"Climate Change" Enthusiests May Not want to See This
From NASA
Why the abandon ship alarm is going off in alarmist-ville.
What warming there was has shown evidence of life under the glaciers that 'are left' -- meaning they were much smaller than they are today. Trees rimming the Artic ocean speaks of warmer times than today. See Prof Bob Carter's video for the details.
It's been really cold this winter. Records falling like acorns in a spring snow. Being repeated in the south hemisphere right now.
The ARGO bouys find no warming, but cooling. This is a cool array of robots who are now on duty.
The USHCN system is a laughable disaster for accuracy and data collection. Anthony Watts and helpers have exposed the problem.
The AQUA satellite has found no evidence of the CO2 layer in the atmosphere, meaning the uniquie signature of AGW is not there.
The sun has decided to stop making spots, no one knows exactly why. The solar wind is very low and has been quite for an extened period.
Roy Spencer(EIB climatologist :-) has a theory of cloud formation, and no one knows how to discredit it, since it's based on real satellite data.
There is a limited amount of torpedos you can take before your computer models sink into a useless hypothesis. That's the current position today.
It's now obvious to a whole lot of people that what we know you can wrte a book on, what we don't know would fill a library.
Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Basically, what the report says is no matter what the climate does, it's still man's fault. Man's contribution is a bias upon the natural variation even if the variation totally cancels out a supposed CO2 temperature effect. Pay no attention to the snow in Baghdad, pay no attention to the dire situation China has been in this winter, pay no attention to the polar ice cover being above average, and absolutely pay no attention to the April CO2 readings of Mauna Loa due to be released in the next couple of days.
I shall be very blunt, the report is strictly about justifying the refusal of AGW believers to subject their theory to falsification as required by the scientific method. They did this for a reason, they are deathly afraid that when the CO2 readings at Mauna Loa don't come in higher than last year, the public will come to the conclusion that temperature drives CO2 and not as the AGW believers claim. The April and May readings will once and for all disprove the AGW claims that CO2 drives temperature. The reason being Man's CO2 contribution to the atmosphere has not gone down or even stayed the same, it went up! If La Nina can drive down CO2 then all the arguments of the AGW believers fall flat because at that point, the most inconvenient question has to asked and answered, what causes La Nina? The sun.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
An engineer, a scientist, and a global warming modeler were all interviewing for a job. The interviewer calls in the engineer first. The interviewer tells the engineer, "I have one question, what is 2+2"? The engineer replies, "I can tell you with exact certitude the answer is 4.00000". The interviewer makes some notes, lets the engineer go and then calls in the scientist. "I have one question", says the interviewer. "What is 2+2?". The scientist thinks for a moment then replies, "I can tell you that the answer lies somewhere between 3.998 and 4.002.". The interviewer lets the scientist go and then calls in the global warming computer modeler. The interviewer tells the modeler, "I have one question, what is 2+2?". The modeler thinks for a moment, looks to the left of him, then looks to his right. Then he lowers his head, leans in and whispers to the interviewer, "What answer do you want it to be?"
Too True!
Edward Lorenz, MIT Professor of Meterology and developer of chaos theory, died on April 16th.
The AP obituary: "His discovery of derterministic chaos brought about 'one of the most dramatic changes in mankind's view of nature since Isaac Newton' said the committee that awarded Lorenz the 1991 Kyoto Prize for basic science."
What led to the discovery of chaos theory? During the 1960's Lorenz re-ran a meterological model to confirm its initial results and came up with dramatically different forecast results. He determined that a input error of less than 0.0001 in the value of a single variable led to the significant swing in predicted outcome. It was published in a paper in 1972 and led to the term the "butterfly effect".
So, when Al Gore and his minions use models that exclude the effect of clouds, and ignore variations in solar radiation to substantiate their political conclusions that we are facing dire circumstances of 0.3 degrees of warming over a 100 year period - do they really expect us to believe them?
Is it possible the alarmists realize that the postponement of solar cycle 24, and the current solar inactivity, will indeed result in a cooling pattern of undetermined length requiring some forward explaining as a red herring?
Not only do I believe the answer to that question is yes, I sincerely believe back in 1988 James Hansen knew exactly what he was doing when he started all of this nonsense. Even though the man is obviously idealogically driven he surely is not that naive about climate patterns. I believe in 1988 he knew because of the PDO pattern and current solar activity that we were headed fo another 10-20 years of warmer temperatures. Couple that with a litte data manipulation and bogus computer models his CO2 scam would be easy to sell. Let April 29, 2008 go down officially as the day the "butt covereing" era began.
Why wasnt this cooling trend in the original model and are there future cooling trends that are not yet discovered in the model calling for warming after a 10 year pause? In other words if they could not see a 10 year cooling trend until the last minute then what degree of certainty can they have in their overall model? I think a lot of people are taking the wrong tact on this issue...instead of bashing it - do the reverse...act like it is the gospel. Then when it doesnt fit...ask them why not? Ask them how that happened, how the model they want to change the entire economy and infrastructure of human civilization around is worth believing. Then hold them accountable to their models...right now they dropped the ball and every single person who failed to see a cooling trend has a broken model that cannot be trusted- they are forever more not allowed to put forth a model.
These models and this mad belief is starving, freezing, and bankrupting people where the effort and money could be put to use in raising the living conditions of every person on the planet instead. To casually say - 'hey, oops missed this data point' is unacceptable when you are asking the world to spend 1 trillion dollars on it.
Consider this...If global warming exists then how cold and how many people would have died this record breaking winter if we hadnt been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere?
That is what I want to know
The whole AGW fraud is unraveling faster than B.O. Plenty's presidential campaign. The entire article was an exercise in political ass covering. "Global warming" has been transformed into "climate change”. So we are supposed to believe that we are going into a "natural" cooling cycle, but at the same time there is no such thing as “natural” warming cycles? I see a dangerous confluence coming that may just lay waste to the Democrat’s social engineering aspirations for a long time.
1) The collapse of the AGW hoax.
2) The food price crisis brought on by the bio-fuel fraud.
3) Spiraling fuel prices brought on by environmentalist sequestering of our own energy supplies.
And finally, remember this?
...
Why the abandon ship alarm is going off in alarmist-ville.
What warming there was has shown evidence of life under the glaciers that 'are left' -- meaning they were much smaller than they are today. Trees rimming the Artic ocean speaks of warmer times than today. See Prof Bob Carter's video for the details.
It's been really cold this winter. Records falling like acorns in a spring snow. Being repeated in the south hemisphere right now.
The ARGO bouys find no warming, but cooling. This is a cool array of robots who are now on duty.
The USHCN system is a laughable disaster for accuracy and data collection. Anthony Watts and helpers have exposed the problem.
The AQUA satellite has found no evidence of the CO2 layer in the atmosphere, meaning the uniquie signature of AGW is not there.
The sun has decided to stop making spots, no one knows exactly why. The solar wind is very low and has been quite for an extened period.
Roy Spencer(EIB climatologist :-) has a theory of cloud formation, and no one knows how to discredit it, since it's based on real satellite data.
There is a limited amount of torpedos you can take before your computer models sink into a useless hypothesis. That's the current position today.
It's now obvious to a whole lot of people that what we know you can wrte a book on, what we don't know would fill a library.
Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longer-term warming trend from increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Basically, what the report says is no matter what the climate does, it's still man's fault. Man's contribution is a bias upon the natural variation even if the variation totally cancels out a supposed CO2 temperature effect. Pay no attention to the snow in Baghdad, pay no attention to the dire situation China has been in this winter, pay no attention to the polar ice cover being above average, and absolutely pay no attention to the April CO2 readings of Mauna Loa due to be released in the next couple of days.
I shall be very blunt, the report is strictly about justifying the refusal of AGW believers to subject their theory to falsification as required by the scientific method. They did this for a reason, they are deathly afraid that when the CO2 readings at Mauna Loa don't come in higher than last year, the public will come to the conclusion that temperature drives CO2 and not as the AGW believers claim. The April and May readings will once and for all disprove the AGW claims that CO2 drives temperature. The reason being Man's CO2 contribution to the atmosphere has not gone down or even stayed the same, it went up! If La Nina can drive down CO2 then all the arguments of the AGW believers fall flat because at that point, the most inconvenient question has to asked and answered, what causes La Nina? The sun.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
An engineer, a scientist, and a global warming modeler were all interviewing for a job. The interviewer calls in the engineer first. The interviewer tells the engineer, "I have one question, what is 2+2"? The engineer replies, "I can tell you with exact certitude the answer is 4.00000". The interviewer makes some notes, lets the engineer go and then calls in the scientist. "I have one question", says the interviewer. "What is 2+2?". The scientist thinks for a moment then replies, "I can tell you that the answer lies somewhere between 3.998 and 4.002.". The interviewer lets the scientist go and then calls in the global warming computer modeler. The interviewer tells the modeler, "I have one question, what is 2+2?". The modeler thinks for a moment, looks to the left of him, then looks to his right. Then he lowers his head, leans in and whispers to the interviewer, "What answer do you want it to be?"
Too True!
Edward Lorenz, MIT Professor of Meterology and developer of chaos theory, died on April 16th.
The AP obituary: "His discovery of derterministic chaos brought about 'one of the most dramatic changes in mankind's view of nature since Isaac Newton' said the committee that awarded Lorenz the 1991 Kyoto Prize for basic science."
What led to the discovery of chaos theory? During the 1960's Lorenz re-ran a meterological model to confirm its initial results and came up with dramatically different forecast results. He determined that a input error of less than 0.0001 in the value of a single variable led to the significant swing in predicted outcome. It was published in a paper in 1972 and led to the term the "butterfly effect".
So, when Al Gore and his minions use models that exclude the effect of clouds, and ignore variations in solar radiation to substantiate their political conclusions that we are facing dire circumstances of 0.3 degrees of warming over a 100 year period - do they really expect us to believe them?
Is it possible the alarmists realize that the postponement of solar cycle 24, and the current solar inactivity, will indeed result in a cooling pattern of undetermined length requiring some forward explaining as a red herring?
Not only do I believe the answer to that question is yes, I sincerely believe back in 1988 James Hansen knew exactly what he was doing when he started all of this nonsense. Even though the man is obviously idealogically driven he surely is not that naive about climate patterns. I believe in 1988 he knew because of the PDO pattern and current solar activity that we were headed fo another 10-20 years of warmer temperatures. Couple that with a litte data manipulation and bogus computer models his CO2 scam would be easy to sell. Let April 29, 2008 go down officially as the day the "butt covereing" era began.
Why wasnt this cooling trend in the original model and are there future cooling trends that are not yet discovered in the model calling for warming after a 10 year pause? In other words if they could not see a 10 year cooling trend until the last minute then what degree of certainty can they have in their overall model? I think a lot of people are taking the wrong tact on this issue...instead of bashing it - do the reverse...act like it is the gospel. Then when it doesnt fit...ask them why not? Ask them how that happened, how the model they want to change the entire economy and infrastructure of human civilization around is worth believing. Then hold them accountable to their models...right now they dropped the ball and every single person who failed to see a cooling trend has a broken model that cannot be trusted- they are forever more not allowed to put forth a model.
These models and this mad belief is starving, freezing, and bankrupting people where the effort and money could be put to use in raising the living conditions of every person on the planet instead. To casually say - 'hey, oops missed this data point' is unacceptable when you are asking the world to spend 1 trillion dollars on it.
Consider this...If global warming exists then how cold and how many people would have died this record breaking winter if we hadnt been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere?
That is what I want to know
The whole AGW fraud is unraveling faster than B.O. Plenty's presidential campaign. The entire article was an exercise in political ass covering. "Global warming" has been transformed into "climate change”. So we are supposed to believe that we are going into a "natural" cooling cycle, but at the same time there is no such thing as “natural” warming cycles? I see a dangerous confluence coming that may just lay waste to the Democrat’s social engineering aspirations for a long time.
1) The collapse of the AGW hoax.
2) The food price crisis brought on by the bio-fuel fraud.
3) Spiraling fuel prices brought on by environmentalist sequestering of our own energy supplies.
And finally, remember this?
...
posted by Northern Exposer at 05:56
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home