659 replies to this topic

[JonesGuy]

Rising 35% faster doesn't mean that it's gone up 35%

If my bank account is paying 1%, I'll get rich at a certain rate.
If the bank account changes to 1.35%, I'm not going to immediately notice or care.

[biknut]

I believe I read somewhere that CO2 levels are increasing something like 18% each year. Now 35% faster if you believe everything you read.

In the last 10 years temperature has increased 0%

[biknut]

Looks like the myth that global warming will cause more hurricanes is falling by the wayside.

2007 Yearly Tropical Cyclone Activity to Date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless a dramatic and perhaps historical flurry of activity occurs in the next 9
weeks, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC year for the Northern
Hemisphere as a whole. During the past 30 years, only 1977, 1981, and 1983
have had less activity to date (January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone Energy).
However, the year is not over...

2007 lowest September activity on record since 1977

2006 and 2007 lowest October activity on record since 1976 and 1977

For the period of June 1 - TODAY, only 1977 has experienced LESS tropical
cyclone activity than 2007.
There are currently two worldwide tropical cyclones: Tropical Storm Noel and

On average to date (1970-2006), the Eastern Pacific season is 97% completed,
Western Pacific 82%, North Atlantic 93% and overall Northern Hemisphere 87%.

http://www.coaps.fsu...~maue/tropical/

[struct]

2007 has not ended yet.
A new tropical storm, Noel, formed yesterday and it's getting better organized.

[JonesGuy]

Why don't people know that hurricanes are on 5-7 year cycles?

If you want to compare intensity, don't compare to last year, you compare to 5-7 years ago.

[biknut]

It is the greatest scam in history.

The BlogosphereWednesday, November 07, 2007
Comments About Global Warming
I was privileged to work with John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel in the year before it became a reality and then
for the first of the 6 years I was fortunate to be the Director of Meteorology. No one worked harder than John to make The Weather
Channel a reality and to make sure the staffing, the information and technology was the very best possible at that time. John
currently works with KUSI in San Diego. He posts regularly. I am very pleased to present his latest insightful post.

By John Coleman

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some
dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion of rapid global
warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to
further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way
to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist
journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming
unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a
cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases,
well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global
Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, ie Climate Change,
is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of
meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a
total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award
and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am
correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am
incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of
Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and
super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural
cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next
twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.


http://icecap.us/ind...global_warming/

[Mind]

An interesting clip on AGW by John Stossel, including interviews with some scientists who are not part of the absolute 100% worldwide consensus of AGW theorists.

I wouldn't call it the greatest scam in history, most of these things start out as legitimate scientific pursuits and humans do have an effect on the environment - sometimes negative. Where this left the realm of reason was when Al Gore grabbed the issue and became an international superstar and super-rich along the way. Dont' you know "the debate is over".

[eternaltraveler]

Do you think humans impact the environment?

Attached Files

•  earth_at_night_europe.jpg   42.37KB   56 downloads

[eternaltraveler]

It's not a question of if we do. The above image makes it crystal clear. The question is how, and if we can handle the change.

The answer is that we can, we're adaptive and clever. And so can the earth, it's been through dramatic temperature extremes before we can't even imagine today.

It won't be long before we use up oil, as we're burning a cubic mile a year. If we want to keep that blue orb glowing at night we need something to replace that cubic mile.

[struct]

friendlyeai,
this is an interesting twist. The satellite picture taken on 9/11 2001 shows Hurricane Erin to the right of New York.
Erin was headed toward New York and New England untill 9/11 when it started to turn away. New York was 'miraculously' spared.

[biknut]

Christopher Booker's Notebook
By Christopher Booker

Last Updated: 1:48am GMT 25/11/2007


We are set on a course of 'planet saving' madness


The scare over global warming, and our politicians' response to it, is becoming ever more bizarre. On the one hand we have the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change coming up with yet another of its notoriously politicised reports, hyping up the scare by claiming that world surface temperatures have been higher in 11 of the past 12 years (1995-2006) than ever previously recorded.

This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level - not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as was previously claimed, but 1934.

On the other hand, we had Gordon Brown last week, in his "first major speech on climate change", airily committing his own and future governments to achieving a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 - which is rather like prime minister Salisbury at the end of Queen Victoria's reign trying to commit Winston Churchill's government to achieving some wholly impossible goal in the middle of the Second World War.

Mr Brown's only concrete proposal for reaching this absurd target seems to be his plan to ban plastic bags, whatever they have to do with global warming (while his government also plans a near-doubling of flights out of Heathrow).

But of course he is no longer his own master in such fantasy exercises. Few people have yet really taken on board the mind-blowing scale of all the "planet-saving" measures to which we are now committed by the European Union.

By 2020 we will have to generate 20 per cent of our electricity from "renewables". At present the figure is four per cent (most of it generated by hydro-electric schemes and methane gas from landfill).

As Whitehall officials privately briefed ministers in August, there is no way Britain can begin to meet such a fanciful target (even if the Government manages to ram through another 30,000 largely useless wind turbines).

Another EU directive commits us to deriving 10 per cent of our transport fuel from "biofuels" by 2020. This would take up pretty well all the farmland we currently use to grow food (at a time when world grain prices have doubled in six months and we are already face a global food shortage).

Then by 2009, thanks to a mad gesture by Mr Blair and his EU colleagues last March, we also face the prospect of a total ban on incandescent light bulbs.

This compulsory switch to low-energy bulbs, apart from condemning us to live in uglier homes under eye-straining light, is in practice completely out of the question, because, according to our Government's own figures, more than half Britain's domestic light fittings cannot take them.

This year will be remembered for two things.

First, it was the year when the scientific data showed that the cosmic scare over global warming may well turn out to be just that - yet another vastly inflated scare.

Second, it was the year when the hysteria generated by all the bogus science behind this scare finally drove those who rule over us, including Gordon "Plastic Bags" Brown, wholly out of their wits.

http://www.telegraph...25/nbook125.xml

[platypus]

This carefully ignores the latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level

What satellite figures and temperatures of what?

This year will be remembered for two things.

First, it was the year when the scientific data showed that the cosmic scare over global warming may well turn out to be just that - yet another vastly inflated scare.

What data?

[biknut]

Did a search on Christopher Booker and discovered he used an industry insider as a source to debunk asbestos toxicity when independent research found it was toxic. He also apparently endorses nuclear power plant construction and is against solar and wind energy development.

biknut, in another thread we got into considering what financial interests might be pushing the idea that carbon dioxide buildup is a danger and the source you cited referred to insurance companies but provided no data, just an ad hominem slur, basically. I wonder, can you think of a billions of dollars industry that might not like the idea of decreasing carbon dioxide emissions? I'm thinking maybe we could throw some light on this by using that Latin concept used by criminal investigators, cui bono, who benefits?

When you can't bash the message, bash the messenger.

Use you own reasoning, and ask yourself who's going to benefit by a big carbon tax? Humm, same people financing
the IPCC, what a surprise.

The fact still remains the world is not getting any warmer for a decade now. Durring the last cool peorid we were about .6 degree below average. Now we aren't even up to .5 degree above, and additional warming has stalled. If we don't get above .5 the global average will probably have to be lowered. If you say we did get above .5 fine, then I point out that since then we've been cooling, not warming.

[maxwatt]

Since Mr. Booker did not cite the sources of his claims, we are left with considering him as the source and his trustworthiness becomes fair game. Notice I didn't "bash" him, only cited some observations of his past behavior as potentially indicative of a bias to his claims, a bias to support big money interests over human welfare. I made no pointed remarks about his character.

You make many claims repeatedly without citation also, biknut. When you do cite data, appears it is edited and selected to present a quite biased perspective.

Are you willing to name these financial interests you find affect the trustworthiness of IPCC? I have seen some rather convincing evidence that Exxon has paid millions for climate change debunking http://www.greenpeac...y/exxon-secrets . Seems there should be a record of the funding you claim biases IPCC reports.

The thing of it is, I cannot see any rational explanation why someone would foist global warming on us, at such great expense an with such effort. Noting is to be gained.

Debunking global warming, on the other hand. stands to keep oil companies and the auto industry profitable and safe from government interference.

[decide2evolve]

Wow,

I can't remember the last time I heard anything so ridiculous.

The oil companies and the auto industry meddling with the laws and dissalowing the energy and auto sectors from having free market response is the best reason to get off of fossils and nukes.

We need to have a constitutional govt. that is not controlled by k-street, and we need to tell the auto industry and big energy to quit illegally meddling with legislation so we can get the govt. out of our lives and have a level energy and auto playing field. A free market would allow the new energy sector to soar, compete and eventaully do away with fossils and nukes.

Arguing about global warming is the biggest waste of time, it is insidious. There are so many reasons to get off nukes and oil besides global warming. Only an unimaginative lazy sloth would want to maintain the status quo.

[biknut]

Here's yet another example of how the swindle is possibly being perpetrated on us.


Houston & Texas News



Nov. 29, 2007, 2:28PM

Decisions to name storms draw concern
As season ends, some say center rushes to classify, which costs you


By ERIC BERGER
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

With another hurricane season set to end this Friday, a controversy is brewing over decisions of the National Hurricane Center to designate several borderline systems as tropical storms.

Some meteorologists, including former hurricane center director Neil Frank, say as many as six of this year's 14 named tropical systems might have failed in earlier decades to earn "named storm" status.

"They seem to be naming storms a lot more than they used to," said Frank, who directed the hurricane center from 1974 to 1987 and is now chief meteorologist for KHOU-TV. "This year, I would put at least four storms in a very questionable category, and maybe even six."

Most of the storms in question briefly had tropical storm-force winds of at least 39 mph. But their central pressure — another measure of intensity — suggested they actually remained depressions or were non-tropical systems.

Any inconsistencies in the naming of tropical storms and hurricanes have significance far beyond semantics.

The number of a season's named storms forms the foundation of historical records used to determine trends in hurricane activity. Insurance companies use these trends to set homeowners' rates. And such information is vital to scientists trying to determine whether global warming has had a measurable impact on hurricane activity.

Forecasters at the hurricane center deny there's any inconsistency in the practice of naming tropical storms.

"For at least the last two decades, I am certain most, if not all, the storms named this year would have also been named," said Bill Read, deputy director of the Miami-based center.

What everyone agrees has changed is the ability of meteorologists to more accurately analyze tropical systems, thanks to an increased number of reconnaissance flights with sophisticated tools and the presence of more satellites to monitor storms from above.

Scientists generally agree that prior to the late 1970s and widespread satellite coverage, hurricane watchers annually missed one to three tropical storms that developed far from land or were short-lived.

But this season's large number of minimal tropical storms whose winds exceeded 39 mph for only a short period has ignited a separate debate: whether even more modern technology and a change in philosophy has artificially inflated the number of storms in recent years.


Launch of QuikSCAT
A case in point is Tropical Storm Chantal, a short-lived system that formed in late July south of Nova Scotia and moved toward the northeast, out to sea.

Some meteorologists say the storm was never a tropical system at all, because it formed well out of the tropics. Others say it wouldn't have been named before the 1999 launch of the QuikSCAT satellite, which measures surface winds and alerted forecasters to Chantal's organization.

"Without QuikSCAT, Chantal might never have gotten named," said Jeff Masters, a meteorologist and founder of The Weather Underground Web site, a popular resource for tracking hurricanes.

As the technology to observe storms has grown better, the definition of a tropical storm has remained unchanged. Such systems have a center of low pressure with a closed circulation, organized bands of thunderstorms and winds of at least 39 mph. Storms are upgraded to hurricanes when their winds reach 74 mph.

In earlier years before widespread satellite coverage, the hurricane center placed more emphasis on measurements of central pressure than wind speeds in designating tropical storms and giving those systems names, Frank said. Central pressures and wind speed are related, but the relationship isn't absolute.

Frank said he prefers using central pressure, because it can be directly measured by aircraft dropping an instrument into a tropical system.

If a reconnaissance plane had measured a wind speed above 39 mph during Frank's tenure, the system would not automatically have been named. His forecasters might have waited a day to see if the central pressure fell, he said, to ensure that the system really was a tropical storm.

That practice probably would have prevented some systems, such as Tropical Storm Jerry, from getting named this year, Frank said. After being upgraded, Jerry remained a tropical storm for less than a day in the northern Atlantic.

"In the past, we would have waited to see if another observation supported naming the system," Frank said. "We would have been a little more conservative."


Data inconsistencies
The apparent change in the philosophy of naming systems has rankled some longtime hurricane watchers. Jill Hasling, president of Houston's Weather Research Center, said comparing the number of tropical storms and hurricanes today with the historical record is almost impossible.

But Read, of the hurricane center, believes wind speeds are the true indicator of a tropical system's status. Now that more accurate wind measurements are available, it only makes sense to use the best technology to quickly determine if a system has reached tropical storm strength, he said.

"An oncologist today would use the latest technology for determining and assessing one's cancer," Read said. "Would you use a doctor who only used X-rays instead of the latest MRI?"

Inconsistencies with the data have plagued scientists trying to determine whether global warming has increased the number or intensity of hurricanes.

In fact, there are reasons to believe that historical storms have been overcounted as well as undercounted, said Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Before satellites, scientists had few ways to tell the difference between tropical systems and non-tropical storms. As a result, some non-tropical storms probably were named.

"The bottom line is that, yes, we do have errors in tropical cyclone counts," said Curry. "But it is not clear whether this adds a net negative or positive bias to any trend."

eric.berger@chron.com

[Mind]

I talked to one of the meteorologists at the NHC about the naming of storms. What I was concerned about was that they were naming storms that are considered 'hybrids'. They only have some tropical characteristics. They are not true warm core tropical systems. The fellow from the NHC admits that they only started doing this in the last couple of years. This is obviously boosting the number of tropical storms as compared to the past (not to mention that we have better monitoring nowadays). They should create a new category in order to ensure accurate numbers for future studies.

[biknut]

Year of global cooling
By David Deming
December 19, 2007

Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder. Neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third-quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. Dozens of homeless people died from exposure. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

Unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007. Johannesburg, South Africa, had the first significant snowfall in 26 years. Australia experienced the coldest June ever. In northeastern Australia, the city of Townsville underwent the longest period of continuously cold weather since 1941. In New Zealand, the weather turned so cold that vineyards were endangered.

Last January, $1.42 billion worth of California produce was lost to a devastating five-day freeze. Thousands of agricultural employees were thrown out of work. At the supermarket, citrus prices soared. In the wake of the freeze, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked President Bush to issue a disaster declaration for affected counties. A few months earlier, Mr. Schwarzenegger had enthusiastically signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a law designed to cool the climate. California Sen. Barbara Boxer continues to push for similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.

In April, a killing freeze destroyed 95 percent of South Carolina's peach crop, and 90 percent of North Carolina's apple harvest. At Charlotte, N.C., a record low temperature of 21 degrees Fahrenheit on April 8 was the coldest ever recorded for April, breaking a record set in 1923. On June 8, Denver recorded a new low of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. Denver's temperature records extend back to 1872.

Recent weeks have seen the return of unusually cold conditions to the Northern Hemisphere. On Dec. 7, St. Cloud, Minn., set a new record low of minus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. On the same date, record low temperatures were also recorded in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.

Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don't seem so awful when you're in the cold and dark.

If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.

Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma.

http://www.washingto.../RSS_COMMENTARY

[platypus]

Year of global cooling
By David Deming
December 19, 2007

Al Gore says global warming is a planetary emergency. It is difficult to see how this can be so when record low temperatures are being set all over the world. In 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.

Well, that's either a statistical fluke or the climate is changing. Which reason would you prefer?

Edited by platypus, 25 December 2007 - 04:08 PM.

[luv2increase]

I still don't like the ever increasing amounts and numbers of pollutants in our air we breathe. We still need to make a complete transition into a renewable energy resource only Earth with emphasis on voiding our world completely from pollution.

I know we will never completely be able to rid of it all but to the best of our abilities with the improved technology of the future should suffice, hopefully enough for our extended survival.

[biknut]

Associated Press - December 31, 2007 2:15 PM ET

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - Today's snowstorm made this month the snowiest December in New Hampshire in more than a century.

The National Weather Service in Gray, Maine, said Concord, where New Hampshire records are kept, beat the previous record of 43 inches of snow in December by an inch and a half. That record was set in 1876.

Overall, the storm left 10.1 inches in Concord, and more in other parts of the state.

http://www.wcax.com/...v=menu183_17_14

[biknut]

I believe the cooling has already started. At the beginning of 2007 it was predicted to be the warmest year on record. Even though the final tally isn't in yet (but soon it will be) I predict 07 won't even be in the top 5 or 6.

A cold spell soon to replace global warming

03/ 01/ 2008

MOSCOW. (Oleg Sorokhtin for RIA Novosti) – Stock up on fur coats and felt boots! This is my paradoxical advice to the warm world.

Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.

The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.

Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.

This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground. Advanced in the late 19th century by Svante A. Arrhenius, a Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner, this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check.

It determines decisions and instruments of major international organizations—in particular, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Signed by 150 countries, it exemplifies the impact of scientific delusion on big politics and economics. The authors and enthusiasts of the Kyoto Protocol based their assumptions on an erroneous idea. As a result, developed countries waste huge amounts of money to fight industrial pollution of the atmosphere. What if it is a Don Quixote’s duel with the windmill?

Hothouse gases may not be to blame for global warming. At any rate, there is no scientific evidence to their guilt. The classic hothouse effect scenario is too simple to be true. As things really are, much more sophisticated processes are on in the atmosphere, especially in its dense layer. For instance, heat is not so much radiated in space as carried by air currents—an entirely different mechanism, which cannot cause global warming.

The temperature of the troposphere, the lowest and densest portion of the atmosphere, does not depend on the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions—a point proved theoretically and empirically. True, probes of Antarctic ice shield, taken with bore specimens in the vicinity of the Russian research station Vostok, show that there are close links between atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and temperature changes. Here, however, we cannot be quite sure which is the cause and which the effect.

Temperature fluctuations always run somewhat ahead of carbon dioxide concentration changes. This means that warming is primary. The ocean is the greatest carbon dioxide depository, with concentrations 60-90 times larger than in the atmosphere. When the ocean’s surface warms up, it produces the “champagne effect.” Compare a foamy spurt out of a warm bottle with wine pouring smoothly when served properly cold.

Likewise, warm ocean water exudes greater amounts of carbonic acid, which evaporates to add to industrial pollution—a factor we cannot deny. However, man-caused pollution is negligible here. If industrial pollution with carbon dioxide keeps at its present-day 5-7 billion metric tons a year, it will not change global temperatures up to the year 2100. The change will be too small for humans to feel even if the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions doubles.

Carbon dioxide cannot be bad for the climate. On the contrary, it is food for plants, and so is beneficial to life on Earth. Bearing out this point was the Green Revolution—the phenomenal global increase in farm yields in the mid-20th century. Numerous experiments also prove a direct proportion between harvest and carbon dioxide concentration in the air.

Carbon dioxide has quite a different pernicious influence—not on the climate but on synoptic activity. It absorbs infrared radiation. When tropospheric air is warm enough for complete absorption, radiation energy passes into gas fluctuations. Gas expands and dissolves to send warm air up to the stratosphere, where it clashes with cold currents coming down. With no noticeable temperature changes, synoptic activity skyrockets to whip up cyclones and anticyclones. Hence we get hurricanes, storms, tornados and other natural disasters, whose intensity largely depends on carbon dioxide concentration. In this sense, reducing its concentration in the air will have a positive effect.

Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean.

Earth is unlikely to ever face a temperature disaster. Of all the planets in the solar system, only Earth has an atmosphere beneficial to life. There are many factors that account for development of life on Earth: Sun is a calm star, Earth is located an optimum distance from it, it has the Moon as a massive satellite, and many others. Earth owes its friendly climate also to dynamic feedback between biotic and atmospheric evolution.

The principal among those diverse links is Earth’s reflective power, which regulates its temperature. A warm period, as the present, increases oceanic evaporation to produce a great amount of clouds, which filter solar radiation and so bring heat down. Things take the contrary turn in a cold period.

What can’t be cured must be endured. It is wise to accept the natural course of things. We have no reason to panic about allegations that ice in the Arctic Ocean is thawing rapidly and will soon vanish altogether. As it really is, scientists say the Arctic and Antarctic ice shields are growing. Physical and mathematical calculations predict a new Ice Age. It will come in 100,000 years, at the earliest, and will be much worse than the previous. Europe will be ice-bound, with glaciers reaching south of Moscow.

Meanwhile, Europeans can rest assured. The Gulf Stream will change its course only if some evil magic robs it of power to reach the north—but Mother Nature is unlikely to do that.

Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute.

http://en.rian.ru/an...3/94768732.html

[thughes]

If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.

Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

I think someone forgot the difference between short term variation and long term trends... To cast doubt on the theory of global warming you need to show a long term cooling trend. The above sounds about as scientific as "we didn't land on the moon" 8)

Disclaimer: I've got no investment either way, but I do like good info. If this is representative of your info, you need a better source.

- Tracy