Lancer

"How They Faked Global Warming" [REOPENED: Read post 354]

3,566 posts in this topic

This is relatede to carbon taxes Dale, you might like it...

 

Getting off track here.

 

 

We need to load our biggest rockets full of cash and launch them into near Earth orbit spreading the bills out in zero gravity. The shade caused by all those billions would cool the planet. :nod:

Share this post


Link to post

This is the first time I discussed the idea that solar activity contributed to global warming. Looks like I got the concept from a eurograph. :dunno:

 

 

I dooo believe man can and is having an effect on the climate. The question is, how much? President Obama asked folks to paint their roofs white and with this in the back of my mind I now have a white roof. (Reflecting heat and cooling the house was a greater factor, but Obama was in my brain, Allah akbar.) Do I think my white roof will solve the problem? No, its just a tiny part of the picture. Think though, if these Euro guys are correct in their assessment, how many white roofs does increased cloud cover equal? While CO2 can be shown to be a greenhouse gas does it have a greater or lesser effect on climate than cosmic rays and decreased solar magnetism creating clouds?

 

The Sun has been in a time of increased activity until very recently when it dropped kinda like a rock in Earth gravity. That activity exactly correlates (according to the Eurographs) to increased global temps and decreased cosmic rays which mean decreased cloud cover which means increased global temps! The increase in CO2 AlGoregraph also correlates to increased temps, so maybe its both? If its both things contributing to increased global temps then one is likely to be greater than the other, and everyone can have an opinion, they're free. To me I think the Euroguys have got it right. The increased global temps and decreased cosmic rays which mean decreased cloud cover which means increased global temps is the 800 lb gorilla in the room and CO2 the light weight.

Share this post


Link to post

Mate, we've been singing the same tune for most of this thread. :)

 

BTW, I invite EVERYONE to read this open letter to Dr Kevin Trenberth (one of the heads of the IPCC, and one of the biggest AGW pushers):

willis_trenberth_wuwt_essay.pdf

Share this post


Link to post

:b: i really wish i had time to dig into the detail like you are Dale, some very good posts and all i can offer in reply is another guys words:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14054650

 

"Just about the most predictable event of the week was the tempest of opinion created by the analysis of global temperature changes published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) on Monday.

 

As we (and a number of other mainstream news outlets) reported, Robert Kaufmann and colleagues analysed the impact of growing coal use, particularly in China, and the cooling effect of the sulphate aerosol particles emitted into the atmosphere.

 

They concluded that with a bit of help from changes in solar output and natural climatic cycles such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the growth in the volume of aerosols being pumped up power station chimneys was probably enough to block the warming effect of rising greenhouse gas emissions over the period 1998-2008.

 

For some commentators, such as the UK Daily Mail's Christopher Brooker, this was further proof that the "climate scaremongers" had got it wrong.

 

"Global warming? A new ice age? YOU'RE paying for the hysteria of our politicians," the headline - er - whispered.

 

On the other side of the opinionosphere, Climate Progress's chosen headline was "Study: Hottest Decade on Record Would Have Been Even Hotter But for Chinese Coal Plant Sulfur Pollution"... which is consistent with what Kaufmann and his colleagues are saying, although they said it in more restrained tones.

 

Although it doesn't slam the study, in fact calling it "clever", Climate Progress also asks whether doing the research was wise: "What's not clever about this study is that it repeats the myth that there was a 'hiatus' [in global warming] in the first place"."

 

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

 

lots of links all through that article to sources and data etc :)

Share this post


Link to post

Firstly I'll point out that the US reduced sulphur emissions by 33% whilst China increased sulphur emissions by 27%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide

 

Secondly, I'll point out that between 1998 and 2005 solar activity was consistent, declining fast in the last half of the decade.

 

93620main_sun5m.jpg

 

Thirdly, I'll point out that global temps followed solar activity being constant from 1998-2006 (except the extreme 97-8 El Nino spike and consequent heavy La Nina) then dived in line with solar and ENSO activity.

 

uah_may_08.png

 

Fourthly there were an equal amount of lite El Nino and La Nina years between 2000 and 2006, before some deep La Nina years at the end of the decade, all replicating temperature and solar activity.

 

ElNino-nino3-timeseries.png

 

Lastly, sulfur aerosols as reported, break down ozone (as well as causing global dimming and cooling effects). However, since 1995 ozone levels have been steadily increasing. If China pumped heaps of sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere it would reduce the ozone levels.

 

ozone_hole_minimum.gif

 

Sorry, that is another lie to continue the hoax.

 

EDIT: BTW I hope you're proud of me, I used data from global warmie sites to discredit their own claim. :D

Share this post


Link to post

Indeed mate, and with this series of excellent posts it seems that you have taken the gloves off. It would seem that any reasonable fellow should see the light of our reason but as I've said before, our warmie friends will be blaming man made global warming while the glaciers are rolling over them. :nod: If for no other reason I like them for this for who can abide a quitter? Since we will all, coolie and warmie, be being ground under the same great glaciers at least we'll still have something to debate, yes? Its a good thing...and that's the other thing. WPC is the only place on the web where a (mostly) civil discussion of this kind has taken place. :b: :b: Which brings me to my last point. Is your pal Senethro still being civil to you, mate? :D

 

Mate, we've been singing the same tune for most of this thread. :)

 

BTW, I invite EVERYONE to read this open letter to Dr Kevin Trenberth (one of the heads of the IPCC, and one of the biggest AGW pushers):

Share this post


Link to post

Senethro dropped into the fate of the world thread in other games the other day, but aside from that our paths haven't crossed much.

Share this post


Link to post

May your swords, opps I mean 'paths' cross soon. :shifty:

Share this post


Link to post

'Heat-wave 'kills 13 people' across US heartland':

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14212026

 

"A heat-wave blanketing the US heartland in humidity has claimed the lives of 13 people, according to US media.

 

The National Weather Service put 18 states stretching from Montana to Texas to West Virginia under a heat warning, watch or advisory, with the heat index topping 38C (100F) in most locations.

 

The heat is expected to move east in the next several days.

 

More than 1,000 US heat records have been broken this month, officials said.

 

Though many US states have recently seen temperatures over 90F, some regions saw heat indexes - a combination of air temperature and relative humidity - up to 131F."

Share this post


Link to post

Yup, I covered that heat wave already, and added the usual spin.

 

Sad about the deaths though. The solar output for cycle 24 is nearing its peak, though not as high as previous cycles. After this cycle solar scientists are predicting a practically non existant cycle 25

so that will tell us what's happening.

When it gets really hot its a sure sign of global cooling...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/stifling-heat-forecast-half-u-145013617.html

 

 

Stifling heat forecast for half the U.S.

By Karin Matz | Reuters – 1 hr 16 mins ago...

.

CHICAGO (Reuters) -Excessive heat was forecast to blanket half of the continental United States on Tuesday.

 

The National Weather Service issued heat warnings or advisories for 24 states stretching from parts of Texas and Oklahoma to the plains, the Mississippi Valley and the east coast.

 

"It's going to stay hot in the central to southern plain states," said Chris Vaccaro, a spokesman for the weather service.

 

The heat on the east coast is not expected to be as intense.

 

"For the most part it's a one day heat wave," Vaccaro said.

 

But there was no reprieve from the heat in sight for Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Yesterday was the 13th consecutive day temperatures hovered at or above 100 degrees, according to the weather service. And the heat was expected to continue through next weekend.

 

Air quality alerts were also in effect on the east coast from Virginia to New Jersey.

 

In addition to the sweltering heat, scattered thunderstorms that could produce damaging winds and hail were in the forecast from southern Nebraska to northern Kansas to parts of the mid-Atlantic from Southern Virginia to North Carolina.

 

This was the same system that hit the Chicago area yesterday leaving a record 868,000 customers without power.

 

As of 8 a.m. local time 361,000 customers were still without power Tuesday morning, according to ComEd, the utility company servicing the area.

 

"We have restored power to approximately 500,000 customers so far," said Tony Hernandez, ComEd spokesman.

 

"We have asked for support from neighboring utilities," Hernandez said, who also said 900 crews are working around the clock to restore power.

 

Crews from Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan were already in the area. And crews from Tennessee, Alabama and Pennsylvania were on the way.

 

(Editing by Greg McCune)

Share this post


Link to post

Let me see if I've grasped this....

 

Much of global warming has historically been attributed/ correlated to the coal consumption begining with the industrial revolution.

 

Since the Chinese burn high sulfur coal, it mimics the effects of a volcano, and while it will result in acid rain, it has moderated global warming demonstrably. Bad for their environment, good for the globe.

Share this post


Link to post
Sad about the deaths though. The solar output for cycle 24 is nearing its peak, though not as high as previous cycles. After this cycle solar scientists are predicting a practically non existant cycle 25

so that will tell us what's happening.

 

:lol:

No, its not. The cycle has barely started. I think day before yesterday, the number of sunspots was *just* above one hundred for the first time since the cycle started "officially" last year.

A typical peak would see hundreds of sunspots on the face of the sun.

Share this post


Link to post
Let me see if I've grasped this....

 

Much of global warming has historically been attributed/ correlated to the coal consumption begining with the industrial revolution.

 

Since the Chinese burn high sulfur coal, it mimics the effects of a volcano, and while it will result in acid rain, it has moderated global warming demonstrably. Bad for their environment, good for the globe.

 

Would be true, except for one thing. Recorded data shows total atmospheric aerosols have dropped consistently over the time period claimed by the Chinese burn. We should have seen an increase in that period if it were true.

 

Aerosol_dimming.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

How about a Linkie there Twinkie?

:)

:lol:

No, its not. The cycle has barely started. I think day before yesterday, the number of sunspots was *just* above one hundred for the first time since the cycle started "officially" last year.

A typical peak would see hundreds of sunspots on the face of the sun.

Share this post


Link to post

'Climate change 'threatens peace', UN official warns':

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14229237

 

"Climate change poses a major threat to future peace and security, a senior UN official has warned.

 

Achim Steiner from the UN Environment Programme said climate change would also "exponentially" increase the scale of natural disasters.

 

His comments followed a UN declaration of famine in parts of Somalia.

 

Meanwhile, Russia rejected a Security Council statement backed by Western nations which asserted the link, but later agreed to a weaker text.

 

The Russian envoy Alexander Pankin said he was sceptical about the implications of putting climate change on the security council's agenda.

 

Security Council members finally agreed to a text which spoke of the "possible security implications" of climate change.

 

Mr Steiner warned that an increase in the frequency of natural disasters across the globe could prove a major challenge in the coming decades.

 

He said recent crises, such as in Somalia, illustrate that "our capacity to handle these kinds of events is proving a challenge, particularly if they occur simultaneously and start affecting, for instance, global food markets, regional food security issues, displacing people, creating refugees across borders".

 

"Clearly the international community - if the scenarios in climate change for the future come true - will face an exponential growth of these kinds of extreme events," he added.

 

His comments came as the Security Council formally debated the environment for the first time in four years, with Germany pressing for the first-ever council statement linking climate change to global peace and security.

 

Diplomats said there were intense negotiations between Germany and Russia, which initially opposed any council action, before a statement on the issue was agreed to.

 

Speaking as negotiations were continuing, Mr Pankin argued that the move was unnecessary and opposed by many countries.

 

"We believe that involving the Security Council in a regular review of the issue of climate change will not bring any added value whatsoever and will merely lead to further increased politicisation of this issue and increased disagreements between countries," he said.

 

However US Ambassador Susan Rice said that the council had an "essential responsibility to address the clear-cut peace and security implications of a changing climate" and said all countries should be demanding action.

 

She also called failed attempts to reach consensus earlier in the day "pathetic" and "shortsighted"."

 

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

 

If there is a chance that we are behind many of the climatic change issues we see around us today, it is irresponsible to try to carry on with business as usual. IF our industiral output is effecting the climatic balance then taking a gamble on it not happening is akin to the gambles that were played out in the financial markets, and that didn't end that well for many people. This is what i find so weird about the anti-global-warming lobby and viewpoint. An aggresive campaign to muddy the water and confuse people on the issues seems a rather, well, suicidal atitude(potentially). I really don't think our grand children are going to be thanking us for the world we leave them with.

Share this post


Link to post

Almost 7 billion hominids... and counting... :scared:

Share this post


Link to post
'Climate change 'threatens peace', UN official warns':

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14229237

 

"Climate change poses a major threat to future peace and security, a senior UN official has warned.

 

Achim Steiner from the UN Environment Programme said climate change would also "exponentially" increase the scale of natural disasters.

 

His comments followed a UN declaration of famine in parts of Somalia.

 

Meanwhile, Russia rejected a Security Council statement backed by Western nations which asserted the link, but later agreed to a weaker text.

 

The Russian envoy Alexander Pankin said he was sceptical about the implications of putting climate change on the security council's agenda.

 

Security Council members finally agreed to a text which spoke of the "possible security implications" of climate change.

 

Mr Steiner warned that an increase in the frequency of natural disasters across the globe could prove a major challenge in the coming decades.

 

He said recent crises, such as in Somalia, illustrate that "our capacity to handle these kinds of events is proving a challenge, particularly if they occur simultaneously and start affecting, for instance, global food markets, regional food security issues, displacing people, creating refugees across borders".

 

"Clearly the international community - if the scenarios in climate change for the future come true - will face an exponential growth of these kinds of extreme events," he added.

 

His comments came as the Security Council formally debated the environment for the first time in four years, with Germany pressing for the first-ever council statement linking climate change to global peace and security.

 

Diplomats said there were intense negotiations between Germany and Russia, which initially opposed any council action, before a statement on the issue was agreed to.

 

Speaking as negotiations were continuing, Mr Pankin argued that the move was unnecessary and opposed by many countries.

 

"We believe that involving the Security Council in a regular review of the issue of climate change will not bring any added value whatsoever and will merely lead to further increased politicisation of this issue and increased disagreements between countries," he said.

 

However US Ambassador Susan Rice said that the council had an "essential responsibility to address the clear-cut peace and security implications of a changing climate" and said all countries should be demanding action.

 

She also called failed attempts to reach consensus earlier in the day "pathetic" and "shortsighted"."

 

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

 

If there is a chance that we are behind many of the climatic change issues we see around us today, it is irresponsible to try to carry on with business as usual. IF our industiral output is effecting the climatic balance then taking a gamble on it not happening is akin to the gambles that were played out in the financial markets, and that didn't end that well for many people. This is what i find so weird about the anti-global-warming lobby and viewpoint. An aggresive campaign to muddy the water and confuse people on the issues seems a rather, well, suicidal atitude(potentially). I really don't think our grand children are going to be thanking us for the world we leave them with.

 

What "climatic change issues" are we seeing? If you mean the current heat and the last two wild winters, NOAA (pro-AGW) has already confirmed there is no human caused global warming fingerprints and that they are the result of natural cycles (the biggest being probably strong PDO). As for the southern storms we've seen the last 12 months, they are natural occurrences during strong La Nina. Or do you mean that 2010 was 'one of the two warmest in recent history' (to paraphrase). Heat energy in the climate system is high after decades of strong (and rising) solar activity, and 30 years of positive PDO (till recently). Water is slow to release heat energy (compared to land) thus cooling after solar activity reduction (which we've seen this last decade) can delay up to a decade or two before registering. So whilst heat input into the system is dropping (various negative natural cycles) the accumulated heat in the ocean will take a few years to transfer out, thus delaying atmospheric cooling. This year we're already seeing on average a -0.2C shift globally, and -0.0C shift in "low lattitudes" on last year's recordings. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Please excuse my encroaching senility. :dunno:

 

 

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html

 

Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Updated May 2009

 

Presented by the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC)

 

May 8, 2009 -- Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Update The Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel has reached a consensus decision on the prediction of the next solar cycle (Cycle 24). First, the panel has agreed that solar minimum occurred in December, 2008. This still qualifies as a prediction since the smoothed sunspot number is only valid through September, 2008. The panel has decided that the next solar cycle will be below average in intensity, with a maximum sunspot number of 90. Given the predicted date of solar minimum and the predicted maximum intensity, solar maximum is now expected to occur in May, 2013. Note, this is a consensus opinion, not a unanimous decision. A supermajority of the panel did agree to this prediction.

 

June 27, 2008 During the annual Space Weather Workshop held in Boulder, CO in May, 2008, the Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel released an update to the prediction for the next solar cycle. In short, the update is that the panel has not yet made any changes to the prediction issued in April, 2007. The panel expects solar minimum to occur in March, 2008. The panel expects the solar cycle to reach a peak sunspot number of 140 in October, 2011 or a peak of 90 in August, 2012.

 

April 25, 2008 The official NOAA, NASA, and ISES Solar Cycle 24 prediction was released by the Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel on April 25, 2007. The Prediction Panel included members from NOAA, NASA, ISES and other US and International representatives. Press Briefings and presentations at the SEC Space Weather Workshop, plus additional announcements and information from the Panel are linked below. The Panel expects to update this prediction annually.

 

The Panel considered all Predictions of Solar Cycle 24 they found in the literature or received directly from an author. The May 24, 2007 List shows the predictions considered.

 

May 2, 2008 Solar Cycle 24 Prediction presentation at the Space Weather Workshop.

 

April 25, 2007 NOAA Press Release

Share this post


Link to post
How about a Linkie there Twinkie?

:)

 

I've posted the linkie half a dozen times already, mr. tweetie. You just need to add it to your bookmarks.

But you're right, the concencus decision was that this cycle started at the onset of 2009.

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting article on sea-level changes......

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/21/the-battle-over-sea-level-in-jcr/#more-43808

 

The important conclusion of our study is not that the data sets we analyze display small sea-level decelerations, but that accelerations, whether negative or positive (we reference studies that found small positive accelerations), are quite small. To reach the multimeter levels projected for 2100 by RV requires large positive accelerations that are one to two orders of magnitude greater than those yet observed in sea-level data.

 

So the IPCC got it wrong in the magnitude of orders? Oh no! We're going to be alright! AHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

 

EDIT: So after the initial IPCC claim that "the sea will rise 7 metres" and coastal land prices dropped, how many IPCC conspirators bought land on the coast? Obviously "they've got their fill" and the news that the sea levels will be fine will raise prices again and make them squillions.

 

The Global Warming Conspiracy is Big Business!

Edited by Dale

Share this post


Link to post

The Sun is a Star as it ages It gets Hotter eventually the **** hits the fan when it gets so Hot that it explodes!

 

I'm with dale on the global warming / cooling / warming up again Party

 

BTW it needs warming up again its raining here atm

 

on that note goodnight :)

Share this post


Link to post

Goodnight Bantams! :)

 

Interesting article on sea-level changes......

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/21/the-battle-over-sea-level-in-jcr/#more-43808

 

 

 

So the IPCC got it wrong in the magnitude of orders? Oh no! We're going to be alright! AHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

 

EDIT: So after the initial IPCC claim that "the sea will rise 7 metres" and coastal land prices dropped, how many IPCC conspirators bought land on the coast? Obviously "they've got their fill" and the news that the sea levels will be fine will raise prices again and make them squillions.

 

The Global Warming Conspiracy is Big Business!

 

"If we don't DO something involving LOTS of new TAXES then the sea will rise 3 inches in the next 10 years!!?!"

 

...Doesn't seem to carry the same punch. Fear mongering needs more...fear. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post

Okay that's it, I'm convinced now that global warming is real!

 

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry, was she saying something?

Share this post


Link to post

El Cid- don't worry, I'm making a note to respond to your post. Feel free to PM me If I don't get to it in 3 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now