Global warming, global cooling

Status
Not open for further replies.
spike said:
http://www.sustainabletucson.org/20...in-warming-last-decade-hottest-in-1300-years/
Click to expand...

“It is not the foundation stone. We are not claiming that,” Hughes said of the latest study’s contribution to theories of human-caused global warming. “We are part of the supporting cast of this case. The results that we have are consistent with what we know about how climate is controlled, as consistent as they can be given the uncertainties.”
Click to expand...

They never would have seen it if they hadn't believed it!! You gotta love biased research.
 
And the squabbles begin.

SOURCE

Germany calls carbon tariffs "eco-imperialism"
Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:26am EDT

By Mia Shanley and Ilona Wissenbach

ARE, Sweden (Reuters) - Germany called a French idea to slap "carbon tariffs" on products from countries that are not trying to cut greenhouse gases a form of "eco-imperialism" and a direct violation of WTO rules.

The issue of greenhouse tariffs has met bitter opposition from developing countries such as China and India, who count on the developed world to buy their exports as they build their economies in the face of the worst financial crisis in decades.

Matthias Machnig, Germany's State Secretary for the Environment, told a news briefing on Friday that a French push for Europe to impose carbon tariffs on imports from countries that flout rules on carbon emissions would send the wrong signal to the international community.

"There are two problems -- the WTO (World Trade Organization), and the signal would be that this is a new form of eco-imperialism," Machnig said.

"We are closing our markets for their products, and I don't think this is a very helpful signal for the international negotiations."

European environment and energy ministers are meeting in Sweden to try to come up with a single vision of how the 27-member bloc will fight global warming, ahead of a major environment summit in Copenhagen.

The first phase of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on cutting greenhouse gas emissions is set to expire in 2012. Final negotiations on a successor climate change pact will take place in the Danish capital at the end of the year.

U.S. LEGISLATION

The U.S. House of Representatives has already passed legislation that contains carbon tariffs. It would allow the United States to impose duties on imports of carbon-intensive goods such as steel, cement, paper and glass from countries that have not taken steps to reduce their own emissions.

Some say such tariffs could be a backup plan for Europe, should United Nations members fail to reach a deal in Copenhagen.

But Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren, whose country holds the rotating European Union presidency, said member states currently had no "plan B" beyond landing a deal in Copenhagen. He said there was as yet no official proposal on the table from the French regarding carbon tariffs. "We are absolutely against each try to make use of green protectionism," Carlgren told Reuters. "There should be no threat of borders, of walls or barriers for imports from developing countries."

French President Nicolas Sarkozy's office said last month such taxes could help create a "level playing field" for European companies competing with international firms from countries that have not put a price on carbon emissions.

EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs has said member states should keep the French proposal in mind, but also worries how such tariffs could be viewed by other countries.

China said earlier this month carbon tariffs would violate the rules of the WTO and the spirit of the Kyoto Protocol.

Such tariffs would represent a radical shift for the WTO, whose goal is reducing barriers to trade. However, the WTO says it is possible to impose import tariffs if such taxes are also imposed on a country's own industry to ensure a level playing field.

However, Europe could see some progress on domestic carbon taxes on a national level within the 27-member bloc. Sweden's finance minister, Anders Borg, plans to raise the issue at the next finance ministers' meeting, Industry Minister Maud Olofsson told a press briefing.

(Additional reporting by Johan Ahlander and Julien Toyer; Editing by Mark Trevelyan)

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
Click to expand...
 
Fantasy: The Earth is getting hotter.

Reality: No it's not.

SOURCE

ORIGINAL BLOG ENTRY FOLLOWS:

Saturday, July 25, 2009 12:06 AM
3,000 Low Temp Records Set This July!

UPDATE: It's not just the surface land temps -- Blog reader Tim points out "Water temps at Frying Pan Shoals (off Cape Fear) fell to 78 degrees a few days ago; NDBC historical data shows this occurs only 0.3% of the time in July!" Here's a look at the weekly departure from normal sea-surface temperatures:

sstemps725a.png


This is not the case away from the Carolina coast; most of the Atlantic that we would be concerned with for Hurricane season is normal or slightly above normal - there are other factors keeping that activity down.

ORIGINAL ENTRY: Here are some stats and maps regarding the unusually cold July that is happening over a large portion of the U.S., especially the Northeast quadrant (yes, it's been unusually hot in the SW, see below). Note: Since I am on vacation at the end of the month, I will not be able to update these but AccuWeather.com will be running news articles about how cool July was in these areas, come the first week in August.

First, some stats. 1,044 daily record low temperatures have been broken this month nationwide according to NCDC -- count record "low highs" and the number increases to 2,925, surely to pass 3,000 before the end of the month. Some thoughts on the 'low highs" below.*

graph of low lows and low highs for July

julylows723.png


The period of July 17-20 was the worst, with over 1,600 stations breaking records. It's worth noting that these stats include all records across the nation. Of the record lows, through July 20th (thanks to William Schmitz @ SERCC, check out their Twitter Feed), this was the regional breakdown:

Nationwide: 966
Southeast (AL/GA/FL/NC/SC/VA): 248
Northeast (MD/DE/PA/NJ/NY/CT/RI/MA/NH/VT/ME): 193

Next, a map of the Departure from Average temperatures so far in July (yes, we have one week left). Yes, that's a "-10.0" in Pennsylvania - double digit deficits over a month are rare indeed. Note that there are no positive numbers.


CLICK HERE TO SEE MAP (REPOSTING PROHIBITED)

Even if you zoom out to the U.S. you'll see the majority of stations are reporting departures below normal thus far -- only Arizona, New Mexico and Texas have all stations reporting above normal.

The lowest temperatures of the month are also impressive, with 50s in every state and 40s in most, some 30s. Normally temperatures are peaking in July.

CLICK HERE TO SEE MAP (REPOSTING PROHIBITED)

And finally I'll repeat this map which shows the lack of 85-degree days in the Northeast through July 20th. Note that the Northern Plains are not immune from the chilly weather either; Mark Vogan says that Minneapolis hasn't failed to hit 90 in the last 15 years. (Mark has some other good stats too).

uf85-723s.jpg


*I was especially impressed by the latter stat and I think it speaks more to the cool summer people have been experiencing - more people are out and about during the peak of the day then they are early in the morning, so they see that the temperatures in the middle of the afternoon are much lower than they should be this time of year. For perception, this may be even more important than morning lows.
Click to expand...
 
Jim thinks if its not measurable in a matter of months it isn't real. Remember he is one of the foremost minds and authorities on pretty much everything, ever to have lived spike. We are damn lucky to have him!

Why would you argue with such a vastly superior intellect? If Jebus sits at the right hand of his father, Jim sits at Jebus' right hand!

DUH!!!

:rolleyes:
 
Bow down before your God, maggots!!!

Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites

Geologist Ian Plimer takes a contrary view, arguing that man-made climate change is a con trick perpetuated by environmentalists

By Jonathan Manthorpe, Vancouver SunJuly 28, 2009

Ian Plimer has outraged the ayatollahs of purist environmentalism, the Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming, and he seems to relish the damnation they heap on him.

Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic.

Plimer, you see, is an unremitting critic of "anthropogenic global warming" -- man-made climate change to you and me -- and the current environmental orthodoxy that if we change our polluting ways, global warming can be reversed.

It is, of course, not new to have a highly qualified scientist saying that global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history. Many have made the argument, too, that it is rubbish to contend human behaviour is causing the current climate change. And it has often been well argued that it is totally ridiculous to suppose that changes in human behaviour -- cleaning up our act through expensive slight-of-hand taxation tricks -- can reverse the trend.

But most of these scientific and academic voices have fallen silent in the face of environmental Jacobinism. Purging humankind of its supposed sins of environmental degradation has become a religion with a fanatical and often intolerant priesthood, especially among the First World urban elites.

But Plimer shows no sign of giving way to this orthodoxy and has just published the latest of his six books and 60 academic papers on the subject of global warming. This book, Heaven and Earth -- Global Warming: The Missing Science, draws together much of his previous work. It springs especially from A Short History of Plan[e]t Earth, which was based on a decade of radio broadcasts in Australia.

That book, published in 2001, was a best-seller and won several prizes. But Plimer found it hard to find anyone willing to publish this latest book, so intimidating has the environmental lobby become.

But he did eventually find a small publishing house willing to take the gamble and the book has already sold about 30,000 copies in Australia. It seems also to be doing well in Britain and the United States in the first days of publication.

Plimer presents the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is little more than a con trick on the public perpetrated by fundamentalist environmentalists and callously adopted by politicians and government officials who love nothing more than an issue that causes public anxiety.

While environmentalists for the most part draw their conclusions based on climate information gathered in the last few hundred years, geologists, Plimer says, have a time frame stretching back many thousands of millions of years.

The dynamic and changing character of the Earth's climate has always been known by geologists. These changes are cyclical and random, he says. They are not caused or significantly affected by human behaviour.

Polar ice, for example, has been present on the Earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time, Plimer writes. Plus, animal extinctions are an entirely normal part of the Earth's evolution.

(Plimer, by the way, is also a vehement anti-creationist and has been hauled into court for disrupting meetings by religious leaders and evangelists who claim the Bible is literal truth.)

Plimer gets especially upset about carbon dioxide, its role in Earth's daily life and the supposed effects on climate of human manufacture of the gas. He says atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at the lowest levels it has been for 500 million years, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide is only 0.001 per cent of the total amount of the chemical held in the oceans, surface rocks, soils and various life forms. Indeed, Plimer says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a plant food. Plants eat carbon dioxide and excrete oxygen. Human activity, he says, contributes only the tiniest fraction to even the atmospheric presence of carbon dioxide.

There is no problem with global warming, Plimer says repeatedly. He points out that for humans periods of global warming have been times of abundance when civilization made leaps forward. Ice ages, in contrast, have been times when human development slowed or even declined.

So global warming, says Plimer, is something humans should welcome and embrace as a harbinger of good times to come.

[email protected]
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Click to expand...
 
You could say that about the other side too. Like the religious nuts who refuse to believe in dinosaurs.
 
spike said:
Wider study shows spike in warming - last decade hottest in 1,300+ years

http://www.sustainabletucson.org/20...in-warming-last-decade-hottest-in-1300-years/
Click to expand...

You seem to wish to ignore the fact that 3,000 -- THREE THOUSAND -- record setting low temperature events occurred in the United States during a single month that has yet to end.

Here's the difference between my link and yours.

Mine gives hard facts, real numbers, and illustrations of where these events occurred.

My researcher is not noted as having had their previous studies roundly refuted and discredited.

Your link is about a study that was done by two researchers whose data and findings have been roundly refuted and discredited. They are the authors of the "Hockey Stick" study which has become the laughing stock of the research world.

Your link says "they have more confidence in their findings than in the earlier studies." which would be the Hockey Stick report which EVERYONE has ZERO confidence in. It is easy to have high levels of confidence in your new study when you are starting a ZERO compared to your last failure.

How about giving us something that is not from a couple of zealous global warming propagandists.
 
Sorry Jim, your links are always from zealous anti global warming propagandists who have been roundly refuted and discredited. Shit you were even linking us to a lobbyist site for a while there.

Also, there was controversy over the hockey stick findings but in no way have they been "roundly refuted and discredited" except in your head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the i
Click to expand...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Also I noticed you abandoning a lot of threads lately when you get refuted and discredited. I'm curious if that's your way of admitting you were wrong or do you just put it out of mind and throw something else at the wall?
 
spike said:
Sorry Jim, your links are always from zealous anti global warming propagandists who have been roundly refuted and discredited. Shit you were even linking us to a lobbyist site for a while there.
Click to expand...

So accuweather.com is a "zealous, anti global warming propagandist site"? I'm sure that would be a big surprise to them.

spike said:
Also, there was controversy over the hockey stick findings but in no way have they been "roundly refuted and discredited" except in your head.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686[/quote]

I thought you said that wiki was not a reliable site.

Watch THIS VIDEO of Dr. John Christy. Note his credentials.

Dr. John R. Christy is Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in 1987. In November 2000 Gov. Don Siegelman appointed him to be Alabama's State Climatologist. In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer, a NASA/Marshall scientist, and Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate."
Click to expand...

You just keep ignoring things like THIS STORY. Tornadoes are created by rising warm air masses which are lacking this year.

You keep ignoring THIS as well.

comparison-between-solar-maximum-and-minimum.JPG


spike said:
Also I noticed you abandoning a lot of threads lately when you get refuted and discredited. I'm curious if that's your way of admitting you were wrong or do you just put it out of mind and throw something else at the wall?
Click to expand...

Unlike yourself, I have a life in the real world. Not this one; but the real real world.
 
spike said:
Wow, that guy is a total dipshit. :laugh:
Click to expand...

Gonz said:
Is he? It fits every pattern religion does.
Click to expand...

Here is the speech that Michael Creighton, the late world famous "dipshit", gave at the Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA, September 15, 2003

SOURCE

...

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let's examine some of those beliefs.

There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden?

And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did. On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process. And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.

How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction.

There was even an academic movement, during the latter 20th century, that claimed that cannibalism was a white man's invention to demonize the indigenous peoples. (Only academics could fight such a battle.) It was some thirty years before professors finally agreed that yes, cannibalism does indeed occur among human beings. Meanwhile, all during this time New Guinea highlanders in the 20th century continued to eat the brains of their enemies until they were finally made to understand that they risked kuru, a fatal neurological disease, when they did so.

More recently still the gentle Tasaday of the Philippines turned out to be a publicity stunt, a nonexistent tribe. And African pygmies have one of the highest murder rates on the planet.

In short, the romantic view of the natural world as a blissful Eden is only held by people who have no actual experience of nature. People who live in nature are not romantic about it at all. They may hold spiritual beliefs about the world around them, they may have a sense of the unity of nature or the aliveness of all things, but they still kill the animals and uproot the plants in order to eat, to live. If they don't, they will die.

...

With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it's a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn't quit when the world doesn't end on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.

[more]
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top