amendment doesn't end with "...as long as nobody is offended.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Delacon; Desdemona; rdl6989; Little Bill; IrishCatholic; Normandy; ...
 




Beam me to Planet Gore !

19 posted on 02/08/2009 5:25:39 AM PST by steelyourfaith (BO has been POTUS two weeks and I still have to buy my gas and pay my mortgage. What's up with that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
Lysenkoism for the 21st Century placemarker.
20 posted on 02/08/2009 5:47:27 AM PST by headsonpikes (Genocide is the highest sacrament of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
"You know, to think we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant."

Something that I have pointed out repeatedly.

The earth is very large and we are very small. We can change somethings locally but even there eventually nature will have her way.

21 posted on 02/08/2009 5:52:47 AM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Faith Manages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

If elevated CO2 levels drive global warming shouldn’t we see a temperature spike immediately following WW-II when when tons of CO2 were pumped into the stratosphere by thousands of aircraft and whole cities were burning world wide? The “hockey stick hypothesis” also does not explain why much of the northern hemisphere of this planet was covered not once but several times by glaciers which then subsequently melted. Clearly this was the result of massive global cooling and global warming that could not have been caused by human activity. Doesn’t this suggest that some other powerful force of climate change exists over which humans have no influence?


22 posted on 02/08/2009 6:39:16 AM PST by The Great RJ ("Mir we bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

Apparently Al "the boob" Gore defeated it. Good work Al. Now get going solving that pesky continental drift problem plaguing California.

23 posted on 02/08/2009 7:00:55 AM PST by MosesKnows (Love many, Trust few, and always paddle your own canoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

What happened to Global Warming? The same thing that happened to the Social Security Lockbox.


24 posted on 02/08/2009 7:04:14 AM PST by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aflaak

ping


25 posted on 02/08/2009 9:51:54 AM PST by r-q-tek86 (The U.S. Constitution may be flawed, but it's a whole lot better than what we have now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf

True and its a fact that we are in an interglacial warm period that has lasted over 11k years. Interglacial periods average 10k years and are followed by glacial(iceage) periods that average 100k years. We are overdue for an iceage. It is ironic and entirely possible that when we start to enter the coming iceage we will respond to it by PUMPING as much CO2 into the atomosphere as we can.


26 posted on 02/08/2009 10:33:35 AM PST by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Great cast of characters in this debunking the GW scandal.....ping


27 posted on 02/08/2009 10:56:19 AM PST by BIGLOOK (Keelhaul Congress! It's the sensible solution to restore Command to the People.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK; Delacon; cogitator; steelyourfaith; xcamel; Robert A. Cook, PE; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; ...
I liked this part:

In a July 18, 2008 widely circulated article entitled "No Smoking Hot Spot," Australian Greenhouse Office scientist David Evans came out of the global-warming skeptics' closet. Although having written the carbon accounting model used to measure Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, Evans was wrestling with a problem: the greenhouse-gas signature is missing. If CO2 is the cause of global warming, then it must be absorbing solar energy and warming the air, which in turn warms the surface. Both alarmists and skeptics agree that all models predict a "hot spot" at 10 kilometers above the tropics. But there is no such hot spot. Quoting Evans:

We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes — weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever. If there is no hot spot, then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature, then I would be an alarmist again.

One thousand years prior to 1850, (CO2) levels remained steady at 280 ppm.

So the Medieval Warm Period starting about 950 A.D. and the Maunder Minimum, 1645 - 1715, enjoyed a stable CO2 conentration. It's currently 380 ppm.

Even if man was entirely responsible for all of the increase, ignoring volcano activity and degassing from the oceans as surface water warmed, the difference is equivalent to one part in ten thousand.

The latest crisis du jour - ocean acidification due to anthropogenic CO2 - is out of sync anthropogenic global warming, i.e. warmer water contains less CO2 than colder water.

There's something driving the argument, but it's not science. It's fear mongering, money, bogus climate models and power lust dressed up as the precautionary principle.

28 posted on 02/08/2009 3:58:45 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Valkyrie927

ping


29 posted on 02/08/2009 4:28:50 PM PST by syriacus (Obama's stimulus doesn't REALLY give us a chicken in every pot. It gives us a pig in every poke.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delacon; OKSooner; honolulugal; Killing Time; Beowulf; Mr. Peabody; RW_Whacko; gruffwolf; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

FReepmail me to get on or off

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Climate Research News

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

GREENIE WATCH

Ping me if you find one I've missed.


Worth a look...
30 posted on 02/08/2009 6:28:25 PM PST by xcamel (The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem


Hi! I'm Algore!

As you know the biggest threat to humanity is Global Warming. For centuries now, we have been profligate in our use of coal and petroleum products to produce energy to heat our homes, cook our food and provide means of transportation. While these are desirable, they're also harmful to ourselves and our environment. It's time we all pitched in to do something about the monstrous problem we've created in our daily lives.

I'm here to give you all the latest program I proposed to President Obama to combat the nefarious effects of Global Warming.. I'm glad to say he's been thoughtful and gracious by receiving my program with heartfelt enthusiasm. He offered to do his part in this endeavor by signing an Executive Order saving the energy that would be spent if it were submitted to congress. This is a wise decision by one who appreciates the effects Warming has on his environment.

It's simple. All that each of us has to do (unless you are a government official, a member in good standing in the NEA, ILWU, UAW, Teamsters, DNC, ACLU, PETA, or ACORN) is pay a small fee on the estimated BTUs (British Thermal Units) that you've created by using petroleum products (i.e. heating oil, gasoline, aviation gas, propane) or charcoal and wood for stoves and BBQ grills. While these methods that have traditionally been used to obtain energy, they are soon to be out dated by more benign to the environment means like solar and wind power. Really, Folks. it's like a walk in the park to get to the next level.

Since we'll be using the British Thermal Unit to calculate energy consumption, we're calling this the Spirit of 1774 Fee on Energy. That has a nice ring to it, doesn't it. Our idea is to bring back the wonderful and vibrant spirit that existed in America before it became the polluting, consuming decadence that society has become today.

I've talked with my friend John Edwards about the blight that has taken place in our beloved south, of bar b cues from the neighbor across the road, a smoke house to cure a ham, lights burning till 9 pm. John agreed with me that this sort of thing was too much, So he sued the offender and picked up the property for 30 cents on the dollar value. This however is a far cry from the environmental and monetary damage done by that individual to the environment. All this action is avoidable under my plan to circumvent litigious confrontations by you the concerned citizen pitching in a few dollars a week to combat Global Warming.

The most recent pioneers of this effort to control energy expenditure and conserve our climate came from the Heartland of America! God Bless the residents of Kentucky, Arkansas and Missouri for showing us the way!


(Hope some will recognize satire.....but you never know.)
31 posted on 02/08/2009 6:41:50 PM PST by BIGLOOK (Keelhaul Congress! It's the sensible solution to restore Command to the People.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: imahawk
Over to the speed channel.Its my last hope.

Sorry, they are racing Toyota Priuses now.

32 posted on 02/09/2009 1:28:33 AM PST by palmer (Some third party malcontents don't like Palin because she is a true conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: palmer

All thats left is pinks and passtime.


33 posted on 02/09/2009 4:38:48 AM PST by HANG THE EXPENSE (Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Regarding Evans:

Tropical troposphere trends

Summary: a predilection is augmented when a preconceived bias is confirmed. Evans leaped before he looked.

So the Medieval Warm Period starting about 950 A.D. and the Maunder Minimum, 1645 - 1715, enjoyed a stable CO2 conentration. It's currently 380 ppm.

In the absence of anthropogenic forcing factors, there will still be an influence from natural forcing factors.

Even if man was entirely responsible for all of the increase, ignoring volcano activity and degassing from the oceans as surface water warmed, the difference is equivalent to one part in ten thousand.

Man is nearly entirely responsible for the increase. I like the coffee analogy. When you're pouring a cup of coffee, the stream of coffee looks fairly transparent. Look into the cup, though, and it's nearly opaque. The light-absorbing properties of the coffee are accentuated by the thickness of the absorbing layer; in this case, the depth of coffee in the cup. Even if you make the coffee only slightly stronger, in the cup it will look a lot darker, because that slight increase in concentration affects light absorption over the entire depth of the cup.

You can have fun with these:

Effect of Concentration (also do the next one, Beer's Law)

The latest crisis du jour - ocean acidification due to anthropogenic CO2 - is out of sync anthropogenic global warming, i.e. warmer water contains less CO2 than colder water.

That effect is insignificant compared to the amount of carbon being absorbed by oceanic waters, which is causing the acidification.

34 posted on 02/10/2009 8:50:24 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Man is nearly entirely responsible for the increase.

There has been little increase since the 19th century. This interglacial is CO2-poor compared to the rest of geological history. We don't have nearly enough atmospheric CO2. We're only slightly above the amount needed to support plant growth. The largest effect on temperature is between 0 and about 100 ppm. We could triple atmospheric CO2 and have an effect on temperatures that would amount only to tenths of a degree Celsius.
35 posted on 02/10/2009 8:59:16 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
There has been little increase since the 19th century.

40%.

This interglacial is CO2-poor compared to the rest of geological history.

I really only think it's valid to compare to the Pleistocene. Previous epochs had different climate factors in play. The period prior to the Pleistocene was the Pliocene. From: The Climate of the Pliocene: Simulating Earth's Last Great Warm Period

"The Pliocene epoch covers the period from approximately 5 to 1.8 million years ago and, as such, spanned the period of time during which the Earth transitioned from relatively warm climates to the generally cooler climates of the Pleistocene. This transition included the emergence of the direct ancestors of humankind and contains the beginnings of cyclic Northern Hemisphere glaciation."

We could triple atmospheric CO2 and have an effect on temperatures that would amount only to tenths of a degree Celsius.

Don't know where you're getting your numbers. Most estimates put the direct warming effect of a doubling of CO2 at about 0.8 - 1.0 deg C, with increased atmospheric water vapor adding 2 - 4 deg C on top of that.

(Don't want to disappoint you but I'm calling it a night.)

36 posted on 02/10/2009 9:18:20 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
That effect is insignificant compared to the amount of carbon being absorbed by oceanic waters, which is causing the acidification.

How is it "being absorbed by oceanic waters," when the water is already saturated with it? It's going to supersaturate a trace gas at higher temperature and lower pressure?

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well‑known but under‑appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2‑rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere.

37 posted on 02/10/2009 9:42:50 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
There has been little increase since the 19th century. 40%.

40% over a cherry-picked low number. As far as comparing today's climate to that of the Pleistocene goes, at least that would be comparing it to something that actually existed rather than using climate models that don't represent reality at all.
38 posted on 02/11/2009 4:43:26 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
40% over a cherry-picked low number.

To clarify, 40% higher than the peak values for the Pleistocene and the Holocene, prior to significant impact due to human activities. I.e., 40% higher than interglacial atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The reason I noted the 40% is that very few people would consider a 40% increase "little".

As far as comparing today's climate to that of the Pleistocene goes, at least that would be comparing it to something that actually existed rather than using climate models that don't represent reality at all.

Models were not mentioned.

39 posted on 02/12/2009 9:20:46 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
How is it "being absorbed by oceanic waters," when the water is already saturated with it? It's going to supersaturate a trace gas at higher temperature and lower pressure?

Cold ocean waters (particularly where the wind blows hard) absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Warm waters where the wind doesn't blow hard release it. The data below is based on hundreds of pCO2 measurements taken in the atmosphere and the surface ocean.

The net result is absorption. Glad you know chemistry; then you know what a buffer system is. The reason that oceanic pH is about 8.2 (at the surface) is due to the supersaturation -- with respect to CaCO3, not with respect to CO2 -- of ocean waters. Calcium ion is essentially constant. The three players in the oceanic carbonate system are carbonic acid (unstable), bicarbonate ion, and carbonate ion. When CO2 gets absorbed by ocean waters, this happens:

CO2 + H2O <----> H2CO3 (carbonic acid) <----> H+ + HCO3-

The equilibrium shifts toward bicarbonate, and that releases H+. And that's acidification.

Another way to state it (more complexily) is this way, which I pilfered:

"Most of the carbon in seawater is in the form of HCO3-, while the concentrations of CO32- and dissolved CO2 are one and two orders of magnitude lower, respectively. The equilibrium reaction for CO2 chemistry in seawater that most cogently captures its behavior is

CO2 + CO32- + H2O == 2 HCO3-

where I am using double equal signs as double arrows, denoting chemical equilibrium. Since this is a chemical equilibrium, le Chatelier’s principle states that a perturbation, by say the addition of CO2, will cause the equilibrium to shift in such a way as to minimize the perturbation. In this case, it moves to the right. The concentration of CO2 goes up, while the concentration of CO32- goes down. The concentration of HCO3- goes up a bit, but there is so much HCO3- that the relative change in HCO3- is smaller than the changes are for CO2 and CO32-. It works out in the end that CO2 and CO32- are very nearly inversely related to each other, as if CO2 times CO32- equaled a constant.

Coral reefs are built from limestone by the reaction Ca2+ + CO32- == CaCO3, where Ca is calcium. Acidifying the ocean decreases the concentration of CO32- ions, which by le Chatelier’s principle shifts the equilibrium toward the left, tending to dissolve CaCO3. Note that this is a sort of counter-intuitive result, that adding CO2 should make reefs dissolve rather than pushing carbon into making more reefs. It’s all because of those H+ ions."

OK, back to my comments: if you really want to get into ocean chemistry, you actually have to consider how the TCO2 and the total alkalinity shift when CO2 is absorbed. But the basics of the process only involve the carbonate system.

BTW, I'm not sure what your quote has to do with this. But if you really want to get into this, the following is a pretty good paper to start with:

The oceanic sink for carbon dioxide

40 posted on 02/12/2009 9:49:03 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Cold ocean waters (particularly where the wind blows hard) absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Warm waters where the wind doesn't blow hard release it.

So in the tropics where ocean acidification is hypothesized as the cause of coral reef degradation is not the effect of atmospheric CO2 due to human activity. That ocean water is releasing CO2 absorbed ages ago. It shifts your equation to the left. The surface waters in the tropics release CO2.

CO2 + H2O <----> H2CO3 (carbonic acid) <----> H+ + HCO3-

41 posted on 02/13/2009 12:07:23 AM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
To clarify, 40% higher than the peak values for the Pleistocene and the Holocene, prior to significant impact due to human activities. I.e., 40% higher than interglacial atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The reason I noted the 40% is that very few people would consider a 40% increase "little".

Well, 19th century average atmospheric CO2 was 335ppm. So an increase to 380ppm is about 13%.
42 posted on 02/13/2009 7:49:59 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Well, acidification anywhere in the oceans is a result of human activity, because the increased absorption is due to increasing atmospheric concentrations. But the tropics are less affected, because you get the most effect where the absorption is strongest. Warm waters with light winds = least effect.


Change in sea surface pH caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions between the 1700s and 1990s.

43 posted on 02/13/2009 8:08:09 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

I witnessed my first anti-warming agenda commercial tonite on FNC. It was informative and smacked Algore pretty good.


44 posted on 02/13/2009 8:21:22 PM PST by eyedigress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
Well, 19th century average atmospheric CO2 was 335ppm.

19th century average atmospheric CO2 never got higher than 300 ppm.

Current value is 384.

Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations

[(384-280)/280] x 100 = 37.1%. Sorry for rounding up.

45 posted on 02/13/2009 8:29:32 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
19th century average atmospheric CO2 never got higher than 300 ppm.

Many of the 19th century readings were higher than 400 ppm. A few were as low as a little over 250 ppm. The average for the 19th century readings was 335 ppm (Slocum, G., Has the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere changed significantly since the beginning of the twentieth century? Month. Weather Rev., 1955(October): p. 225-231) These were actual measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time, not from ice samples.

What your graph doesn't show is that the values were "corrected" because their actual CO2 content was found to be too high for what was expected for that time. For instance, the original Siple graph showed CO2 values of almost 330 ppm in 1891. Later the shallow ice values were moved arbitrarily about 8 decades to the right to make them match up with the values from Mauna Loa.
46 posted on 02/14/2009 6:13:46 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Well, acidification anywhere in the oceans is a result of human activity, because the increased absorption is due to increasing atmospheric concentrations. But the tropics are less affected, because you get the most effect where the absorption is strongest. Warm waters with light winds = least effect.

The link in comment# 37 says that CO2 was absorbed by the oceans 1000 years ago. So whatever is ailing the coral reefs, it isn't AGW. CO2 is also released from natural fires and volcanic emissions, not just human activity.

47 posted on 02/14/2009 11:32:26 PM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The link in comment# 37 says that CO2 was absorbed by the oceans 1000 years ago.

Actually more like 500, but still...

There's two things going on at the same time. Deep ocean waters are more acidic than shallow waters because of the combined processes of CO2 dissolution and bacterial organic matter respiration in deep water. These deep waters "surface" primarily in the North Pacific, thought there's some leakage in the Antarctic and Indian Ocean, about 500 years after they first sank. That's the solubility or carbon pump the link speaks of.

There isn't significant upwelling of the deep abyssal water in the equatorial Pacific.

So... with increased atmospheric CO2, there's an increased pCO2 in the atmosphere -- everywhere. You get surface water absorption in the cold windy waters. Surface (wind-driven) currents move this water elsewhere. With increased pCO2 in the atmosphere, there's also a reduction of the surface flux into the atmosphere from the warm calm waters, which are also receiving a contribution of the surface waters that have absorbed more CO2 in the cold windy regions (circulated by those same surface wind-driven currents). And that's why there's an acidification process going on everywhere, most prominently where the CO2 is being absorbed, less prominently where it's being released.

But the thing is, what you said is right: "So whatever is ailing the coral reefs, it isn't AGW." Right now, acidification is a very minor player; it's actually affecting calcaerous organisms in the deep benthos, but not coral reefs. Coral reefs are being messed up by coastal pollution (including raw sewage), eutrophication, overfishing, increased atmospheric transport of disease organisms, and warmer surface waters. Their future is bleak. Progressive acidification will make an already bad situation worse. If anything serious could be done about all the other problems affecting coral reefs, progressive acidification will just basically make it harder for them to recover.

48 posted on 02/15/2009 9:02:47 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Not So Fun in the Sun

How Solar Activity Affects Temperatures on Earth

If CO2 didn’t cause the warming we experienced through the 1990s, what did cause it? In 1801 astronomer William Herschel, discoverer of the planet Uranus and of infrared radiation, is said to have predicted the price of grain from counting the number of observable sunspots. When the sunspots increased, the weather warmed and the price of grain came down. During periods of low activity, the weather cooled, crops diminished, and the price rose. The relationship between solar activity and temperature has been noted for years, but the increase in solar irradiance can be shown to be too small to account for significant changes in temperature. However, the correlation was far too close to be coincidental and is a far better correlation to Earth’s temperature record than CO2 as a climate forcing agent. It seems we were looking in the wrong direction. In 2004, Nir Shaviv and Jan Vetzer of the Hebrew University showed empirical evidence that “cosmic ray flux” had an impact on climate variability.

Though increases and decreases in solar irradiance wouldn’t directly produce Earth’s measured temperature changes, solar activity appears to have an indirect effect. A supernova sends out swarms of cosmic rays (mostly protons and electrons) that cause small particles in our atmosphere to attract one another, becoming nuclei for cloud formations high in the atmosphere. During periods of high solar activity, solar winds and magnetic fields act to block these cosmic intruders and prevent the formation of clouds. As high clouds reflect sunlight, preventing their formation increases the radiation reaching the surface and increases the global temperature. In other words, high solar activity, evidenced by sunspots, disrupts cloud formation, thus allowing more solar heating of the Earth.

The ‘90s were a period of high solar activity, but this has slowed down. In fact, it has virtually stopped. The total solar irradiance, as reported by NASA’s David Hathaway, is at the lowest point on record — although the record is only a few decades long. Furthermore, sunspots migrate across the sun as the sunspot (solar) cycle matures. Usually a new sunspot cycle would have already been active by this time — but it hasn’t started. This is very bad news for the global-warming alarmists, as the data show this is the precursor of a cooling trend. Actually, it is not such good news for skeptics either, as colder weather is much more dangerous and uncomfortable than warmer weather for many reasons. Personally, I’m not a big fan of driving a team of horses across a frozen Arkansas River.


49 posted on 02/23/2009 7:45:19 PM PST by Coleus (Abortion, Euthanasia & FOCA - - don't Obama and the Democrats just kill ya!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson