Global Warming 2

[charlesh]

Latest out of the US.
Louisiana state Rep. Lenar Whitney (R) is accusing liberals, such as former Vice President Al Gore, of advancing "the greatest deception in the history of mankind" -- man-made climate change -- in a scheme to empower the executive branch and increase taxes.

“A specter is haunting America,” Whitney, who is running for Congress in Louisiana’s 6th Congressional District, warned in a campaign video released Wednesday. “It is perhaps the greatest deception in the history of mankind.”

Mocking Gore’s 2006 Academy Award–winning climate change documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth,” Whitney claimed that the planet "has done nothing but get colder each year since the film’s release.”

“Quite inconveniently for Al Gore, and for the rest of the politicians who continue to advance this delusion, any 10-year-old can invalidate their thesis with one of the simplest scientific devices known to man: a thermometer,” Whitney said, citing record sea ice in the Antarctic sector.

Numerous GOP lawmakers and climate change contrarians have pointed to below-zero temperatures and seasonal snowfall as evidence against the legitimacy of human-induced climate change, despite numerous scientific reports debunking their claims.

Although many parts of the U.S. witnessed record-low temperatures this past winter, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are still rising, winters have become increasingly warmer over the past century and Arctic sea ice is still melting.

Whitney’s own state is one of the most vulnerable regions in the country to climate change, with rising coastal sea levels estimated to submerge the Louisiana coastline by 2100.

[hhfarang]

"Climate change: The moment I became a climate skeptic

By Zev Chafets
Published June 30, 2014
FoxNews.com
Facebook38 Twitter6 livefyre39
660-Shrinking-Salamanders-AP.jpg

FILE -- Sept. 27, 2013: A photograph provided by the University of Maryland shows a red-backed salamander, one of the native Appalachian mountain range salamander species that has gotten significantly smaller. Scientists say salamanders in the mountain range are getting smaller in response to climate change.AP Photo/University of Maryland, Nicholas M. Caruso

I got my first lesson on the subject of climate change more than 10 years ago. My tutor was an internationally famous climate scientist at a major Ivy League university. Unlike most lectures I have heard from professors, this one was brief, to the point and extremely enlightening.

At the time I was a columnist for the New York Daily News, recently arrived in the United States after more than 30 years in Israel. I had heard about global warming, of course, but I hadn’t thought much about it. Israel has other, more pressing issues.

I may not know anything about science, but I have learned over a long career that when an expert hangs up in the middle of a question, it means that he doesn’t know the answer.

In May 2001, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its third report, which got a lot of media attention. I looked through it and realized immediately that I had no chance of understanding the science.

I was in good company – I doubt there are half a dozen journalists in captivity who can actually understand the mathematical and chemical formulas and computer projections. That’s what press releases are for.

One item got my attention. It said: “Projections based on the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios suggest warming over the 21st Century at a more rapid rate than that experienced for at least the last 10,000 years.”

I called the professor, one of the authors of the report, for a clarification (he remains nameless because we were off the record). “If global warming is caused by man-made emissions,” I asked, “what accounts for the world warming to this same level 10,000 years ago?”

There was a long silence. Then the professor said, “Are you serious?”

I admitted that I was.

The professor loudly informed me that my question was stupid. The panel’s conclusion was indisputable science, arrived at after years of research by a conclave of the world’s leading climate scholars. Who was I to dispute it?

I told him I wasn’t disputing it, just trying to understand how, you know, the world could have been this hot before without the help of human agency. Maybe this is just a natural climate change like ice ages that once connected continents and warming periods that caused them to drift apart or …

At which point I heard a click. The professor hung up on me. At that exact moment I became a climate skeptic. I may not know anything about science, but I have learned over a long career that when an expert hangs up in the middle of a question, it means that he doesn’t know the answer.

This isn’t shocking. Experts, even on subjects less complicated than what the world’s temperature will be in 200 years, are often wrong. One tip-off is when they argue by assuring you that everybody smart already knows they are right.

I was reminded of this encounter the other day while reading a Time Magazine cover story titled, “Eat Butter: Scientists labeled fat the enemy. Why they were wrong.” The article chronicled the decades-long consensus, backed by official U.S. government policy as well as a militant (and self-interested) scientific establishment, that fat was a killer. According to Time, this was “so embedded in modern medicine and nutrition that it became nearly impossible to challenge the consensus.” Scientific journals refused to publish data challenging this orthodoxy. People who did, like Dr. Robert Atkins, were derided as quacks.

Now that consensus has flipped (Time Magazine doesn’t publish articles outside any current consensus). It may flip again someday as we learn even more about nutrition and health. But for now, the danger of eating fat – once an unshakable tenet of settled science – is out of intellectual fashion. People who have virtuously deprived themselves of t-bones, ice cream and cheesecake are now left with egg on their faces. It is a reminder that bad science, backed by a politicized posse of experts, can have distasteful consequences.

Another recent article, this one in the New York Times, also caught my eye. It reported that a submerged forest in Wales has suddenly re-emerged, revealing traces that humans had lived there before the sea rose after the last ice age. “About 10,000 years ago, temperatures warmed sharply, by eight to ten degrees Fahrenheit,” said Dr. Martin Bates, a geoarcheologist called in to examine the situation. The footprints found in the sediment belonged to “refugees of prehistoric climate change,” he said (happily, Wales has since been repopulated).

Dr. Nicholas Ashton of the British Museum, a participant in the project, was philosophical. “We can reconstruct the climate and climate change nearly one million years ago,” he said. “The big lesson is, we have to adapt. Whether we like it or not the climate will change – it always has.” He quickly added that human beings were now “accelerating that change.” The Times reporter didn’t ask him how much the change was accelerating, or what, besides people, might be causing an eons-old phenomenon. Perhaps she didn’t wonder. Or maybe she didn’t feel like getting hung up on by an expert."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/ ... e-skeptic/

[STEVE G]

“Quite inconveniently for Al Gore, and for the rest of the politicians who continue to advance this delusion, any 10-year-old can invalidate their thesis with one of the simplest scientific devices known to man: a thermometer,”

We've just had the hottest May since records began!

[MrPlum]

We've just had the hottest May since records began!

That's easy. Just adjust the temperature to whatever you want it to be...




Read how the carbon crooks fiddle the figures... http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/ ... k-and.html

[STEVE G]

That might of worked 20 years ago but now the world obviously is getting warmer.

[MrPlum]

That might of worked 20 years ago but now the world obviously is getting warmer.

Show me the dustbowl.

[STEVE G]

Whilst the US is pretending nothing is happening, perhaps the Chinese might be able to help:

China Might Be Winning The Race To Reduce Solar Costs
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/ ... Costs.html

"....driven by high levels of pollution and national security concerns, the Chinese government asked a question back in the early 2000s: “How Much Will It Cost To Make Solar Cheaper Than Coal?” The answer was based on Swanson's Law that states that every doubling of photovoltaic (PV) solar capacity results in a 20 percent reduction in unit cost. Testing that theory, because of low levels of production at that time, would only have cost around $10 billion -- a small price to pay for the chance of cheap, clean energy that didn’t rely on importing coal from Australia.

When Swanson’s Law still worked after a couple of doublings of capacity the Chinese government stepped up their efforts. As a result, Suntech now expects the goal to be achieved by 2016, or 2017 at the latest. That’s right: 2016. A couple of years. Of course, Suntech has an interest in exaggerating somewhat, but even so, that is stunningly close."

[charlesh]

The Chinese do produce huge numbers of PV cells albeit not the most efficient. Maybe that's why they are looking are expanding their territories recently as there is not enough space to put all the cells out and align them correctly.

[StevePIraq]

That might of worked 20 years ago but now the world obviously is getting warmer.

Show me the dustbowl.

Here ya go mate

[STEVE G]

Fossil industry is the subprime danger of this cycle
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... cycle.html


"The epicentre of irrational behaviour across global markets has moved to the fossil fuel complex of oil, gas and coal. This is where investors have been throwing the most good money after bad.
They are likely to be left holding a clutch of worthless projects as renewable technology sweeps in below radar, and the Washington-Beijing axis embraces a greener agenda. "

"Brokers Sanford Bernstein say we are entering an era of "global energy deflation" where gains in solar technology must relentlessly erode the viability of the fossil nexus, since it goes only in one direction. Deep sea drilling will become pointless. We can leave the Arctic alone. "

[charlesh]

Bloody climate change!!!!

Earth's magnetic field, which protects the planet from huge blasts of deadly solar radiation, has been weakening over the past six months, according to data collected by a European Space Agency (ESA) satellite array called Swarm.

The biggest weak spots in the magnetic field — which extends 370,000 miles (600,000 kilometers) above the planet's surface — have sprung up over the Western Hemisphere, while the field has strengthened over areas like the southern Indian Ocean, according to the magnetometers onboard the Swarm satellites — three separate satellites floating in tandem.

The scientists who conducted the study are still unsure why the magnetic field is weakening, but one likely reason is that Earth's magnetic poles are getting ready to flip, said Rune Floberghagen, the ESA's Swarm mission manager. In fact, the data suggest magnetic north is moving toward Siberia.

[Homer]

According to a TED talk, some climate scientists are working on something they hope will never be used, though they fear it must be.

The 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption put an estimated 200,000 lbs of suflate into the atmosphere. Tiny - really freaking tiny - droplets reflected enough sunlight to lower the earth's average temperature 1/2 degree F in 1 year. Side effects? None. It's cheap and easy for man to replicate that atmospheric sulfate infusion.

Why might it must be used? The scientists say once global man made carbon dioxide emissions have peaked (gee, I wonder what their bias is), it may take too long for the planet to cool to prevent such things as putting all the sea level cities under water. Why do they fear it will be used? Because if SCIENCE can counteract man made carbon dioxide emissions, then there will be less incentive to reduce such emissions - even though the means of doing so has no known side effects.

I first heard of global warming in the early 80s. A non-mainstream weekly newspaper printed 2 articles. One said warming is happening, we must do the following to stop it. The other said #1's list of what we must do now coincides with the long term plans of what few splinter groups of American Communist political parties which still exist.

It's 2014. A solution is available. The global warming alarmists won't talk about it because they're still not interested in any solution that doesn't cripple the large capitalist economies.

[STEVE G]

They could add the cost of any such geoengineering projects onto the cost of fossil fuels which would force the price even higher and make renewables cost effective at an earlier date and thereby reducing energy costs for all, which many predict would cause a boom to the worlds economies and reduce emmisions at the same time.

[JamesWest]

It is sort of overcast today, does that mean anything?

[PeteC]

Scientists may have cracked the giant Siberian crater mystery — and the news isn’t good.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... ?tid=sm_fb