What Happened To Global Warming, it's NOT!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by newest Sort by date
And what does Cap and Trade have to do with CLIMATE CHANGE?:laugh:
April 22, 2010
Graph of the Day for April 22, 2010

Randall Hoven

[FONT=times new roman,times]"CBO has estimated the loss in households' purchasing power that would result from the primary cap-and-trade program that would be established by H.R. 2454[/FONT]
Cap%20n%20Trade.jpg


[FONT=times new roman,times]Source: [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Congressional Budget Office[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]. ([/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]Gross Domestic Product[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times] in 2009 was $14.454 trillion.)[/FONT]
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/graph_of_the_day_for_april_22.html
 
Earth Day -- 1970-1990


Now let's shift the scene to April 22, 1970. On that day, with the approval of the Congress, President Richard M. Nixon declared the first Earth Day and simultaneously in the same year established the Environmental Protection Agency. (A few more cynical types, familiar with how the Marxist-Leninists and their Insider buddies like to link dates, have pointed out that most biographers also cite April 22 as V.I. Lenin's birthday. Not wanting to be Ultra-conspiratorial, I'll use April 23 for Lenin's birthday, as some others do, and not try to draw any ominous conclusions. Just thought you might be interested.)
It is finally "a generation- and-a-half" later, and the whole world is gearing up for Earth Day 1990. As I write, it is amidst the rising cacophony of what is to come. April 22 is going to be a very big day. My latest tally shows that 107 countries worldwide will be involved in a planet-wide recognition of this Green Gala.
In a front-page feature in the Sunday, January 28, 1990 Seattle Times, reporter Bill Dietrich said, "Environmentalists are hoping history is about to top itself with a[n]...Earth Day celebration...involving more than 100 countries and 100 million people. The goal is to make the '90s the 'Decade of the Environment.'"
How does this fit with the Report From Iron Mountain? Just two citations from the same Seattle Times piece make the point:
"Government, business, and consumers have spent up to a trillion dollars, by Department of Commerce count, to clean the environment...the U.S. seems to find three new environmental hazards for each one it conquers."​
That's the reporter's observation, not mine. The item continues, "Twenty years after Earth Day, those of us who set out to change the world are poised on the threshold of utter failure...How could we have fought so hard, and won so many battles, only to find ourselves now on the verge of loosing the war?" That particular lament was uttered by none other than Denis Hayes, the founder of the original Earth Day.
In a moment of surprising candor, Ken Weiner, Jimmy Carter's Deputy Director of the Council for Environmental Quality and now a Seattle attorney, admitted Hayes is more than half right: "The environmental movement is recognizing its issue is being taken away by the Establishment. It has been said war is too important to be left to the generals. Some are wondering if environment quality is too important to be left to the environmentalists."
As the jubilant contestants on Family Feud would say, while clapping hands and jumping up and down, "Good answer, good answer!"
So let's quickly do a recap on the environment and see if it fits the "Substitute for the Function of War" so desperately sought by the Special Study Group in the Report From Iron Mountain:
  1. We have a "war"
  2. It involves "everyone -- everywhere"
  3. It's "urgent"
  4. It's already required the spending of "a trillion dollars"
  5. It's "international;" and most frightening of all,
  6. "You ain't seen nothin' yet."
Yes, I think we can say there is a fit here. One that is planned to bridge East and West, communist and capitalist, into a single clean, pure, breathable New World Order.


"We believe the picture painters of the mass media are artfully creating landscapes for us which deliberately hide the real picture. In this book, we will show you how to discover the 'hidden picture' in the landscapes presented to us daily through newspapers, radio and television. Once you see through the camouflage, you will see the donkey, the cart and the boy who have been there all along."
Those paragraphs were first written back in 1971. They were the result of my trying to find a way to explain to people then just how confusing world events can be -- until you see the real picture. I first developed that metaphor in 1969 in the course of giving a three-hour lecture, which ultimately became the basis for None Dare Call It Conspiracy. How that lecture evolved into Gary Allen's and my runaway best-seller is an interesting story, but one that is better left for another time and place.
My point today is (and was then) that in the real world of mega-power politics, we are being deceived on a scale so massive it is almost beyond human comprehension.

I must grudgingly admit that my use of a "green" and natural landscape as part of the deception was totally coincidental, but its current application is better than ever.

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/greening.shtml
 
FireWeatherMet said:
Those scientists/professors would have jobs whether there was warming or cooling. They continue to teach University meteorological classes in most cases and continue to monitor climate...at rather meager salaries compared to Oil executives or other Industry leaders. Thats the biggest misconception of GW-that they're doing it for the money...most of the extra gov't funding is for hi tech sensors and more satellite launches to gather date...not to pump up salaries. These people make only GS11-GS 15 salaries...not your typical 300K-500K Investment banker salary...or million dollar plus industry leader paychecks. Geologists who workk for Oil companies (and get drafted into putting out anti warming papers) get paid a lot more.

I'm a meteorologist not a climatologist...so I don't want to make it sound like I'm a leading expert in the field. A similar analogy might be a mechanic who is not an automotive designing engineer, but can look at auto engineering ideas and interpret many of their findings.

I've worked a lot on local climate projects at my local National Weather Service Office...and went to a large Climate Symposium in Boulder Colorado back in 2005 or 2006, where one of the head Climatologists from NOAA's Climate Prediction Center gravely told us privately that he cannot give out his true findings because his report was re-written by "technical editors" from Vice President Cheneys office. That was one case of data manipulation that the media doesn't hear about.

Data manipulation occurs a lot...99% of the time its due to missing data. If a station's annual temperatures are missing days...you have to throw them out that station, or use statistical techniques to estimate what the missing data is. In that Canadian example...it makes sense that far northern (remote) stations have significant gaps in data (missing a few weeks here and there). You can't use those. And its too bad we can't because the greatest warming has likely been towards the Arctic circle.

The urban heat islands have been urban heat islands for the past 50-70 years...so finding a significant warming trend in the past 20-30 years (after the 70's cooling) has nothing to due with the urban heat islands.

As for "CimateGate" there was no fudging of data, after a review of independent scientists. There were personal insults written about Warming skeptics, and a suggestion to not let this corporate sponsored "junk science" be published. But overall, nothing was found to detract from accepted worldwide scientific conclusions on Global Warming...except that poor behaviour exists everywhere...in the University Halls as well as the halls of Fox News...or even the halls of MSNBC?

"There was no evidence that Professor Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), deliberately withheld or manipulated data in order to support the idea that global warming was real and that it was influenced by human activities, according to a report by the Commons Science and Technology Committee."

from article: http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-scandal-mps-exonerate-professor-1931631.html
Click to expand...
FWM. How much does volcanic eruptions like the recent one in Iceland muddy the waters with regard to Anthropogenic Global Warming?
 
FireWeatherMet said:
Those scientists/professors would have jobs whether there was warming or cooling. They continue to teach University meteorological classes in most cases and continue to monitor climate...at rather meager salaries compared to Oil executives or other Industry leaders. Thats the biggest misconception of GW-that they're doing it for the money...most of the extra gov't funding is for hi tech sensors and more satellite launches to gather date...not to pump up salaries. These people make only GS11-GS 15 salaries...not your typical 300K-500K Investment banker salary...or million dollar plus industry leader paychecks. Geologists who workk for Oil companies (and get drafted into putting out anti warming papers) get paid a lot more.
Click to expand...
I hope that you can understand why I am reluctant to accept the whole Global Warming theory, I just don't trust the info I'm getting and that includes the info from both sides, to a point. Conspiracy Theories are a dime a dozen but I see blatant skewing of the data from more than one source Government and private, could it be that they were using rectal thermometers that could explain the warming? It all fits into World Government Control and higher taxes to support their agenda. I just don't buy it, read between the lines. BOOGA BOOGA!:eek: Sunny day down here about 80 degrees nice!! :)
 
Amplification of Global Warming by Carbon-Cycle Feedback Significantly Less Than Thought, Study Suggests

ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2010) — A new estimate of the feedback between temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has been derived from a comprehensive comparison of temperature and CO2 records spanning the past millennium.

Reference
The result, which is based on more than 200,000 individual comparisons, implies that the amplification of current global warming by carbon-cycle feedback will be significantly less than recent work has suggested.

Climate warming causes many changes in the global carbon cycle, with the net effect generally considered to be an increase in atmospheric CO2 with increasing temperature -- in other words, a positive feedback between temperature and CO2. Uncertainty in the magnitude of this feedback has led to a wide range in projections of current global warming: about 40% of the uncertainty in these projections comes from this source.
Recent attempts to quantify the feedback by examining the co-variation of pre-industrial climate and CO2 records yielded estimates of about 40 parts per million by volume (p.p.m.v.) CO2 per degree Celsius, which would imply significant amplification of current warming trends.
In this week's Nature, David Frank and colleagues extend this empirical approach by comparing nine global-scale temperature reconstructions with CO2 data from three Antarctic ice cores over the period ad 1050-1800. The authors derive a likely range for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a median value of 7.7.
The researchers conclude that the recent estimates of 40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius can be excluded with 95% confidence, suggesting significantly less amplification of current warming.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm
 
Climate Debate: What's Warming Us Up? Human Activity or Mother Nature?
Quote
"The only contentious aspect of the IPCC assessment is attribution -- what is the cause of global warming and climate change," says atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, who is president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, a public policy institute based in Arlington, Va. "We have looked at every bit of data that IPCC has brought forth, and we see no credible evidence for human-caused global warming. None." [more]
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm
 
FireWeatherMet said:
Fair question.

The rapid glacial melt of the past 2-3 decades is thought to be largely reponsible for the Iceland volcanic activity. You lose hundreds of feet of pressurized ice that weighs similar to cement...and that allows the ground to expand upwards. So on that note....the eruption itself is thought to be a result of anthropgenic global warming.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070830_gw_quakes.html

Anthropgenic (aka man-made) global warming may not be a good term. Since CO2, Methane, Water Vapor occur both naturally and artificially, we have to ask what is the ratio? Is it 50/50. Or did we tip the scale to 70/30? We don't hear too much about that but given the wealth of data on both emmisions and boi-fluxes...there should be a pretty accurate estimate out there somewhere.

On Volcanic eruptions and global warming itself...even though greenhouse gases are emmitted...the bulk of the volcanic plum is ash particulate...whose diamater and vertical trajectory tends to actually have a cooling effect. it significantly limits incoming solar radiation, while minimally blocking outgoing radiation (heat) from the earths surface. Its efffects tend to be confined to the hemisphere of the blast, unless its along the equator. My giuess is that the next 10-18 months will feature a temporary but significant cooling if more ash is spewed and a shift from El Nino (warm water) to La Nina (cold water) occurs in the Pacific.

http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/webprojects1997/AnnaL/Welcome.htm
Click to expand...
Sounds like the chicken or the egg argument. You're saying the melting glaciers allowed the Iceland volcano to erupt. I believe the glaciers are melting, in large part because of volcanic activity.

I don't see how glaciers could completely stop the buildup of pressure beneath the crust of the earth from forcing it's way out through any of the world's volcanoes. Look at the Mt. St. Helens eruption. A whole side of the mountain blew away from the volcanic pressure! A thousand feet of ice won't stop the volcano from erupting if the pressure builds up enough.

Just my opinion, of course. I'm no scientist.:cool:
 
My point was that this happens and will happen again and has NOTHING to do with Climate Change.;)​

"Both blocked-NAO atmospheric circulation and El Niño tropical sea surface temperatures yielded climate conditions conducive for cold winter temperatures, above-average seasonal snowfall, and an enhanced risk of heavy snowstorms along the mid-Atlantic corridor. The NAO and El Niño are both features of natural climate variability."​
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/images/NOAA_AttributionTeam_SnowstormReport.doc
 
Last edited:
FireWeatherMet said:
Fair question.

The rapid glacial melt of the past 2-3 decades is thought to be largely reponsible for the Iceland volcanic activity. You lose hundreds of feet of pressurized ice that weighs similar to cement...and that allows the ground to expand upwards. So on that note....the eruption itself is thought to be a result of anthropgenic global warming.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070830_gw_quakes.html

Anthropgenic (aka man-made) global warming may not be a good term. Since CO2, Methane, Water Vapor occur both naturally and artificially, we have to ask what is the ratio? Is it 50/50. Or did we tip the scale to 70/30? We don't hear too much about that but given the wealth of data on both emmisions and boi-fluxes...there should be a pretty accurate estimate out there somewhere.

On Volcanic eruptions and global warming itself...even though greenhouse gases are emmitted...the bulk of the volcanic plum is ash particulate...whose diamater and vertical trajectory tends to actually have a cooling effect. it significantly limits incoming solar radiation, while minimally blocking outgoing radiation (heat) from the earths surface. Its efffects tend to be confined to the hemisphere of the blast, unless its along the equator. My giuess is that the next 10-18 months will feature a temporary but significant cooling if more ash is spewed and a shift from El Nino (warm water) to La Nina (cold water) occurs in the Pacific.

http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/webprojects1997/AnnaL/Welcome.htm
Click to expand...

The author of your first quote doesn't seem to be an expert but is a Staff writer for the site, this must be just an opinion, everyone has one.

I believe that under certain circumstances it could possibly effect volcanic activity, but I think the vast majority of volcanoes are generated and eruptions are caused by plate tectonics, which lift the Andes and the Himalayas. What's a little bit of Ice?


Global Warming Might Spur Earthquakes and Volcanoes
By Andrea Thompson, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 30 August 2007 08:57 am ET
 
And, he made a rectal thermometer reference. EWWWW!!! :sick: Think temporal scanner, no more old school.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

tsptalk
  • Article Article
Stocks bounce right back... Now what?
Replies
0
Views
296
tsptalk
tsptalk
tsptalk
  • Article Article
Stocks succumb to the violence in the Middle East. Now what?
Replies
1
Views
159
nasa1974
nasa1974
tsptalk
  • Article Article
Moody's downgrades the U.S. Credit Rating. Now what?
Replies
0
Views
199
tsptalk
tsptalk
tsptalk
  • Article Article
TSP Talk - Another late rally on Friday but rebounds have not been holding
Replies
0
Views
242
tsptalk
tsptalk
NewsFeeder
The Fed's biggest interest rate call in years happens Wednesday. Here's what to expec
Replies
0
Views
329
NewsFeeder
NewsFeeder
Back
Top