Three important posts lately. Two are from WattsUpWithThat.com and one from Climate Audit concerning the “trick” used to “hide the decline”.
1) The new and improved hockey stick. Drudged up from ice core data in Greenland, it turns out that there has been incredible warming lately, but it’s not nearly what it’s been in the past. I invite you to see my video of the images compiled.
UPDATE: I’ve posted a second video with voice-over and improved annotation:
2) The seriously fudged Darwin, Australia data. I don’t know about it being smoking gun as it’s one example, but it’s truly amazing how much manipulation had to go into the Darwin data points to make them fit a warming trend. I’ll say it’s deliberate when I see two more examples of this kind of homogenization of the data.
3) Some people have been decrying the “trick”, saying scientists use “tricks” all the time. They have a point, but only to a certain degree. In this case, the “trick” was used to explain why a certain data set was truncated when matched with two other tree-ring data sets. The “Climategate” emails even show discussions of how to mitigate the impact of this data on the data that “proves” skyrocketing temperatures. Read the whole thing.
It’s a lot of reading, but it’s clear there were serious shenanigans going on here and with the IPCC directorate.
HEY YOU! THANKS FOR STOPPING BY from Ace, or HotAir, or wherever you’re dropping in from. Be sure to visit some of the guys on my blogroll. More great climate discussions go on at DigitalDiatribes.wordpress.com.
The Autopsy 
So during the midevil warming period why didn’t the oceans rise and how did the polar bears ever survive? Seems to me if we want to know the effects of global warming we merely need to consult history during other warming periods. During the midieval warming period instead of rising sea levels we had longer growing seasons. Vikings were able to grow crops on Greenland. Hence the name. In fact the warming period accounted for unprecedented prosperity for humanity.
The truth of the matter is that the era we’re currently in has been warm for a long, long time. And if you look at the trend in historical temperatures, it’s in slow decline. Take advantage of the warm temperatures while they last.
Brilliant video! I know even hard-core liberals could understand this if in fact they bothered to watch. By the way, I have added your site to my blogroll as invited to so I can look forward to more.
Point 2, there are several. Look for NIWA and New Zealand, the whole country was subjected to the exact same thing.
Rest of Australia http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/smoking-guns-across-australia-wheres-the-warming/
New Zealand http://www.dnforum.com/f254/new-zealand-s-niwa-accused-cru-style-temperature-faking-thread-397791.html
Nashville Tennessee http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/12/hansens-adjusting-nashville-tennessee.html
There are more, but I do not have links to them. One site even has been going over entire continents one at a time and finding raw data shows no warming. The whole global warming scare rests on cooked data, and no one knows what the recipe used was to get cook it. Then they use the likely poisoned data into climate models that are not even reliable in themselves, and they spew out scare tactic results. There are 89 rules to modeling and apparently the IPCC models violate 72 of those rules.
I did see the info on Nashville, but haven’t seen the New Zealand data. Do you have a link to the site that’s going over the data place by place? I’d love to read it!
In addition to the Medieval Warm Period, it is worth noting the one prior to that – the Roman Climate Optimum.
Another period of massive grain harvests, inexorable spread, and other positive features. (And no death-to-polar-bears. Jeeze people, in prehistory it was far warmer.)
Dan Rather would classify it as “Fake, but Settled”
Very clever!
Oh no, I hate being cold ,thanks for the info,I think.
I really like this blog! Keep up the great work!!
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
ps. Link Exchange?
CLIMATEGATE
THE FALLACY
The Lebensraum doctrine of Green activists rests on three tenets they accept with an act of faith:
• We are running out of space. World population is already excessive on a limited planet and cannot grow without dire effects.
• We are running out of means. The planet’s non-renewable resources are being depleted by consumption at a rate that renders economic expansion unsustainable.
• We shall fry. Carbon dioxide emitted by human economic activity causes global warming that shall make the planet uninhabitable.
When such tenets are quantified, the contrast between true and false stands out sharply.
Is overpopulation a grave problem? The sum of urban areas of the United States is equivalent to 2% of the area of the country, and to 6% in densely inhabited countries such as England and Holland. And there is plenty of green in urban areas. If comparison is limited to land covered by buildings and pavements the occupied land in the whole world amounts to 0,04% of the terrestrial area of the planet. With 99.96% unoccupied the idea of an overcrowded planet is an exaggeration. Population forecasts are uncertain but the most accepted ones foresee stability of world population to be reached in the 21st century. According to some, world population may begin to decline at the end of this century. With so much elbowroom it is untenable that world population is excessive or shall ever become so.
Strictly speaking, no natural resource is non-renewable in a universe ruled by the Law of Conservation of Mass. In popular form it holds that “Nothing is created, nothing is lost, all is transformed.” Human usage is not subtracted from the mass of the planet, and in theory all material used may be recycled. The possibility of doing so depends on availability and low cost of energy. When fusion energy becomes operative it will be available in practically unlimited quantities. The source is deuterium, a hydrogen isotope found in water, in a proportion of 0.03%. One cubic kilometer of seawater contains more energy than can be obtained from combustion of all known petroleum reserves of the world. Since oceans hold 3 billion cubic kilometers of water, energy will last longer than the human species.
There is no growing shortfall of resources signaled by rising prices. Since the middle of the 19th century The Economist publishes consistent indices of values of commodities and they have all declined, over the period, due to technological advances. The decline has been benign. The cost of feeding a human being was 8 times greater in 1850 than it is today. In 1950, less than half of a world population of 2 billion had an adequate diet, above 2000 calories per day. Today, 80% have the diet, and world population is three times greater.
There is a problem with the alleged global warming. It stopped in 1998, after having risen in the 23 previous years. It unleashed a scare over its effects. Since 1998 it has been followed by 11 years of declining temperatures, in a portent of a cold 21st century. This shows that there are natural forces shaping climate, more powerful than manmade carbon dioxide and anything mankind can do for or against world climate. The natural forces include cyclical oscillation of ocean temperatures, sunspot activity and the effect of magnetic activity of the sun on cosmic rays. All such cycles are foreseeable, but there is no general theory of climate with predictive capacity. What knowledge exists comes from one hundred fields, such as meteorology, oceanography, mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, paleontology, biology, etc. with partial contributions to the understanding of climate.
Devoid of support of solid theory and empirical data, the mathematical models that underpin alarmist forecasts amount to speculative thought that reflects the assumptions fed into the models. Agenda driven computer simulations offer no rational basis for public policy that inhibits economic activity “to save the planet”. And carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it is the nutrient needed for photosynthesis that supports the food chain of all living beings of the planet. But carbon dioxide became a toxic-by-decree of the Obama administration, with an act that smells of rotten bananas of a comic opera republic.
Stories of doom circulate daily. Anything that happens on earth has been blamed on global warming: a Himalayan earthquake, a volcanic eruption, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, tribal wars in Africa, a dust storm in Australia, recent severe winters in North America, the hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico, known for five centuries, the collapse of a bridge in Minnesota. Evo Morales blames Americans for the summer floods in Bolivia.
Global warming is not a physical phenomenon; it is a political and journalistic phenomenon that finds parallel in the totalitarian doctrines that inebriated masses deceived by demagogues. As Chris Patten put it: “Green politics at its worst amounts to a sort of Zen fascism; less extreme, it denounces growth and seeks to stop the world so that we can all get off”. In the view of Professor Aaron Wildavsky global warming is the mother of all environmental scares. “Warming (and warming alone), through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the environmentalist’s dream of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population’s eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally.” Their dream is the hippies’ lifestyle of idleness, penury, long hair, unshaven face, blue jeans, sandals and vegetarian diet, imposed on the world by decree of Big Brother, and justified by the Lebensraum fallacy.
People keep bringing up as a fact that Greenland got its name because people who discovered it(Eric the Red) thats the last name of discoverer I heard , wanted more people to come to Greenland. I am still trying to figure out how calling it something else would make a difference in what? What were they selling at that time on Greenland that they needed more People there?
In September of 2006, my son and I took a memorable motor trip to Lans aux Meadows, on the northern tip of Newfoundland. It was the first dedicated UNESCO historical heritage site where the Vikings actually wintered over in the new world. It dates to circa 1000 AD. We were told by the tour guide that the ocean had been near enough at the time that they were able to draw the longboats into the confines of the settlement for repairs, including the smelting of bog iron for fasteners. Today the site is several hundred yards from the ocean. This would have been roughly the height of the medieval warming period, and, of course, considerably before any possible AGW. We know from other history that this was also the great cathedral building era, and mankind flourished in many respects, especially from favorable growing seasons.
Hey, Doc. Thanks for the shout out, and wanted to commend you on a great little piece of work.
Did anyone see Rep from Mass.Markey speaking about Global Warming. It was all Talking points of Al Gore, he said the Seas are rising there are more destructive Hurricanes and the beat goes on. These people have no shame, Markey heads the committee about Warming and Carbon Credits. He is one of the dumbest men in the House if thats possible. Thats why he qualifies. If you put Gores name on Google with /Carbon Credit Companies next to it it reveals his private Compsnies. If you google Duo Crop Planting it opens up a lot of info about a lot of strange things that are related yet are not supposed be about Ethanol use etc.
That was the most informative 3 minute clip I’ve seen in forever. Thanks autopsy guy. I’m forwarding it to everyone.
So — if I’m understanding this correctly — did Mann essentially “move” the hockey stick from the 1850s to the 1900s? (How did that happen?) I’m a novice obviously. My understanding is the Greenland core temps indicated a steep rise in temps around the 1850s, and Mann’s data found that the steep rise started in the 1900s. Is that correct?
Yes, Mann’s Hockey stick is a reconstruction of temperature data from tree rings in the 20th century to show outrageous warming. His original reconstruction skims over the Medieval Warming Period (which is absent there, but later “corrected” in, although not nearly what should be in according to the ice core data). You can see it here, faithfully stored by Wikipedia (hey, it’s good for some things). What’s amazing is the backlash critics received by pointing out that there was a MWP.
Wheweeeeeee!!! Thank you for the information…
A few thoughts and questions:
Philosophical: Native Americans were reasonably portable with regard to building-sensibly…modern humanity is not…thus as ocean levels rise and fall, regardless if caused by nature or expedited by man (or extreme natural events) there are serious economic consequences as ports and waterside cities become either inundated or landlocked.
History: Glad that archeaologists are now looking at the continetal shelves (approximately 300′ deep) for Native American remains older than 10,000 to 12,000 years…surely this rise also relates to Biblical (and other) references to Noah’s Ark. Now go to Google Earth, if so inclined, and note the flat top shallow area just west of Great Britain-could that be the location of the famed “Atlantis”? Most interesting “David Boone” on the 1000 ad ocean levels pertaining to “Lans aux Meadows”…am curious how many feet higher the ocean was at that time than now?
Curiosity: Has some 90% of the population always lived within 20′ (or 50′) elevation of sea level as it is said is the case now? Why do history books not better correlate ocean elevation (and climate) changes with dramatic changes in human history?
“a. n. ditchfield” writes: “If comparison is limited to land covered by buildings and pavements the occupied land in the whole world amounts to 0,04% of the terrestrial area of the planet. With 99.96% unoccupied the idea of an overcrowded planet is an exaggeration.” Of course this does not take into account secondary human impacts; such as crop land, land dumps and dumping in the ocean-whose poisons can then affect a much larger area, deforestation, polluted lakes and rivers and now pumping sewerage into aquifers (Google: “Save Our Aquifer”) all of which involve much larger (human caused)impacts on planet earth than given credit…Your notes are terrific but these two sentences, while likely factually correct, are a bit misleading…
Hundreds (of snow people in case the picture does not show) gather to protest Global Warming !!!!!!
Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age
by Gregory F. Fegel
The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.
Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.
Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s “wobble,” which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.
Elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation were first presented by the French mathematician Joseph Adhemar in 1842, it was developed further by the English prodigy Joseph Croll in 1875, and the theory was established in its present form by the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s. In 1976 the prestigious journal Science published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled “Variations in the Earth’s orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is always described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopaedia articles about the Ice Ages.
In their 1976 paper Imbrie, Hays, and Shackleton wrote that their own climate forecasts, which were based on sea-sediment cores and the Milankovich cycles, “… must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends – and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted… the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate.”
During the 1970s the famous American astronomer Carl Sagan and other scientists began promoting the theory that “greenhouse gasses” such as carbon dioxide, or CO2, produced by human industries could lead to catastrophic global warming. Since the 1970s the theory of “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW) has gradually become accepted as fact by most of the academic establishment, and their acceptance of AGW has inspired a global movement to encourage governments to make pivotal changes to prevent the worsening of AGW.
The central piece of evidence that is cited in support of the AGW theory is the famous “hockey stick” graph which was presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth. The “hockey stick” graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures which began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07. However, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures.
The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years – evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.
In 1999 the British journal Nature published the results of data derived from glacial ice cores collected at the Russia’s Vostok station in Antarctica during the 1990s. The Vostok ice core data includes a record of global atmospheric temperatures, atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and airborne particulates starting from 420,000 years ago and continuing through history up to our present time.
The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing. The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise.
The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their “fizz,” which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content. The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Because the release of CO2 by the warming oceans lags behind the changes in the earth’s temperature, we should expect to see global CO2 levels continue to rise for another eight hundred years after the end of the earth’s current Interglacial warm period. We should already be eight hundred years into the coming Ice Age before global CO2 levels begin to drop in response to the increased chilling of the world’s oceans.
The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a direct response to the natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years. Within that natural cycle, about every 110,000 years global temperatures, followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels which they are at today.
Today we are again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age. If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always has, in its regular and natural cycle, with or without any influence from the effects of AGW.
The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the “big picture” of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored
Drudged up from ice core data in Greenland, it turns out that there has been incredible warming lately, but it’s not nearly what it’s been in the past. I invite you to see my video of the images compiled.
The point of this presentation is to show that warming and cooling have occurred on a great scale in the past during non-industrialized times when man could not have had any affect on the climate.
So what?
During the medieval warming period, how many people lived in Miami? In Hong Cong? The point being is that during the medieval warming period, the earth’s population was approx 310 million, today it is approx 6.7 BILLION. Humans in these numbers are remarkably new to this planet. Just a short geologic time ago, NYC was buried under a mile of ice.
As the author has shown, we live in an extremely stable and warm period. That being shown, it is obvious that any slight fluctuations could be catastrophic. With a 3C. rise, 100s of millions of people, including major US cities will be undersea. There are a variety of natural forces that could cause this as they have in the past. For example, if a super volcano blew, like Yellowstone, it would make any affect man made affect on climate look minuscule by comparison.
My point is that AGW is real, it is affecting the climate a slight amount, but a slight amount of change at this time would be catastrophic. Could it be caused by natural forces? Absolutely. Could it be mitigated by man decreasing emissions? Maybe, but in a practical world, probably not. This argument does not disprove man made global warming, it simple shows the extremes of prehistoric times and the stability to which we have become accustomed.
“So what?”
Well science is all about accuracy and “what we have here is a failure to communicate” honestly, by scientists. These scientists have an agenda. Many have become enriched (along with their political/governmental allies) promoting untruths…this is criminal to most of us…
While there is no doubt that at the moment the earth’s average temperatures are rising along with ocean levels, what is being ‘exposed’ are additional facts that seem to indicate falsification for personal gain…again this is criminal…I was Al Gore speeching: ‘the facts are correct despite the poorly written words that were taken out of context’ …Gore makes his millions off of false pretenses, thus he can live in a huge (non-green) house while other’s sacrifice for his false agenda…
All these rebuttals point out is that temperatures have risen and declined without the help of mankind (and will continue to do so)…while I believe in ‘Mother Earth’ and that we humans should all take care to not pollute and to be efficient at all times, including with waste, energy and etc., we should not become inefficient as a society due to false information being foisted on the unknowing so that big corporations can make huge money off the general populace…
FYI: Removing certain refrigerants is inefficient and has factually caused more pollution as working and/or repairable equipment has been replaced with more inefficient equipment.
Also technology has advanced to the point where a say 40 year old power plants can be replaced with new ones that are at least 35% more efficient (and 90% cleaner)…yet there is no rush to do this cause the money scammers are not enriched by this huge savings…keep this in mind please…
Jason is correct. AGW is real and is harming the planet since it exceptionally stable and warm at this time. Indian River is also correct except that he buys into the conservative conspiracy theories – scientists lying for greed, etc… He contradicts himself when he points out that the polluters have an agenda to enrich themselves and maintain the status quo. Environmentalists have a different aim. Doc is also a conspiracy theorist and his video proves nothing about the issue.
Karen, the data in the video (ice cores from some fine sources, like NOAA) shows that warming was begun before the Industrial Age. Yes. It proves that.
So global warming is not man made.
The earth has gone through warming/pluvial and cooling periods on its own.
Yes, pollution is bad. Heavy metals that make the Hudson River toxic, etc. is bad. Returning rivers to a “natural” state is a nice idea. And assuming that the pre-1800’s era, of all the eras of the earth’s history, was of “normal” temperature is fallacious.
http://www.greatamericanjournal.com/editor/archives/TheGreatestHoaxSinceThePiltdownMan.htm
The Greatest Hoax Since The Piltdown Man
By JR Dieckmann
Every member of congress has sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I’m pretty sure they have now replaced that oath with a new oath to protect and defend Barack Obama. Obama, along with Al Gore, is promoting the greatest historical hoax since the Piltdown Man.
As you know, the EPA has declared carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas, and now, a gas hazardous to human life. Just see how long life on Earth would last without CO2.
All life would be gone in less than a generation. Plant life would no longer be able to grow and produce oxygen. The food chain would be disrupted causing mass starvation. The existing oxygen would be depleted within a few years and replaced with carbon dioxide from the animal life until they all die. The end of life on Earth would result from the elimination of CO2 from our atmosphere.
Fox News reports that a top White House economic official warned:
“If you don’t pass this [climate change] legislation, then … the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area. And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”
One must ask; when was the last time Congress regulated “on a market-based way?” Not since 2006 when there was at least some free-market common sense in Washington. This brings up two basic constitutional issues:
In the first place; the final clause in Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”
That seems pretty clear in its wording. It simply says that [Congress] may make laws and create departments and federal agencies which shall be necessary for carrying out the enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution.
So the question is, just which enumerated power in the Constitution is relevant to the EPA? I find nowhere in the Constitution does it grant to the federal government the power to regulate the environment; nor can I imagine what other purpose their might be for the EPA.
Again, I refer to this clause: “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers…” Which of the forgoing powers does the EPA support? If it is not proper and necessary for carrying into execution a power granted to the federal government, then it doesn’t belong in the federal government – it is a right reserved to the states or to the people as prescribed in the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
In the second place; The EPA is “going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way?” This sounds to me like the EPA is going to be making laws to regulate how we use energy and how much CO2 we emit. The problem is that only Congress can make laws, not some agency created by Congress, and certainly not an agency which has no basis for its existence in the Constitution. Are we expected to obey laws that were not legally created by Congress? What happens if we “just say no?”
This Congress needs to go back and read the Constitution. If we need agencies and regulations to deal with air pollution, that’s fine – as long as they are state and local agencies, not federal government agencies that are prohibited by the Constitution.
Obama’s plan to fight global warming says we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by the year 2020, and 80% by the end of the century. Since water vapor makes up 95% of all greenhouse gasses, reducing carbon dioxide emissions will have virtually no effect on the climate.
CO2 accounts for only 3.62% of total greenhouse gasses while human activity accounts for only 3.4% of that amount. The total CO2 emissions from human activity amount to a mere 0.00123% of all greenhouse gasses. It is not possible to reduce greenhouse gasses by even two thousandths of one percent, even by cutting CO2 emissions to zero. Methane gas is just one tenth of that amount so farmers don‘t have to worry about bovine flatulence either. Nothing we do will have any effect on the climate – and Congress cannot control the weather.
The logic of global warming alarmists would also seem to indicate that once CO2 is introduced into the atmosphere it just stays there and builds up. This is preposterous. Have these people never heard of the carbon cycle or gravity? They must have thought that Led Zeppelin was a real airship too.
CO2, being heavier than air (nitrogen & oxygen), naturally settles back to earth to feed the vegetation, which uses the carbon atoms as building blocks for growth while releasing the oxygen atoms back into the atmosphere through the process of photosynthesis. The more CO2 there is, the more vegetation grows and the more oxygen it produces. Without CO2 in the air, there would be no life on the planet. So the EPA has classified CO2 as “harmful to life?” Are they nuts? Tell it to the plants in your garden and watch them die of shock.
But if that isn’t enough, last week Congress passed the Clean Water Restoration Act which gives the EPA the power to regulate all natural public waters in the U.S., essentially turning over control of all lands which contain water to the federal government. Every river, every lake, every stream, every wetlands, every pond – pretty much every natural resource that uses nature’s waters will be regulated by this unconstitutional agency.
This is a huge intrusion of the federal government into the states’ lands and rights. This is one result of Obama’s appointment of Cass Sunstein as “regulatory czar” where he can impose his radical agenda and sneaky methods on all of us.
By simply removing the word “navigable“ from the phrase “navigable waters of the United States” in the 1972 The Clean Water Act, Sunstein has now given the federal government powers over all U.S. waters and adjacent lands including private property. This is a tactic Sunstein calls “nudging” as described in his book, “Nudge.” You simply change a word here and there to tweak a policy into something that was never intended in its original form.
The 1972 Clean Water Act was developed to control the discharge of pollutants into public waters. As a result of the Obama administration, it has now been used to put California’s central valley farms out of business and turn their land into a desert wasteland by cutting off their water supply to protect a stinking smelt fish from being sucked into the pumps. Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply install screens on the pump inlets? Who needs smelt fish anyway?
Where is the scientific evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in the first place? The atmosphere on Venus is full of CO2 and methane and it’s very hot there, up to 900 degrees. But Mars also has an atmosphere of methane and mostly CO2 but it’s very cold on Mars, ranging from +1 to -178 degrees. Why isn’t it hot on Mars too? What about the “greenhouse effect?”
Consider the temperature and CO2 historic records of the Earth which Al Gore uses to establish his premise. They show a relationship between temperature and CO2, but with a closer look, they also show that changes in CO2 levels trail the temperature changes by several hundred years. It would appear that the temperature on Earth is what controls the CO2 content in the atmosphere, not the other way around.
What the climate models fail to take into account:
Climate records, until very recently, have been gathered from ground-based weather stations. You cannot take the temperature of the Earth from ground-based weather stations and expect to get accurate readings. These reading are a result not only of actual atmospheric temperatures but also ground-effects as well: urban sprawl; pavements; buildings; foliage; air conditioning and ventilation exhaust; road traffic; etc. Not only are readings from various locations different, they continually change. The only way to take the Earth’s temperature is from space. We have been doing that for the past couple of decades and the readings show little or no change at all in overall temperatures.
Global climate and temperatures are subject to much more than simply the contents of the atmosphere. The primary thermostat of the earth is the sun. One important factor here is the distance between the Earth and the sun which varies between 91 million miles, and 94.5 million miles. When Earth is closer to the sun, it gets warmer. When further from the sun it gets colder.
Another factor is the axial tilt of the planet of 23.4 degrees with a rotational period of 25,700 years counter to the rotational direction of the planet. As an example; when the northern hemisphere is tilted toward the sun, and the planet is closer to the sun, the weather is going to be warmer.
With the current cooling trend over the past decade, the term “global warming” has become no longer acceptable by its promoters. It has morphed into “climate change” which is absolutely meaningless. Of course there is climate change – there always has been and always will be.
Now, if you want to stabilize the Earth’s wobbling axis cycle, and regulate its orbit cycle around the sun which varies from round to oval over centuries of time, then you might be able to reduce climate change. But what you can’t do is regulate it with draconian legislation.
But that alone won’t be enough. You’re also going to have to control sun spot activity which is probably the major cause of climate change. Sun spots run in 11 year cycles – from sunspot maximum to minimum, then back to maximum. When sunspot activity is at maximum, the sun produces more radiation that heats the Earth, and less when sunspot activity is at minimum.
Since these cycles mentioned above have different periods, maximum alignments of them don’t happen too often. When they do, the Earth can become warmer or colder.
The last sunspot maximum was in 1999, the weather was warm, and Al Gore began his global warming campaign which resulted in his horror movie that we all know and loved. At the high peak of the sunspot cycle, Al Gore and the ‘Climites’ told the world that the planet is going to continue getting warmer based on consensus and insufficient data from climate scientists who should have known better.
When the cooling cycle began, they all tried to hide their mistakes by fudging the data and cooking the books to protect their reputations, government grants, and careers. The result is the Piltdown Man of the 21st century which governments and the U.N. recognized as a great opportunity to promote global socialism.
The sunspot minimum was reached in late 2005 which accounts for the cooling over the last decade. That means that we should be seeing warming now, and another sunspot maximum in 2010. Apocalyptic predictions in programs on the Science Channel usually include high sunspot activity by 2012 in their programs.
But something is terribly wrong and the media is ignoring it. The Earth should now be warming again, but it’s still cooling. Why? Because there have been absolutely no sunspots for the past 3 years. The sunspot activity cycle has been disrupted, as has occurred before, most recently about 10,000 years ago. If the sunspots don’t return soon, we should be preparing for another ice age, not global warming.
If Obama, Gore, and the IPCC are right about CO2 causing global warming, then we should be producing as much of it as possible to keep the Earth warm in the absence of solar sunspot activity until the sunspots return.
JR Dieckmann is editor, publisher, writer, and webmaster of GreatAmericanJournal.com. He also works as an electrician in Los Angeles. He has been writing and publishing articles on the web since 2000. Permission for reprints and reposts of this article are freely granted and approved by the author providing credit is given to the writer and linked to the original source at GreatAmericanJournal.com. JR can be contacted at http://www.greatamericanjournal.com/contact
JR Dieckmann – IndianRiver Man’s expert on climate works as an electrician in Los Angeles.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
Your response is “A non sequitur.” Using your own words Jim.
I posted this article because it is relevant, logical and well written…it also covers some interesting side points to the controversial issue of “man made global warming”. If you had read the article, you would have noted that much is written on the related politics and good ol’ COMMON SENSE…this does not require an “expert on climate”! And of course we all now know that many of these so called “experts on climate” are manipulators, liars and cheats-so I will pass on their sort of “expertise”.
Other than your insult to “Matt R”, I like the logic of what you (December 23, 2009 at 9:53 pm) and Jason (December 19, 2009 at 8:52 pm) wrote. So using your logic (laughing at Dieckmann-questioning whether “Matt R” has a “reading deficiency”), what are your credentials to speak in this issue Jim?
There is much conflicting information and “facts” being present pertaining to this issue…a wise person will read all they can on both sides of the conflict in order to come up with balanced input leading perhaps to balanced opinions…
So global warming is not man made.
The earth has gone through warming/pluvial and cooling periods on its own.
A non sequitur. Just because the earth has warmed and cooled before doesn’t mean warming cannot be man made.
What’s the matter Matt R? Do you have a reading deficiency? I will paste what Jason wrote:
we live in an extremely stable and warm period. That being shown, it is obvious that any slight fluctuations could be catastrophic. With a 3C. rise, 100s of millions of people, including major US cities will be undersea. There are a variety of natural forces that could cause this as they have in the past.
My point is that AGW is real, it is affecting the climate a slight amount, but a slight amount of change at this time would be catastrophic. Could it be caused by natural forces? Absolutely. Could it be mitigated by man decreasing emissions? Maybe, but in a practical world, probably not. This argument does not disprove man made global warming, it simple shows the extremes of prehistoric times and the stability to which we have become accustomed.
“There is one impact that results from global warming, however, that is unobtrusively manifesting itself and is being felt on all continents approximately equally: All of them are shrinking. This is becsuse, courtesy of heat and melting ice, the oceans are expanding.
Is this a threat to humanity? Let’s see how far the waters will rise and how fast.
Tim Flannery, The Weather Makers, page 141
I explain the Medieval period on Greenland in this blog post.
http://kisekiya.blogspot.com/2011/06/climate-change-debate-flawed-hockey.html
Regards,
Ken
Hello! Someone in my Myspace group shared this site with us so I came to take a look.
I’m definitely enjoying the information. I’m bookmarking and will be tweeting this to my
followers! Great blog and wonderful style and design.
What a great blog site you’ve below. Please revise that more regularly. This kind of subjects will be my own attention. Many thanks.
This is really interesting, You are a very professional blogger.
I’ve joined your rss feed and look ahead to in search
of more of your great post. Also, I’ve shared your site in my social networks
You – Tube has become the 2nd biggest search engine after Google, Google now incorporates video directly into its search results and websites that don’t contain video are beginning to look positively archaic.
Most often the photos have some texts and both the photos and
the texts are very funny indeed. They ran around and yipped, and barked at the white stuff that covered them momentarily.
Great items from you, man. I’ve remember your stuff previous to and you
are just extremely excellent. I really like what you have obtained right here, really like what you are saying and the way wherein you say it.
You make it enjoyable and you continue to take care of to stay it smart.
I can’t wait to read much more from you. This is actually a wonderful web site.