The theory or Global Warming seems to be going up in flames as reports emerge which state that increased solar storms in 2012 and 2013 will actually coll the earth, not warm it.
The new research, which is based on a three-year snapshot of time between 2004 and 2007, suggests that the earth may cool as sun activity increases. This may prove to be ammunition for Global Warming sceptics.
As solar activity lessened at the end of one of the Sun's 11-year cycles, the new data shows that the amount of energy reaching the Earth at visible wavelengths rose rather than fell. Scientists believe it may also be possible that during the next up-turn of the cycle in 2012, when sun activity increases, there might be a cooling effect at the Earth's surface.
If the new findings apply to long as well as short time periods, this could translate into a small degree of cooling rather than the slight warming effect shown in existing climate models. It would effectively take all of the knowledge we've been told about Global Warming and throw it out the window.
This brings to light the question of whether this whole Global Warming theory is real or fabricated to make money on things like electric cars and solar panels. Obviously, there is a need to conserve and help our planet - which we're pretty much killing slowly - but it seems as though the political talk of Global Warming may be one of the biggest scams of the century. So, who do we believe? The scientists who have done the research or the politicians trying to sell Global Warming as a new way of living in a warmer world?
According to Micheal Lockwood, a space physicist at the University of Reading, "All the evidence is that the vast majority of warming is anthropogenic. It might be that the solar part isn't quite working the way we thought it would, but it is certainly not a seismic rupture of the science."
0 OCTOBER 2010 | POSTED BY: TOM RICARDO | NO COMMENT
Here is one man from academia the activists will love. Hal Lewis, Professor Emeritus of the American Physical Society (APS) resigned in disgust over the ‘Global Warming Scam’. Lewis gave up his cushy job and stepped forth to reveal how the billions of dollars being pumped into the system had corrupted scientists.
Top physicist Hal Lewis said that the climate change scam is the biggest ” pseudoscientific fraud” he has seen in his illustrious career. The global warming brouhaha was to pull the wool over the people’s eyes, a rogue trend that had eaten into the integrity of the American Physical Society. He refered to the ClimateGate documents as proof of the billion dollar dupe, which has also been compiled in Montford’s book on the subject.
In a letter to the American Physical Society published by UK’s Telegraph, Hal Lewis reviles fellow physicists wedded to show me the money research, with lucre being the driving force , as Eisenhower has warned against.
Professor Lewis , in his letter, harks back to the glorious days when he chaired the Reactor Safety Study by the APS and scientists gave an impartial thesis under immense pressure and derision from corporate money-bags. He hailed the unimpeachable scholarly credentials of the erstwhile oversight committee which has eminent physicists like Pief Panofsky, Hans Bethe, and Vicki Weisskopf.
He branded the APS a sell-out ,saying it was a shame to be part of the corruption-ridden institution, and that he was forced to hand in a resignation, given the current situation.
The dumbest criticism the Democrats' media sheep make of Tea Party members is that Tea Partiers don't accept the global warming nonsense that most Democrats and their media sheep have fallen for.
Most Tea Party members aren't climate experts, but they are smart enough to recognize a political con when they see one. In business cons, police warn that if something sounds too good to be true it probably is. In political cons, if something sounds too bad to be true it probably is too bad to be true.
Like most con artists, the people attempting to continue Enron's global warming scam try to oversell their claims. The global warming scammers are essentially saying that if we don't stop producing the "evil" gas carbon dioxideGod will flood the world like he did in the time of Noah.
Supporters of Enron's global warming scam falsely claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) possesses some magical power to increase the temperature of the atmosphere by interacting with low energy infrared radiation (IR).
In the 90's Enron paid scientists and so called environmental groups to claim that an increase in atmospheric CO2 would cause significant temperature changes even though CO2 comprises less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. Enron even wrote the Kyoto Accords for the Clinton administration.
Enron wanted the opportunity to make a fortune by trading what the company called "carbon credits". Enron had previously made a fortune trading sulfur dioxide credits under a program set up to allow northeastern power plants to continue producing the pollution associated with acid rain.
People who are unfamiliar with science don't understand that western science has long been infected with con artists. In the Middle Ages"Alchemists" obtained money from wealthy nobles by claiming to be working on a method of turning a base metal like lead into gold.
Some of the more popular science scams today involve miraculous medical treatments and machines that use little or no energy.
Today's scientists don't trust each other to be truthful. Science journals require "peer review" of articles to discourage writers from publishing phony results that seem to support their theories. Attorneys in court often question whether a scientist witness has been paid to testify a certain way.
Scientists who have trouble getting money for legitimate research may feel they have no choice but to adjust their research and statements to conform to the desires of the businesses or political organizations that offer them money.
Many of the global warming "scientists" who call themselves "climatologists" lack the qualifications for making such claims. The only qualifications most of them have are for predicting short term weather.
Understanding the way climate changes over time requires a background in astrophysics and the operation of earth's complex energy system as well as an understanding of weather patterns.
The Milankovich cycles are the primary factors causing climate. Changes in the earth's tilt on its axis determine how temperatures change from one season to another. Changes in the sun's output affect short term changes in air temperature .
Those familiar with thermodynamics know that physicist R.W. Wood disproved the claim that greenhouses and the atmosphere stayed warm by reflecting IR.
Those who support the claim if global warming don't talk like scientists.
Real scientists don't use terms like "settled science" or "consensus" when talking about their theories. "Consensus" is a political term not a scientific term Scientists don't rely on consensus because the consensus view has been wrong before. In 1895 the consensus among physicists was that atoms were the smallest particles of matter. The consensus was proved wrong when Sir J.J.Thomson reported his discovery of the electron.
Priests suggest their statements represent matters that are "settled". Real scientists qualify their claims and look for additional tests to make to see if they have missed something. Scientists who believe they may have an accurate model of the nucleus of atoms are using the Hadron Collider to determine if they might have missed something.
I learned in high school that when scientists conduct experiments, they should mention conditions that could reduce the accuracy of results. Those who claim global warming ignore the likelihood that the 0.25% change in temperature during the 20th Century might indicates nothing more than the use of different equipment.
Real scientists use mathematically rigorous methods. The people who claim global warming rely on the mathematically meaningless term called "average global temperature".
Priests use terms similar to "denier" and "contrarian" to describe heretics who question their statements. Scientists provide.the results of experiments and observations to refute critics.
Contrary to the statements of President Barack Obama and various energy companies, there is no such thing as clean energy. Large wind generators kill birds and many believe they are visual pollution. The companies that produce solar cells in China are heavy polluters. Using solar energy to heat water to produce electricity requires large amounts of water.
Carbon dioxide is the most essential molecule in the atmosphere. Plants need it to convert solar energy into the bonds that hold complex carbon molecules together. Humans and other animals then use those carbon molecules for food.
Animals than return part of the carbon to the atmosphere as CO2 to be used by plants to complete the carbon cycle. Unfortunately, humans remove large amounts of plant carbon from the cycle by using plant products for items like clothing and paper in which the carbon isn't returned to the atmosphere. Some unused portions of food products are put in landfills instead of the carbon being returned to the atmosphere. We actually need to use fossil fuels to replace the carbon that we remove from the carbon cycle.
I have various posts on this blog exposing flaws in the global warming scam. I also have a Global Warming, Not Blog that primarily only has global warming type posts.
On energy and the progressive plans for “cap and tax”
A Conservative View
By Lester H. BeairdThe Huntsville Item
HUNTSVILLE — I will confess to having been in somewhat of a quandary the last couple of weeks. Said quandary has been that of trying to decide what topic to write about. Our Constitutional Republic (that’s right — not a Democracy) has never been more threatened by numerous assaults than it is at this time. After deliberation, I decided to write about the push by the current administration to pass “Cap and Tax” legislation.
Do we have crisis in our usage of petroleum products? Yes we do, but not as portrayed by the “progressives” and many of the media. Do we need regulation and inspection of petroleum production? Certainly we do. It is glaringly obvious that the governmental inspection of the well causing the current damage in the gulf was ineffectual. The events around that disaster will be included in a subsequent article.
In discussing the proposed “Cap and Tax” legislation, I will be obliged to use a considerable amount of generalizations. These generalizations will represent my views regarding the real importance of this effort. For those detractors — this usage is at least as fair as the convoluted, stilted manner the legislation is written. Until there is direct, clear, transparent and comprehensive debate clarifying just what is intended, it is my contention that my generalizations are as valid as the bill.
Some basic assumptions are made by the administration and Congress to justify the need for this legislation. There is the assumption that “global warming” is real, and is a crisis. There is the further assumption that the federal government is the only entity capable of making the decisions necessary to combat this. Another assumption is that throwing billions (or trillions) of our tax dollars at the problem will fix it.
There is a great deal of disagreement regarding the idea of “global warming.” Despite the progressive talking points alleging that a preponderance of scientific experts agree, that is not the case. There have been many instances uncovered that the core group of “experts” have more or less cooked the books by reporting data favorable to their theory and hiding data that would refute. The fact that some of these same “experts” have ties to organizations that stand to profit immensely from “Cap and Tax” makes this situation that much more questionable.
Regarding the federal government being the body to make those decisions; what problem do you recall that the government had made “better” by creating myriads of bureaucratic agencies doling out our tax dollars? I can think of exactly zero.
It appears to me that there are two factors that are the prime movers of this attempt to pass “Cap and Tax.” One is power, and the other is money. As I read the House Bill (H.R. 2454; American Clean Energy And Security Act) sponsored by Waxman and Markey in 2009, the quest for additional growth and power of the federal government is apparent. Through bureaucracies created, and/or enhanced for the task, this bill would place in the hands of the federal government immense additional power that transcends bail-outs, and the taking over of financial institutions, health care and auto manufacturing. This would be done by the creation and control of “Carbon emission credits”.
In order to combat the alleged “Global warming”, decisions will be made by governmental agencies to determine the amount of emissions allowable by essentially every entity in the country. Then, the federal government will make the decision and assign the number of carbon credits received by each of those entities, using a scale determined by the government. These carbon credits would be purchased from the government. Once purchased, the owner would then be free to use them to “pay” for emissions, or sell them to other entities through an approved exchange. One such exchange is already in existence, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).
This power play by the federal government is massive. One of the first steps would be acquiring greater control over the states. This would be done by forcing each state to provide a plan for each component of the legislation, using the threat of withholding funds for non-compliance. This is the same as is being done with highway funds and others, but would be on a larger scale. States, faced with the burdensome regulation requirements, would essentially have no option for non-compliance.
The next step would be the enhanced control of utilities and manufacturing, which would have a tremendous burden regarding the development of “green energy” and compliance with a monstrous amount of “green energy” requirements for the manufacture of products, and for the products themselves. A huge increase in manufacturing costs would be inevitable. You know what that will do to prices. They will, as our President said about electricity prices, “necessarily skyrocket.”
If you are thinking that the direct impact on you personally will not be all that bad, think again. If you have not done so yet, get on the internet and read this bill, particularly the section captioned Title II – Energy Efficiency. In this section there are several factors that should be of interest. It speaks to assigning energy efficiency “standards” to residences, and that these standards must be addressed as a part of any mortgages that are entered into — assuming the availability of a mortgage from a “green” bank, whatever that is.
In other words, an inspector from a governmental agency will be involved in the decision for you to buy or sell a house. This inspector and his agency will have the power to define what work you must have done to achieve compliance, and he or another government agent will have approval authority regarding who does the work, since there are requirements regarding “approved’ contractors, and the payment of prevailing wages.
I wonder — does this mean that the fix might be in for requiring union labor to do work you might be capable of doing for yourself? What do you think?
Another factor regarding the consolidation of power by the federal government is the veritable pipeline of money (my taxes and yours) in the form of huge grants for academics to “study” various aspects of energy problems, and the billions of dollars that would be used to “redistribute” tax dollars in the form of subsidies to pay utility bills and foot the bill for renovations for millions of people. As an entitlement program, there is no real estimate yet as to its ultimate size. Could it get us to the tipping point that is approaching regarding entitlements that we are so near? You know the one — that point in which there are so many more of those who are receiving than those who are providing that our social system will crash. I am afraid that it might.
There will not be space in this article to provide any wealth of discussion of the Chicago Climate Exchange, so it will be visited at a later date. It is my opinion that its primary purpose is tremendous enrichment of a number of the principals in this group, many of whom have ties to the same government officials who are pushing for “Cap and Tax”.
If this doesn’t cause you some indigestion, it should. Don’t take my word for it, or take the opposite side because of what I have said. Research it yourself. See for yourself, as best as you can, who are the people involved. Look for yourself at the potential for this to be a scam that makes Barney Madoff “s scams seem small.
Cockburn on Global Warming: A Rebuttal by John W. Farley
Journalist Alexander Cockburn once again questions global warming, asking "Global Warming: Farce, Fraud, or Both?" in a syndicated column that appeared on Christmas day in my local newspaper. I usually agree with Cockburn about politics, but I think he's seriously mistaken about global warming.1
Cockburn puts forward four arguments:
(1) Researcher Michael Mann produced the famous "hockey stick" graph, which Cockburn thinks is erroneous because it omitted the Medieval Warm Period (800-1300 AD), when it may have been warmer than the 20th century.
(2) In an email, climate researcher Kevin Treberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) remarked: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." Cockburn takes this as evidence of a cover-up.
(3) Cockburn thinks that the greenhouse effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
(4) Cockburn thinks that the surface temperature of the Earth has decreased in the last eight years, proving that global warming has stopped.
Let's take up these assertions in order.
(1) Michael Mann published the first attempt to reconstruct the global temperature of the Earth over last 1000 years. In their 1998 paper, Mann and co-authors Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes reconstructed the temperature record over the past 1000 years and concluded that the warming in the second half of 20th century is unprecedented in the last six centuries, and perhaps in the last 1000 years.2
Critics charged that the 1998 paper had some subtle flaws in the ways the authors handled statistics. The Mann study was investigated by a special panel of the National Research Council, whose 2006 report concluded that there were shortcomings in the statistics, but that the effect of these shortcomings was small. So the critics were entitled to their quibble, but it made very little difference to the conclusion. In the last decade, at least a dozen other research teams (that did not include Michael Mann) have investigated the same questions, using different statistical methods, and found similar results to those of Mann et al. So Michael Mann and his co-workers got the big idea right.
One common objection to Michael Mann's work is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1300 AD) does not appear in the "hockey stick" graph. At one time, researchers wondered if the Medieval Warm Period was a truly global phenomenon or only a regional phenomenon. The current thinking among researchers is that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional (European and nearby areas) effect, not a global effect. As a regional phenomenon, the Medieval Warm Period doesn't test our understanding of global climate change and is thus only of mild interest. There is no consensus about the temperature during the Medieval period, because the uncertainties are so large.3
Those who believe that the Medieval Warm Period is very important are making the assumption that there is only one factor determining the climate. If you make that assumption, and if the sole factor is burning of fossil fuels, then our understanding of global warming would be challenged, because of course massive burning of fossil fuels did not happen in medieval times. Some six decades ago, many scientists in fact assumed that only one factor influences climate, although they couldn't agree on what factor, and global climate change was thus not understood. Today we know better: a number of factors influence global climate, including the intensity of the sun, aerosols, the greenhouse effect, Milankovich cycles (changes in the Earth's orbital motion), volcanic eruptions, and other factors.
(2) Kevin Trenberth, researcher at NCAR, said in an email: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." Trenberth did not say (or intend to say) that he doubted the manmade character of recent global warming.
Climate scientists understand the long-term upward trend in the surface temperature of the earth: it's because of global warming, due to the enhanced greenhouse effect arising from increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
What climate scientists do not fully understand are the short-term fluctuations above and below the long-term trend. As part of those fluctuations, energy is transferred between different parts of the earth's climate system: glaciers, polar ice, the deep ocean, etc. Trenberth asks why the January 2008 temperature was unusually low. "Was it because a lot of heat went into melting Arctic sea ice or parts of Greenland and Antarctica, and other glaciers?" Currently we just can't say.
To reiterate: the oft-cited email does not mean Trenberth is doubting the reality of global warming or the manmade cause of global warming. Those concern the long-term trend. Instead, Trenberth was bemoaning the lack of accurate measurements of the energy flows that accompany the short-term fluctuations ("natural variability").
The email by Kevin Trenberth doesn't say anything that is not also said in a published article by Trenberth, which is available online.4
(3) Cockburn is impressed by a scientific argument, claiming that the greenhouse effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. He relies on a publication by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (GT), "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics."5 However, the greenhouse effect can be easily demonstrated in the laboratory. The BBC broadcast a tabletop demonstration of the greenhouse effect, which can be found at the BBC website (at <news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8394168.stm>). The video, a little over 2 minutes long, is well worth watching. Physics is an experimental science, and if theory disagrees with experiment, the theory must be flawed.
But beyond noting that the GT theory is refuted by experiment, it is worthwhile examining where GT went wrong. They claim that greenhouse gases in cold upper atmosphere cannot possibly transfer heat to the warmer earth, without violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Let's be clear about what Second Law of Thermodynamics does and does not say. Suppose that you have two objects at two different temperatures, and suppose that light (visible or infrared) from either object can reach the other object. There will be a flow of heat from the hot object to the cold object and a smaller flow of heat from the cold object to the hot object. There are thus heat flows in both directions: from hot to cold and from cold to hot.
The Second Law says that the flow of heat from hot to cold is greater than the flow of heat from cold to hot. Hence the net flow of heat is from the hot object to the cold object. Note that the existence of a smaller flow of heat from the cold object to the hot object does not refute the Second Law.
At this point, we return to Cockburn's argument (from GT). Heat flows from the warm earth to the cold atmosphere and also from the cold atmosphere to the warm earth. (Heat also flows from the cold atmosphere to outer space, which is even colder.) The flow of heat from the earth to the atmosphere is greater than the flow of heat from the atmosphere to the earth, so the net flow of heat is from the earth to the atmosphere.
But there is also a (smaller) flow from the atmosphere to the earth. This smaller flow keeps the earth warmer than it would be if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is what the greenhouse effect is all about. On this point, Cockburn has been misled by GT, who have advanced degrees in physics but have made a serious mistake in thermodynamics.
Readers with a background in physics and calculus can read a comprehensive refutation of the GT paper by Arthur P. Smith, "Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect." Smith's article begins: "The results presented here are not new." Indeed, they are over a century old and found in standard textbooks. Smith has presented the subject in great detail in order to answer objections raised by GT to the treatment found in standard textbooks.
The greenhouse effect has been known for over a century. The greenhouse effect is quite a big effect: the Earth's surface is about 59 F warmer than it would be in the absence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect was entirely natural until the industrial revolution. In the last two centuries, the burning of fossil fuels has added a manmade contribution to the greenhouse effect. It is surprising that the GT paper survived peer review, which is a quality-control policy that makes it harder to publish erroneous papers. Harder, but evidently not impossible.
(4) Finally, Cockburn claims the average temperature has decreased significantly in the last eight years or so. It is important to stress the difference between weather and climate. Weather is short-term behavior, while climate is long-term behavior. Climate is weather, averaged of a period of several decades. The Earth is getting warmer at about 0.2 degrees C per decade, in agreement with models. Any trend over a short time (e.g., only eight years) is weather and not climate. Short-term decreases or increases in temperature are not important for climate; what matters is the long-term trend. The latest data is that the July 2009 sea-surface temperature is the highest sea-surface temperature ever recorded.
Modern climate science explains a great deal of information that would be difficult or impossible to explain in any other way. By way of analogy, consider the central role that evolution plays in biological sciences. Evolution explains a great deal of information that would be difficult or impossible to explain in any other way. Biologists argue about the details of evolution, but not about whether or not evolution is happening at all. Similarly, climate scientists debate the amount and pace of global warming, but very few climate scientists think that global warming is not happening at all.
Of course there still are people who don't believe in evolution, but (with incredibly rare exceptions) they're not biologists. The case for modern anthropogenic climate change has become stronger in recent decades, as the science has improved and as the Earth has continued to warm. I predict that, within a decade or two, those who believe that global warming isn't happening at all will be where the creationists are now.
Climate change sceptics believe the earth is a self-regulating mechanism that will adapt to changes, regardless of human activity and that the earth’s history is full of variations in temperature.
Many trace their belief back to James Lovelock’s Gaia theory (gaia means earth in Greek) which came to him in 1965 when the astrologer Carl Sagan told him of the “faint young sun paradox”.
This states that while the sun was 25 per cent cooler when the earth was young, it never froze as it should have. “It was then that the image of the earth as a living organism was able to regulate its temperature and chemistry at a comfortable steady state emerged in my mind,” he writes in his latest book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning.
THE HISTORY OF CLIMATE SCIENCE goes back a long way, but it was the Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius, who first realised in 1904 that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was increasing because of the burning of coal, which must eventually affect earth’s climate.
Today, a whole scientific discipline called Earth System Science is devoted to understanding the way life regulates conditions such as the temperature on the earth surface. So does the earth have mechanisms to restore its own balance?
It is said that rain forests like the Amazon actually generate their own rainfall and coral reefs increase cloudiness in the air above them through the production of cloud-seeding chemicals, thereby shading themselves from dangerous ultraviolet radiation.
Palaeontologist Peter Ward in The Medea Hypothesis (whose title derives from the mythical Greek heroine who, when jilted by her lover Jason, killed their children in revenge) says: “Earth life is inherently selfish and ultimately biocidal”. He insists that the unit of evolution is the species, not the biosphere “and from this accrues a vicious uncaring lethality toward other species that is one of the three most basic characteristics of life itself.”
From the great methane disaster of 3.7 billion years ago (when the spread of early methane-producing life-forms is thought to have created a “cold buffer” in the atmosphere, which almost ended life on Earth) to the last of the ice ages 20,000 years ago, Ward declares it was life itself that destabilised the climate.
Thus our over-population, destruction of biodiversity and greenhouse gas pollution will soon bring about another great extinction. Lovelock argues that the earth’s system of self-regulation is, however, being overwhelmed by greenhouse gas pollution and that in one of the jumps that is characteristic of its behaviour, it will soon evolve from its “current cool state” into a dramatically hotter one.
Chaos theory prevents scientists from calculating exactly when this might happen, but Lovelock predicts that a new climatic leap will occur in the next few years or decades and will involve an abrupt increase in average global surface temperature of 9°C, triggering the collapse of our global civilisation and the near extinction of humanity itself.
He differs from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which predicts a lesser figure of 2-3°C, because this has not taken into account the habitual temperature jumps of the past. There are indications that Lovelock’s gloom is justified: prior to the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 parts per million. Today it is 390ppm.
HE ARGUES THAT IT IS NOT TOO LATE to save the planet — we will just have to adapt. Cutting back damaging land practices such as forest clearance is helpful, but he doesn’t think that developing biofuels and renewable energy is much use because they involve more land clearance and thus a diminution of food supply.
But although this may be true in the case of ethanol, it is not true of more advanced techniques that derive biofuels from algae or crop and other waste. Wind and solar sources are dismissed as unable to deliver a sufficiently large and consistent power supply; nuclear energy is seen to be the only salvation.
But there are “smart grid” solutions for using intermittent sources of supply and Lovelock, at 91, has not taken on board the improvements that have been made to wind and solar energy. Nevertheless, as the great guru whose perspective is broad enough to include ethics, philosophy and moral values, he is still worth listening to. We need to change our way of life regardless. Ms Caplan is a freelance writer and education consultant (betty.caplan1@gmail.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sgIrhTs-3iC3RpFlGmVc1f4lOTWnCTGNoQ9z2MzVdPCvxx2SgC4T6u5zWWQzuZvIQzsKgMMkzYMcTiGPACPoFp60QyyIznLxR3VXlMPYSpyjcYGhPDJ4N9BnuFpM3O_P07lRnSIdn_faBrJ404tji7=s0-d)
