Great Lakes Ice Cover Obliterates All Previous Records
Posted on April 1, 2014 by stevengoddard
Early April ice cover is 700% of normal
Posted on April 1, 2014 by stevengoddard
Early April ice cover is 700% of normal
Climate Change report on Canada
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
:lol: Be honest, how many gif urls have you bookmarked specifically for mentalfloss?
Lots!
MF used to have the best ones. I always wondered where he got them. The finally after so many years I ran into the mother-lode of gifs.
Now my arsenal of gifs is vastly superior and I have one for every occasion.
Here's common logic. Do me a favour and show me the flaw. The weight of the atmosphere (based on atmosphere pressure or "weight" of 14.7 psi and the surface area of the earth) works out to be about 5 x 10^15 tonnes. We are at about 398 ppm (by volume) of CO2 in the atmosphere. Using the ratio of molecular weights of CO2 (44g/mol) and air (29 g/mol) you can calcualte the ppm (mass-base). So that works out to about 600 ppm (mass) of CO2.
600 ppm(mass) works out to a total weight of CO2 in the atmosphere of about 3 x 10^12 tonnes, or 3000 gigatonnes (Gt).
Or, put another way, to raise the CO2 in the atmosphere by 1 ppm (volume) takes the addition of about 7.5 Gt.
Carbon dioxide levels presently go up by about 2 ppm year. Last year human emissions were estimated at just over 30 Gt.
Just based on that analysis alone you can see that the idea that human emissions are insignificant can't be supported.
You can do a similar analaysis for volcanoes as well, for these people who claim that recent volcanic eruptions dwarf anthropogenic emissions.
Where do you get this stuff? By cyclical cooling phase, do you mean winter? The far north has not seen the global warming "pause" experienced by the rest of the planet. There are several indications of continued warming there, not the least of which is teh extent of sea ice, which has trended downward since satellite measurements began. Maybe you're talking about the far south (where ice has increased, though not to the extent that the north has lost ice)?
As far as evidence, if you do the radiation physics involved with the increased longwave radaition emitted back towards the surface of the earth by the excess CO2, it lines up not too badly with the increase in temp since 1850 or so. So wrong again. As for computer models, I don't understand the problem with those. Most structures--buildings, bridges--are built on computer models, quite successfully I might add.
For a few Gaiains that may well be the case. However, it's a stupid generalization when applied broadly.
At ever higher frequencies? What does that even mean?
Proof is a logical abstraction that does not exist in the realm of natural philosophy (i.e. science). There is no proof to be had, I'm afraid. No dissenter is allowed. What balderdash. This place is crawling with "dissenters." A lot of people are dissenters. They are all over the place. You live in a fantasy world, my friend.
I think the word you are looking for is credulous. You got that wrong. Among other things. Like Grade 9 physics. :lol:
Last edited:
I did. So the paper explaining why CO2 is not a greenhouse gas was not my work and the authors have been subject to peer review and they could find no error, and it's not at all unique. We want to use the mass of the atmosphere don't we? Rather than the weight. How often is the atmosphere weighed? Do you know if the atmospheres volume changes and if so what's the range? The black body thing does not apply to a physical body, they say. Where is our electrical accounting in your idea? Why is your science better than the science that feeds the guys I read?
The AAAS - Climate Change Causes Blurred Vision
The solar discharge has a very effective feedback system to maintain steady radiant output while the electrical power input varies. In fact, the solar radiant energy is termed a “solar constant,” which is critical to the AGW argument. However, no account is taken of the variable electrical power focused on the Sun but intercepted by the planets. The electrical connections have been traced from the Sun to the Earth’s magnetosphere; from the magnetosphere to the ionosphere; and from the ionosphere into weather systems. No one can claim to be “a climate expert” while ignorant of the electrical nature of the solar system. This common energy source explains the reports of simultaneous warming on other planets. The Sun’s galactic power source is the main driver of climatic variability. Human carbon emissions count for nothing in comparison.
The AAAS - Climate Change Causes Blurred VisionSo what was it that inspired the AAAS Board to put together what is essentially a shabby, ambiguous and misleading document? Janet Raloff of DiscoveryNews explains:
Together with marine scientist Nancy Knowlton of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History, in Washington D.C., Orbach introduced a resolution at the May board meeting of the AAAS asking for a formal condemnation of the public intimidation of climate researchers. When I asked him what had triggered the move, he pointed to a succession of events in recent years, including:
Aside from one newspaper article, from Australia no less (a Canberra Times article is the sole citation relevant to "news accounts"), the entire motivation for the Board's statement appears to be a response to legally valid requests for information regarding the possible misappropriation of public funding. This appears to be political maneuvering, nothing more and nothing less, and hypocritical in the extreme. The hypocrisy becomes clearly apparent when one considers the Board's thinly veiled accusations against Attorney General Cuccinelli contained in their first statement on what is essentially the same matter, Statement Concerning the Virginia Attorney General’s Investigation of Prof. Michael Mann’s Work While on the Faculty of University of Virginia: - a campaign by Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli to obtain access to research data by former University of Virginia climate scientist Michael Mann (now at Penn State). Cuccinelli said he wanted to prosecute Mann or his university under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act for misuse of state funds
- a petition by the American Tradition Institute (ATI) — a “free-market”-based think tank — demanding that the University of Virginia turn over thousands of e-mails and documents written by Mann
- ATI’s January 19, 2011, filing of a Freedom of Information Act request for NASA to hand over documents detailing “whether and how ‘global warming’ activist Dr. James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has complied with applicable federal ethics and financial disclosure laws and regulations, and NASA Rules of Behavior”
- and news accounts of climate researchers receiving death threats in response to reports of their findings.
... Mr. Cuccinelli’s investigation, unless based on a much more substantial body of evidence than is apparent, could inappropriately inhibit the free exchange of scientific findings and ideas and thus limit the progress of science. ...
Do the Board seriously think any Attorney General is going to launch an investigation based on thin air? And how could an investigation into the actions of one scientist be construed as leading to the inhibition of free exchange of findings and limiting the progress of the whole of science? Looks like even more blurring of those pesky lines of distinction. ... the manner in which this investigation is being conducted and the lack of a clear rationale for it suggest that the investigation may be aimed at something other than financial malfeasance. ...
*Waiting for the other shoe to drop* ... ... Unless more clearly justified, Attorney General Cuccinelli’s apparently political action should be withdrawn.
Ah, there it is. Accusing an Attorney General of abusing his position to gain political advantage is outrageous unless accompanied by substantial evidence, and should in itself be cause to launch an investigation into the integrity of the AAAS Board. Of course, the Board included "unless" and "apparently" to qualify their sentence, so as to make it not quite an accusation, thus it's the accusation you make when you're not making an accusation. Seems a bit blurry. What possible political outcome could Cuccinelli be seeking in launching a baseless investigation? I suggest it would be "career suicide" for any Attorney General to do such a thing.
And what of the AAAS and how it is now using its essentially public funds? Funded in large part by grants, dues and donations one wonders if is it appropriate for the AAAS to engage in this sort of political interference in what is a legal process and should be something viewed from the sidelines until the legalities are played out.
It's interesting to note that the second of their statements on this issue shares a large number of phrases from their first statement. The first was a response to Cuccinelli's attempt to investigate Michael Mann. Now that more FOIA petitions are in action, they've just widened the scope of their first statement. They claim to serve 10 million scientists yet the Board sees fit to spend its time producing statements relating to the records of just a handful of these 10 million. Remember we are not talking here of a letter or two in support of colleagues, but the management of a huge association spending time and effort to make official its support of a handful of scientists whose professional integrity is questioned. Surely they have better things to spend their time and money on than what is essentially propaganda.
It seems the whole climate change issue has severely blurred the vision of the AAAS.
d foisting of a politically motivated ideology upon the world in the guise of bogus science. Fortunately – for the time being at any rate – the canniness of the developing nations in demanding that the supposedly rational West literally put its money where its mouth was by playing out a lemming-like stampede to economic self-destruction brought home the absurdity to a degree that even our scientifically clueless best and brightest couldn't buy, and the whole thing largely came to nothing.
Claims that human activity was – or was even capable of – measurably affecting the Earth's climate made little sense to begin with. For as far back as patterns can be reconstructed, the climate has always cycled between being warmer or cooler, wetter or drier, stormy or settled, and the changes observed during the industrial era have been well inside the swings that have taken place in the past. So there's no reason to suppose that anything, human-induced or otherwise, is affecting the climate abnormally. Compared to water vapor and the activity of the Sun, carbon dioxide plays a minor role in determining temperature, and the amount generated by Nature dwarfs anything that humans add. In any case, the times of rising temperature recorded over the ages have all happened first, not the other way around, so increases in CO2 levels are a consequence not a cause. And even if humans were having the influence that has been claimed, the results would be overwhelmingly beneficial. Living things thrive in warmer environments, not frigid ones. Far more people die in winter from the effects of cold than from heat waves. Carbon dioxide is plant food, the basis of all life. Crops and flora of every kind grow more luxuriantly with a richer supply of it. The big advances in human civilization, reflected in the rise of cultures and times of elevated expansion and exploration, inventiveness, agriculture, artistry, and science, all occurred in warmer climatic periods. Anyone who is sincere about praising the virtues of a "green" planet should love it.
(Un)Settled Science - Hole in the AGWzone Layer!
Shortly before Copenhagen, the suspicions that even superficial consideration of such points should have raised were confirmed beyond doubt with the revelations of collusion, going back years, among a cadre of climate researchers to manufacture a scientific case supporting a quasi-religious world view and presumption of the relationship between man and nature that is being given as the justification for measures that would impose drastic energy cutbacks and costly changes in living standards worldwide. The practices employed include massaging and falsification of data; suppression and destruction of conflicting evidence; rigging of computer models to deliver predetermined results; withholding of inform
DB ( there are several million pages of very good reading to be had on the controversial subject of human induced climate change all of them written by very smart people)DB
(Un)Settled Science - Hole in the AGWzone Layer!
For those who may have missed the controversy going on behind the scenes while the mainstream media are apparently doing their best to play it down, or have just returned from a vacation on Mars, a good overview by Paul Driessen is posted here. But a couple of examples will give the idea:
[Click to enlarge] The figure above was published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 1990 maiden assessment and shows the pattern of variation in the Earth's temperature over the previous thousand years that had been generally accepted up until then, based on data from such sources as tree-rings, lake sediments, ice cores, and historic documents. It clearly depicts the "Medieval Warm Period" (MWP) of 900–1300 AD, when the Vikings maintained settlements and farms on the green coasts of Greenland and wine grapes grew in Scotland, and the "Little Ice Age" (LIA) that followed, centered on 1600 AD, in which winter fairs were held on London's frozen River Thames, and R. D. Blackmore's novel Lorna Doone had trees on Dartmoor bursting with sounds like cannon shots under the pressure of internal ice. These periods are part of a series of natural cycles that go to greater extremes, such as one around six thousand years ago, when the Sahara was grassland watered by rivers, and southern England basked in subtropical luxuriance. (Humans and polar bears survived just fine.)
Ever since humans began turning applied intelligence in the form of technology to making life more secure, comfortable, and generally less burdensome, there has been a pervasive element among them who took it upon themselves to oppose and condemn what most were inclined to view as a bettering of their condition. There seems to be something akin to a religious guilt complex at work, in which the seeking of creature comforts and a reprieve from toil and drudgery is seen as sinful, and atonement calls for renouncing the benefits and returning to the rigors of a simpler but more virtuous, soul-cleansing life. (It's interesting to note that the guilt tends to be expressed primarily by the more affluent, articulate, and influential, whose own standards will be little affected by the sacrifices demanded of those who are supposed to do the atoning.)
Things reached a crescendo in the later decades of the twentieth century, when soaring productivity and such revolutionary innovations as affordable air travel and communications for the masses, and the prospect of unlimited energy threatened wanton iniquity exploding on a worldwide scale. Reactions from the righteous came swiftly with the campaigns to demonize DDT, pesticides, fertilizers, chemicals, and nuclear energy, and apocalyptic auguries of planetary destruction from exhaustion of the food supply (late 1960s); a carbon-burning-induced ice age (mid 1970s); jetliner exhausts, particularly the SST (late 1970s); depletion of the ozone layer (1980s). But of all the environmental alarms that were sounded and had their day, the banner issue to emerge, behind which all the disparate cohorts of doom and ruin rallied, was global warming.
For anyone with stakes in the manmade disaster business, it had everything going for it: lurid images of polar meltdown, drowning cities, and dried-up farmland; a threat of global dimensions that demanded coordinated global action, and hence the institution of a global policing authority that had long been the dream of those who would abolish sovereign nation states; limitless opportunities for tax-funded "further research" and worthy political causes; and all the usual suspects to blame for opponents of industrial civilization and the Western way of life in general. Frustrated academics and intellectuals with cravings for recognition but nothing to offer that anyone would vote for at the ballot box or freely spend their money on in the market place could become voices behind the throne and make the world notice them. Even the villains of the piece had something to gain with the promise of enormous subsidies and tax incentives in return for diverting their efforts into environmentally friendly projects and "alternative" energy sources that had the one common attribute of being utterly incapable of supplying the needs of an advanced, technology-driven society, and likely to price energy – and hence just about everything else – beyond the means of most people in all but approved and rationed amounts.
Moreover, a believable mechanism by which man's nefarious actions, if left uncurbed, might heat the planet to the verge of spontaneous combustion was right there. All major industries and large-scale transportation systems depend ultimately on fuel burning, with the consequent release of carbon dioxide (apart from nuclear, but that had effectively been put on hold for the time being). Carbon dioxide contributes to the "greenhouse effect," the natural process by which the atmosphere keeps the Earth around 33°C warmer – and therefore inhabitable – than it would otherwise be at this distance from the Sun. Provided one didn't look too closely at the numbers, which showed things like CO2 being a minor greenhouse gas compared to water vapor, and the bulk of it coming from natural sources such as oceanic outgassing, volcanic activity, and the byproducts of life and decomposition, CO2 could be presented as the principal mover, and human activity as the agency primarily responsible for generating it. In an age conditioned to accepting anything that comes out of a computer with uncritical awe and bedazzlement – Garbage In, Gospel Out – the next best thing to a infallible papal pronouncement on the veracity of the theory as an article of faith could be produced in the form of complex computer models with the appropriate assumptions and outcome built-in.
It was the perfect formula. A universal gravy train. The Great Social Equalizer – although some would remain more equal than others. The road to power of truly totalitarian dimensions. . . . There was only one small thing wrong. The record of temperatures past said that the Earth had already been through variations greater than anything that could be coaxed out of CO2-driven computer models while humans were still depending on sailing ships and water wheels, and nothing remarkable had come of it.
In an article that appeared recently in American Thinker, Marc Sheppard describes the astonishment, in 1995, of a geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma on receiving an e-mail from a leading figure in climate change research that said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” And they did.
[Click to enlarge] This is the version of the temperature record that appears in the IPCC's 2001 Assessment, and is particularly stressed in the Summary for Policymakers, the highly-politicized synopsis that is all that most of the people making decisions that affect the lives of millions read, and which commands the bulk of media attention. It's the curve that has come to be known as the "Hockey Stick," from its shape of temperatures fluctuating about a fairly level mean implicitly for millennia, and turning upward sharply around the beginning of the twentieth century to mark the commencement of an unprecedented increase coincident with the growth of human population and industrialization. The construction merges data from a number of sources, applying certain statistical procedures – which in itself is not unusual when normalizing large data sets – and subjecting the result to various "corrections," said to compensate for biases and drifts.
Challenges from skeptics followed immediately on grounds of both the validity of the data used and the methodology employed. Sinc
DB ( the material raises and addresses every concievable angle of the climate change fraud in great details, I'll stop short of the million pages)DB
Why are the political establishment scientist superior to the disinterested variety?
- (Un)Settled Science - Hole in the AGWzone Layer!
- Warming from the late 1970s to about 1998
- No change from 1998 to 2001, and net cooling since then which pretty much negates the warming experienced in the first part of the century.
We are told that consensus among the world's scientists has put the subject beyond further debate. But something that the mainstream media have been largely silent about is that more than 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries, have signed an appeal addressed to the world's leaders expressing grave reservations and calling for policymaking to be founded on scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions. “The greatest evils which stalk our Earth,” they state, “are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology, and Industry, whose instruments, when adequately managed, are indispensable tools of a future shaped by Humanity, by itself and for itself.” If consensus is to be the measure, then that's three times the number of experts cited by the UN IPCC; and even these turn out to be mostly political representatives or graduates in the humanities, with no training in the philosophy or methods of science.
Over 34,000 scientists have signed a petition saying there is no convincing evidence that gases released through human activity pose any threat to the future.
Over 34,000 scientists have signed a petition saying there is no convincing evidence that gases released through human activity pose any threat to the future.
Nevertheless
Yes, I missed that the so-called skeptics are anything but They have their own suite of beliefs--electric universe, socialist one-world gumming conspiracy--that they choose to believe. Facts aren't worth a tinker's damn, is the coild hard truth of it.
So a few clowns with a vested interest agree with a reoprt from a totally fraudulent and discraced organization that supports their position. No surprise there. good thing we have a government that believes in real science and will stand up to international preasure to destroy our ecomomy.
more than 4,000 scientists, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries, have signed an appeal
So there's the Scientists you consider "so called skeptics". Why are these very credible people ignored by you? You've demonstrated that facts don't mean a damn to you. You're a big tent CO2 bible thumping preacher. You don't care about facts or science and you misspelled solid so you're a sloppy typists as well.
Plasma physics is solid fact. It has huge application. Universal application.
Letter to the Editor - from William
"How and when will we see hardware/inventions/gadgets based on plasma physics.?"
There are also everyday items and phenomena we never think about in terms of plasma physics, but which also employ the principles therein. These include neon signs, plasma balls, arc welders, lightning and the auroras, to name but a few.
I'd also draw your attention to the many industrial processes, developed since the 1960s, which also employ plasma physics as the very foundation upon which they have been built and continue to develop to ever more accurate and more powerful devices. These range from the nano-scale electrical discharge machining (EDM) of some of the smallest electrical and mechanical components yet to be devised by us, to the larger scale EDM and plasma-cutting used in big industries such as mechanical engineering, steelworks and shipbuilding.
I recently was employed in the steel industry and marveled somewhat at the accuracy and cleanliness of the plasma-cutting machines which made short work of items of steel up to several inches thick.
No the radiation physics shows that temperature should have gone up around half a degree or so, given the increase in CO2. In fact it's gone up--what?--0.8 deg C. Some of that is apparently attributed to an increase in solar radiation.
In the Holocene Optimum average temp, would 0.8C be considered a drastic and dramatic spike or ho hum to a geologist?
Question for the believers.....
Who are longuet higgins, stommel, malkus, stern and von arx and what did they discover?
Question for the believers.....
Who are longuet higgins, stommel, malkus, stern and von arx and what did they discover?
Isn't darkbeaver the guy who doesn't support scams perpetrated by corporate interests?
The initial signers of both documents also provided their qualifications, disciplines, and affiliations, so at this level, there was no deception. It is also worth noting that about 40% of the scientists who signed the "Heidelberg Appeal" also had their signatures on the "Warning" document -- apparently supporting opposite sides simultaneously.
In fact, the two groups and the two documents were not in dispute. The fraud comes from the way in which the Heidelberg document was used by the climate deniers to manufacture the impression of a dispute about global climate change. This fraudulent usage was fed to the media, which exaggerated and sensationalized the idea, as if thousands of climate scientists were at odds over the facts of global warming. In general they were not; only a small group of deniers were at odds with the mainstream, and they weren't even the bulk of the Heidelberg signers.
In this respect, the Appeal can be seen as an extension of the "junk-science" vs "sound science" arguments that were being actively and effectively promoted by the tobacco and chemical industries at this time. It was intended to suggest that climate science wasn't settled and that any regulation of energy use or pollution-creation was premature.
The Heidelberg Appeal was, in fact, a scam perpetrated by the asbestos and tobacco industries in support of the GCC. [2] It was later funded and controlled by a coalition which included coal, oil and energy interests, so the two denial strands merged. The Appeal document and the conferences which gave it life were organized by S. Fred Singer and his Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)[3] with the aid of French journalist Michel Salomon who later joined SEPP officially.[citation needed] [See "The Big Con" section below for links.]
The document itself was promoted in the USA through Philip Morris's then-private public relations firm, APCO & Associates and a few of their associated newsletter operations. They also organized a seminar promoting various aspects of the associated scientific claims which was "co-sponsored" by SEPP and the George Mason University's International Institute (funded by Philip Morris). [4] This was closely linked to one of tobacco's key economic lobbyists, Robert D. Tollison, and his Center for Study of Public Choice.
In turn, the success of this deception led Philip Morris to pay APCO & Associates to create "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition", (TASSC) with ex-Governor Garrey Curuthers as the nominal head.{fact}} It was actually run by APCO employee Steve Milloy from the backroom which also housed his Junkscience.com web operation. Milloy later became TASSC's Director.
TASSC's success in the USA led the tobacco industry to create a European version of TASSC [5] which eventually became the European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF) run by Roger Bate through the right-wing Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA).
The tobacco industry planned to create a new, seemingly independent organization which "fit in" in part with the aims and goals of the Heidelberg Appeal, that that would help augment additional sound-science/junk-science projects of the tobacco industry and their coalitions.[6]
Heidelberg Appeal - SourceWatch
For the people claiming to see through the bullcrap, you guys are pretty easily duped.
You still have to read and research more. Just because an organization has the suffix ' -watch' behind their name means little these days. It doesn't imply impartiality or neutrality. It's known that The Tides Foundation heavily funded (funds) CMD so do your reading with an open mind.