The Great Green Con

[Locutus]

The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along



No, the world ISN'T getting warmer (as you may have noticed). Now we reveal the official data that's making scientists suddenly change their minds about climate doom. So will eco-funded MPs stop waging a green crusade with your money? Well... what do YOU think?

The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.

The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. These moves have already added £100 a year to household energy bills.

more

The great green con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along | Mail Online

 

[petros]

That just shows emissions cuts are working....



LMFAO!

ScienceCasts: Solar Max Double Peaked - YouTube

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Wow, I knew it was all a big hoax, now we just need to catch all those sons-a-bitch aliens that are stealing all that ice from Greenland and the Arctic ocean ice pack.

 

[Zipperfish]

The black line in the graph in the daily mail shows a warming trend from 1960 to now, so if they are trying to show that the world is not getting warmer, they picked the wrong graph to do it.

Maybe the temperature graph from June to December for Winnipeg in 2012. I expect you'll see pretty conrete evidence of cooling in that graph. :lol:

 

[darkbeaver]

Are you sure about this? I have noticed a definite tempurture increase these last few weeks.

 

[petros]

The black line in the graph in the daily mail shows a warming trend from 1960 to now, so if they are trying to show that the world is not getting warmer, they picked the wrong graph to do it.

Maybe the temperature graph from June to December for Winnipeg in 2012. I expect you'll see pretty conrete evidence of cooling in that graph. :lol:

Find the increases over the past 16 allegedly most critical years.

Are you sure about this? I have noticed a definite tempurture increase these last few weeks.

Not me. The beginning of March was nicer than now.

 

[darkbeaver]

Find the increases over the past 16 allegedly most critical years.


Not me. The beginning of March was nicer than now.

The children are hiding under the porch petros, this morning a giant yellow orb pushed the eternal clouds aside and frightened everyone in the village. We have sinned perhaps.

 

[petros]

All hail the yellow glowing orb!

 

[Cliffy]

It is always dark when one spends most of their time enjoying the aroma of their own excrement.

 

[Zipperfish]

Find the increases over the past 16 allegedly most critical years.

Yes, if they were attempting to convey that the temperature isn't warming, they'd have been better off showing the last 16 years--actually since 1998 would be ideal. Maybe 1940-1950 as well. There was a nice little dip back then.

Also, some antarctic ice graphs--there's been growth of ice in the antarctica I think. Best not show the arctic ice, though. That's been disappearing pretty quickly of late.

 

[petros]

So why did it stop if it was a sure fire death and destruction warpath?

 

[Zipperfish]

So why did it stop if it was a sure fire death and destruction warpath?

Well, I'm a scientist, so I prefer not to think in terms of "death and destruction warpath." More along the lines of "you would expect with rising concentrations of CO2 that the amount of infrared radiation reflected back toward the earth would increase, given CO2's spectral properties as a greenhouse gas. Given that, one would expect a commensurate rise in temperature in the troposphere (and a drop in temperature in the stratosphere) to maintain homeostasis."

As to why it has stopped, I don't know. The heat content of the oceans is increasing--that might have something to do with it. More clouds, maybe? Given that CO2 concentrations are increasing at a predictable rate, I imagine that this will re-manifest itsefl as a temperature rise at some point. If it doesn't, it would be quite interesting to see the negative feedback mechanism(s) in play.

 

[darkbeaver]

Back-to-front climate science | Louis Hissink's Crazy WorldNow here we have really confused thinking for Press has decided to totally ignore the cause of the LIA that preceded the 200 years of warming, tacitly assuming that things were globally normal at the time of the LIA.
Well no. The LIA was an abnormality of climate, in that it terminated the much warmer, so we know, Medieval Warm Period, MWP, which should be considered the normal climate state since things grow and life proliferates in a warm climate.
The LIA, on the other hand, was marked by famine, extreme cold and climate catastrophes of a global nature associated with increased meteoric activity. Circum-pacific civilisations were terminated, the Moas became extinct in New Zealand (and according to the Maoris from a fire in the sky), Easter Island people died out, and according to Gavin Menzies, the destruction of many of the Chinese Ming Dynasty ocean-going fleets.
The steady rise of global temperature during the last 200 years isn’t due to CO2 but due to the removal of the cause of the LIA and the slow and steady return of the earth-system back to its MWP climate state. The increase in CO2 associated with that return to climate normality, if there is such a thing, is an effect of numerically increasing, recovering biosphere of which humans are an intrinsic part. It’s the thermal tracking back to normality that is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2, not vice versa.
I’ve made the analogy before to that of someone accidentally falling into a near freezing lake, being rescued and watching the person’s temperature starting to rise back to normal. The increased metabolism of the person would indeed cause the increased production of CO2 but that CO2 isn’t causing the person’s temperature to rise, though it seems obvious from Mr. Press’ comments that this is what climate science believes.
What Press hasn’t taken on board intellectually is the cause of the LIA which preceded the current warming trend, which caused the sudden drop in global temperature, and that cause, now absent, has allowed the earth-system to return to its pre-LIA thermal state.
Personally I don’t think it will because we have ignored one other mechanism affecting climate – the earth-system’s ability to careen around its axis of spin under the influence of external forces. But this mechanism involves questioning the absolute ascendancy of gravity as the primary and only force operating in the cosmos and the earth-system, and that is a scientific no-no. Well, it is if you have a religious mind, one which is subservient to argument from authority, whether that authority is theological or scientific.
But the primary issue of ignorance of what caused the earth-system’s drop in global temperature after the MWP remains, and while that remains ignored climate science will continue to have things back-to-front. It’s not that the earth-system is warming, it’s understanding what caused it to cool in the first place that is more important.

The Electric Earth

Posted on March 24, 2013 by Louis Hissink
Bill Nichols of the US National Weather Service presented an interesting talk at the recent EU conference at Albuquerque over 3-6 January, 2013 (ignore his date on his first slide). Nichol’s conclusion from his work as an atmosphere scientist working … Continue reading

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Anybody who understands confidence intervals and how to read a graph properly will know that the header on that graph is not a true statement and the conclusions drawn from the data shown are not justifiable.

 

[petros]

Well, I'm a scientist, so I prefer not to think in terms of "death and destruction warpath." More along the lines of "you would expect with rising concentrations of CO2 that the amount of infrared radiation reflected back toward the earth would increase, given CO2's spectral properties as a greenhouse gas. Given that, one would expect a commensurate rise in temperature in the troposphere (and a drop in temperature in the stratosphere) to maintain homeostasis."

As to why it has stopped, I don't know. The heat content of the oceans is increasing--that might have something to do with it. More clouds, maybe? Given that CO2 concentrations are increasing at a predictable rate, I imagine that this will re-manifest itsefl as a temperature rise at some point. If it doesn't, it would be quite interesting to see the negative feedback mechanism(s) in play.

As a scientist I could have worded it as an "inevitable global cataclysm", which is the same fvcking thing as "death and destruction warpath" but why? To blow sunshine up my own azz?

Is that according to what you've been told should happen?

The CO2 myth kinda fell apart. "Runaway greenhouse effects" don't have lulls, reversals or pit stops.

 

[Zipperfish]

As a scientist I could have worded it as an "inevitable global cataclysm", which is the same fvcking thing as "death and destruction warpath" but why? To blow sunshine up my own azz?

Is that according to what you've been told should happen?

The CO2 myth kinda fell apart. "Runaway greenhouse effects" don't have lulls, reversals or pit stops.

I'm not sure how the myth fell apart. Is it that the radiative properties of the CO2 molecule have changed and it no longer absorbs and emits in the infrared spectrum? Or is it that the Stefan-Boltzman Law has been replaced by something else? A problem with the First Law of Thermodynamics perhaps? A negative climate sensitivity?

I'm not so sure that we're looking at a runaway greenhouse effect. Seems on the low end of the probability scale to me. Doubling CO2 results in an increase of about one degree C, so, due to the logarithmic realtionship, it takes more and more CO2 to get an effect, and hard to get a runaway reaction. There is some speculation about the undersea methans all bubbling up or something, which I guess would screw us up pretty badly. Myself, I'd put that on the low probability end of things. Even if it did, we have plenty of other potential apocalypses that are likely to manifest before that happens. Airborne ebola maybe. :lol:

 

[petros]

Not sure? It was never happening on earth.

Something did happen that drastically modified jetstreams and ocean currents and gave the impression of a radical upcoming change but there was no way to make money from it.

 

[darkbeaver]

Electricity was discovered to have shrunk the sphere thingy surrounding the eart.

I apologize in advance for mentioning the electric reasons for climate.

t was in September of 2006 that a major premise of Electric Universe theory was confirmed: Earth weather is electrically connected to the ionosphere. Since electricity always flows in a circuit, if the ionosphere connects to Earth’s magnetosphere then it connects to the circuits of the Solar System, as well. The ionosphere is connected to the Sun by twisting filaments of electric current, so the lower levels of the atmosphere must also experience the Sun’s influence because of the additional circuit node that connects them with the ionosphere. Could these electric circuits linking the atmosphere with the Sun have anything to do with Earth’s climate in either the short or long term?
This leads to the more general idea that all weather may be influenced by the electrical connection between Earth and solar plasma. The larger view has only recently been considered, so experiments designed to verify the effect that charged particles have on Earth’s weather are now being conducted. It appears that they are having some success.
Electric Universe physicist Wal Thornhill wrote in 2004:
“If conventional theory fails to explain electrical storms it cannot be used to discount the results of ionization experiments. Instead, conventional theory suffers doubts about its basic plausibility. Weather experts have a limited view of the electrical nature of the Earth and its environment. The ‘enormous power input’ is freely available from the galaxy. That galactic electrical power drives the weather systems on all of the planets and even the Sun.”
Stephen SmithLet it Rain | thunderbolts.info

BILL NICHOLS: Electric Earth, Electric Weather | EU 2013

Posted on March 19, 2013 by B Talbott
Atmospheric scientist Bill Nichols offers a refreshing reconsideration of climate issues, with emphasis on the electrodynamic environment of the Earth, largely overlooked in the polarized debates on climate change.