posted February 16, 2008 02:04 PM            

How is it possible that there are those who do not associate the cool/cold periods in earth's climate history with the death, famine, starvation, lack of invention, rise of religious persecution, rise of absolute dictatorship and all the other ills those who lived during the "dark ages" experienced? That period from about 300 AD until about 1000 AD...after which the climate warmed in what is called the Medieval Warm Period. Then cooled again about 1350 AD until about the 1850's...another period of deprivation for most of earth's populations.

posted March 15, 2008 09:43 AM            

Yep, that's right. It took a century for the global temperature to warm about .7 degree C. All that temperature gain was wiped out in only 1 (one) year...12 months for those in Rio Linda.

Now that's sure to put a crimp in Algore's money making scheme. He's made almost 100 million dollars off the global warming scam since he left office in 2001.

Oh well, easy come, easy go. Not to worry though; I'm sure Algore will find another crisis to save us all from. After all, isn't that the job of the world Messiah...to save us all...from something?

Oh, one more thing. None of the leftist crackpots in the global warming nest want to talk about it now.

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

posted March 15, 2008 12:30 PM            

Twelve Months of Cooling Doesn’t Make A Climate Trend

NOTE: This was posted on ICECAP today, and I’m copying it here. See my further notes below.

By Dr. John R. Christy.

I have been flooded this week with calls and e-mail messages concerning a story that has appeared on various Internet sites, in which the claim is made that cooling global temperatures over the past twelve months in some way negate or eliminate any global warming that might have happened over the past 100 years.

“Here is my perspective on this issue: Twelve months of data does not make a trend, especially in a system as complex and slow moving as global climate, and even more so when the cause for that short-term cooling is as reasonably well understood and well documented as a switch from a minor El Nino Pacific Ocean warming in January 2007 to the La Nina cooling event now taking place.

“The 0.59 C drop we have seen in the past 12 months is unusual, but not unprecedented; April 1998 to April 1999 saw a 0.71 C fall. The long-term climate trend from November 1978 through (and including) January 2008 continues to show a modest warming at the rate of about 0.14 C (0.25 degrees F) per decade.

“One cool year does not erase decades of climate data, nor does it more than minimally change the long-term climate trend. Long-term climate change is just that “long term” and 12 months of data are little more than a blip on the screen.”

Dr. John Christy is Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama in Huntsville

Icecap Note: John is absolutely correct that we can’t make assumptions about one year’s trend either up or down. The story he references used the Hadley CRU land and ocean based data and of course John Christy, Roy Spencer and Phillip Gentry are using satellite derived lower tropospheric data. Satellite is widely recognized as the most accurate method for the assessment of change. The following plot of the last decade of the satellite derived global temperatures shows how the global climate is strongly influenced by El Nino and La Nina as John notes.

Note from Anthony: When the DailyTech first posted this story and referenced my blog as the source of th compilation, without ever interviewing me or asking me a single question, I notified them immediately of my concerns. Shortly after that I published this ”Update and Caveat” (below) on the original post. Dailytech graciously made a changes to the wording at my request, but by then the genie was out of the bottle.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The website DailyTech has an article citing this blog entry as a reference, and their story got picked up by the Drudge report, resulting in a wide distribution. In the DailyTech article there is a paragraph:

“Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.”

I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”

There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied.

posted March 15, 2008 01:10 PM            

What some of these crackpots don't understand is that a hundred years doesn't make a trend in the climate history of earth where interglacial periods last an average of 12,000 years....and glaciation periods can last 100,000 years or more.

There's another problem with the nuts calculations of temperature gain. What they didn't take into consideration was that at the beginning of the 20th century the climate was just then coming out of the little ice age where temps were well below the long term mean trend line. They used that low temperature at the beginning of the 20th century as a baseline number...as though that was the norm...when in reality, that temperature was well below the norm.

In other words, they deliberately skewed the numbers to get the result they wanted. You don't take a number..temperature which is at or very near the low for an 800 year period and use that as a baseline. Bad science but it was deliberately bad science.

We are at or very near the end of an interglacial period...as has been established lasts about 12,000 years.

posted March 20, 2008 02:26 PM            

It's not "green" now. In fact, it's buried under a sheet of ice.

Remnants of an ancient civilization have been discovered on Greenland...from a period when Greenland was "green".

Items found there...under the ice...included ancient farm implements. Pretty strong evidence Greenland was once much more temperate and food crops were grown there.

Now, the global warming crackpots are hyperventilating over the melting of Greenland's ice sheet. There is also evidence that the ice sheet is getting thicker in places.

The only conclusion reasonable people can draw is that Earth's climate is in constant flux. It's changable and always has been. The single most important factor in Earth's climate is the sun. In periods of low sunspot activity, the climate cools. In periods of high sunspot activity, the climate heats up.

There's nothing unusual about what has happened since the mid 18th Century as it relates to Earth's climate. Increased sun spot activity raised the global temperature about .7*C but, it was still warmer in the year 1200 AD than at any time in the 20th Centrury or now. In fact, all that temperature gain .7*C which took a centruy to produce was lost in only one year...2007.

posted March 20, 2008 03:28 PM              

1st - Greenland is very possibly a mistranslation having nothing whatsoever to do with "green"

2nd - If Eric the Red really did call it Greenland, he did so as a PR move. It might very well have been greener in his time, but certainly wasn't the lush, fertile oasis he wanted his fellow vikings to believe it was.

3rd - The southern portion is green and has been for quite some time.

4th - Just for the sake of greater argument And I'm out of my element now but, I'm assuming Greenland would have been subject to the effects of the Medieval Warm Period and the subsequent Little Ice Age. Both considered anomalies btw.

posted March 20, 2008 04:28 PM            

Hmmm, you don't sound too far out of your element but:

That's a low blow accusing Erik the Red of staging a PR campaign....to no doubt convince others to move to Greenland. A low blow because Erik isn't here to defend himself.

Well, if you're going to ascribe "Greenland" to a mistranslation, then why not go all the way and say the same about "Iceland"...now there's a word sure to draw lots of interest from the tourist trade.

Or, how about Vinland, the meaning of which is clear and relates to grapes growing off an area of the Canadian coast...where grapes do not grow now. Those Vikings were great drinkers, as history relates and those grapes were turned into "wine"..hence Vinland.

Well, the fact Greenland...or Grænland in Old Norse supported birch trees and was farmed was more than likely a result of the Medieval Warm Period...known as the medieval climate optimum when the climate there was warmer and the growing season longer. I ascribe the changable climate of Greenland and everywhere else, not to anomalies of climate but to the fact the climate is constantly changing. People just don't live long enough to gain a historical perspective on the subject. Further, it's only in the last 50 years..or less that we've developed the technology to to trace earth's climate back through history.

Haha, please don't give me the explanation that if it's too cold, it's global warming, too hot, it's global warming, just right, global warming, ice melting, global warming, ice thickening, global warming. That argument makes my head explode.

posted March 20, 2008 05:11 PM              

Vinland. *sigh* A favorite. The meaning is not entirely clear. It could just as well mean pasture land. Canada? Possibly. Everyone thinks L'Anse aux Meadows nowadays but its far from proven. I'm not the only one that suspects it may have been a good deal farther south. 'Course I'm biased. "Where grapes do not grow now." Hmm what were we saying about that Medieval Warming Period? http://dccw.ca/

quote:

---

Haha, please don't give me the explanation that if it's too cold, it's global warming, too hot, it's global warming, just right, global warming, ice melting, global warming, ice thickening, global warming. That argument makes my head explode.

---

Oh I'm not here to argue for (or against) Global Warming. I just felt the need to add in my two cents about Greenland. But it's true about the ice sheets.

posted March 20, 2008 05:38 PM            

It's interesting they are growing grapes at 48*N but, the climate has warmed since the little ice age....some.

The ice caps are both thinning and thickening in the Arctic..depending on where in the Arctic.

posted March 22, 2008 01:12 PM            

3 things

Control over energy production, use and allocation by the United Nations...which would permit the UN to regulate the economies of every nation...and tax energy consumption, the tax receipts would flow into UN coffers.

Job security and government grants for 3rd, 4th and 5th rate so called scientists, those who gravitate to government jobs mainly because they aren't the 1st rate scientists private enterprise would hire. When these substandard scientists produce their papers for peer review in the scientific community, they get ripped a new A-hole...for flawed research, for illogical conclusions drawn but most of all for flawed methodology which cannot be reproduced or is so flawed the errors are glaring.

A new source of money making enterprise by elites. Al Gore has made almost $100 million dollars on this crackpot insanity since he left office. Now, more elites are climbing on the man made global warming insanity to enrich themselves even further.

The truth is that global warming ended in 1998, reached a plateau and temperatures have been falling...not rising. These findings are not speculative. While atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising, temperatures have been falling. This is death certain for the crackpot theory CO2 causes global warming.

The world is not on fire, yet the insanity persists but note, it's about making money. Now, note these elitist frauds chosen method of travel, (by private jet) and to where they travel...to save the world

At island retreat, Branson and friends seek to save a world 'on fire'
By Andrew Ross Sorkin Published: March 20, 2008

NECKER ISLAND,British Virgin Islands: Richard Branson was lounging under the starry midnight sky on this palm-dappled speck of an island recently when he popped a sobering question.

"So, do we really think the world is on fire?" Branson, the British magnate and adventurer, asked several guests, as a manservant scurried off to fetch him another glass of pinot grigio.

What he wanted to know was whether his high-powered visitors, among them Larry Page of Google, Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia and Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, thought global warming threatened the planet.

Branson does - and so did most of his guests. So on this recent weekend on his private hideaway in the crystalline waters between the islands of Tortola and Anegada, they tried to figure out what to do about it and perhaps get richer in the process.....
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/20/business/deal.php

That's it in a word...get richer while these preening egoists have the biggest carbon footprints in the world, they attempt to lecture the rest of us about our own use of carbon based energy. These are the ultimte "do as I say, not as I do" clowns on earth.

posted March 22, 2008 01:31 PM            

Climate facts to warm
Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could be considerable ..."

Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.

A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.

With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.

The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way towards prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.

The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of regulating what can and can't be built on low-lying shorelines will have to come to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find something more plausible to do. The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate "climate refugees".

Penny Wong's climate mega-portfolio will suddenly be as ephemeral as the ministries for the year 2000 that state governments used to entrust to junior ministers. Malcolm Turnbull will have to reinvent himself at vast speed as a climate change sceptic and the Prime Minister will have to kiss goodbye what he likes to call the great moral issue and policy challenge of our times.

It will all be vastly entertaining to watch.

THE Age published an essay with an environmental theme by Ian McEwan on March 8 and its stablemate, The Sydney Morning Herald, also carried a slightly longer version of the same piece.

The Australian's Cut & Paste column two days later reproduced a telling paragraph from the Herald's version, which suggested that McEwan was a climate change sceptic and which The Age had excised. He was expanding on the proposition that "we need not only reliable data but their expression in the rigorous use of statistics".

What The Age decided to spare its readers was the following: "Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)"

The missing sentences do not appear anywhere else in The Age's version of the essay. The attribution reads: "Copyright Ian McEwan 2008" and there is no acknowledgment of editing by The Age.

posted March 22, 2008 01:57 PM            

NOAA, the Dark Star, and Global Warming

A small organization within NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) is aware of what scientists there sometimes call the “second sun”. This is a massive astronomical object, possibly a brown dwarf, which is on a long elliptical orbit around our own sun on an inclined plane to the rest of the planets. To align with other researchers, we'll refer to this as the Dark Star.

The Dark Star is now approaching, and is causing resonance effects on our sun in various ways. This is the cause of the warming of all the planets, not just the Earth. This information is classified, but has been known for a number of years.

This issue is connected with the Roswell catastrophe described above. The problems the future humans were attempting to address were multiple, but principally featured a possible event triggered by a massive 'spike' of solar activity at some point in our currently near future.

We emphasize most strongly that this event is only possible (having been observed in Looking Glass devices in a possible future)... and, importantly, is now evaluated to be unlikely.

The increase in solar activity is caused only in part by the Dark Star, multiple factors being at play. These are complex. Some of them are on a galactic scale, and are associated with natural, periodic events which the Earth has suffered through a number of times previously. What makes this particular time completely unique for our planet is that there is a convergence of serious factors – such as carbon emissions, overpopulation, and our propensity for choreographing war – all of which combine with these major, cyclic and solar events to simultaneously threaten the well-being of ourselves and the biosphere.

The large-scale events are unstoppable. It's also unclear when the 'spike' of solar activity is due to be - though our understanding is that this is imminent, and could occur at any time in the next ten years or so. Although the issue has been considerably hyped, it's impossible not to observe that the year 2012 is right in the middle of this bell-curve of probability.

What is possible, however, is to minimize the effects of the solar event. Evaluated Looking Glass data concludes that there is a 19% probability of the worse case scenario occurring, with 85% confidence that that 19% figure is correct. It seems we're off the hook... although no matter what timeline one is on, significant problems lie ahead with the man-made crises that surround us (exacerbated by solar activity).

posted March 22, 2008 02:14 PM              

It will be born from the black hole of the Milky Way, the Pleiades, the womb of the Universe...

Jwhop is right about Global Warming, we've been going over this for years, now. ...

LOve and Reverence to ALL. ...

posted March 22, 2008 02:26 PM              

All the planets revolve around the Sun..
Our Entire Universe, is pulsing around Us..

We are but a speck..

What we have done to our Sphere, is horrible, we have polluted Mother Earth and her Atmosphere..we must change that..

but that...
is not the cause of Global Warming, we are simply existing through a cycle..

With all the surrounding influences, it's not about pollution, completely, there is a big picture..what we have done can be re-Versed..
or, we will have to leave this planet...

it's all about Mind Over Matter
M O M

this is the World of Illusion
we created it with God, we are all God..
all equal, all a part of this Earth and Universe...

whatever our Minds are thinking,
is reflected in our World

what do you see
In Our World, NOW?

some things I see
are horrible
we created this..

will you help fix it?

posted March 22, 2008 02:57 PM              

Ggod to be back!

posted March 22, 2008 07:57 PM            

Species are becoming extint at a rate 1000X the natural rate.

I am a member of the Sierra Club and National Wildlife and 80% of the articles in their monthly magazines are about all kinds of species, both plant and animal, that are not only going extinct, but migrating, reproducing, and hibernating periods of animal species have been measured to be changed due to correlation with global warming.

There is overwhelming scientific evidence. Even my University has taught us evidence of extreme acceleration of global warming due to humans in the past 100 years.

Don't believe me? Buy Planet Earth and watch the making of the documentaries as well.