Tuesday, September 23, 2008

As earth cools, get Ready For The Global Warming Propaganda

Now that government scientists recognize that the sun's lack of sun spot activity is going to significantly cool the solar system, get ready for the storm of propaganda. You'll hear something to this effect on every major news show and every major newspaper. "Global warming is still real. These colder temperatures just mean it could be a lot colder without global warming. We still must fight global warming because these colder temperatures will not last. We must still significantly reduce our carbon footprint."

Get ready to vomit. The real scientists know CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas with neglible effect on global temperatures and usually follow global warming rather than cause it. The sun and water in the atmosphere are the leading determination of global temperatures.

Increases in CO2 are usually balanced with increased plant life, especially in the oceans, which consume the CO2 and release O2. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases crop yield, which in times of food shortages, is actually very desired.

Be wary of scientists on government payroll and scientists and organizations who are paid by the trillionaire international bankers, the Rothschild family with an estimated worth of 100 trillion and Rockefeller family with an estimated net worth 10 trillion. These net worths are conservative estimates and growing exponentially as debts around the globe increase exponentially. They want global carbon tax to consolidate wealth and power globally.

Source






AccuWeather meteorologist: Where is Global Warming??


(Above: Upstate New York after a spring lake-effect storm)

Welcome to my second posting. Hopefully you enjoyed my first, and it is the first of many future blogs. Last week, I came across an article about global cooling due to a decrease in sunspot activity and thus a decrease in the output of energy from the sun. I chose this week's article because it talks about the same thing, but it has a different cause for the cooling. The reason in this article is that changes in huge ocean currents, such as El Nino/ La Nina, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation are absorbing the excess heat in the atmosphere due to the increase in greenhouse gases and forcing it deep in the ocean and causing cooler deep ocean water to the surface, thus cooling the atmosphere. This article from The Tyee made me think about two main ideas, and I would like to read your comments and thoughts about these subjects.

First off, as mentioned by some of you in last week's comments, is there a way to get an accurate read of the temperature and thus temperature change of the earth? If we are not sure if how we measure temperature of the earth is accurate, how can we even debate whether or not climate change is occuring? With "urban heat islands" growing in size, are they influencing our weather stations, causing them to have a warm bias, and ruining our temperature data? Does moving weather stations, adding new ones, and removing some influence temperature data? Is satellite observation of temperature accurate and reliable? I think there can be a spirited debate on whether or not our current readings of the earth's temperature are an accurate representation of what is actually the earth's temperature and thus whether or not the temperature is changing.

Secondly, let's assume that the earth's temperature is changing. What is causing this change? Our climate and atmospheric systems are so complex that would we be able to pick out one thing and say that this or that is causing climate change? Would we be able to say that the change is natural? Man-made? Let's assume that it is a natural cause behind climate change. Would we be able to point out one thing and say that this THE cause, or is there more than one natural cause, or it is a combination of man-made and natural causes? Or are changes dependent on one another, ie. does one change lead to another, and then another? Do these "steps" balance each other out, or do they contribute to one another and "steamroll" in one direction or another? My point here is that, assuming that we can figure out the first problem mentioned (ie. an accurate way to measure temperature and thus temperature change) would we be able to pinpoint what is causing climate change? And, if we get to this point, what can we do to stop it and fix the problem? No wonder why there is so much debate and so many feathers ruffled when climate change is talked about.

Source





UK forecast: 'Arctic winter with heavy snow and plummeting temperatures'

AN Arctic winter with heavy snow and plummeting temperatures lies in store for us all after one of the most miserable summers on record.
And we could even be in for a white Christmas, with the first snow due in December.
But the worst of the weather will come in the New Year, with icy storms bringing disruption to public services, roads, and schools.
The bitter cold will stretch into February, when daytime temperatures could struggle to rise above freezing point.
"It's going to be a colder than average winter," said forecaster Jonathan Powell of Positive Weather Solutions. "We can look forward to a lot of us seeing some snow throughout December, January and February, not to mention some raw temperatures."

There is a 45 per cent chance of snow on Christmas Day, particularly in the North and East, he forecast.
"In mid-February we'll see a sustained cold blast, with penetrating frosts by night, and also the threat of wintry conditions that will bring the UK to a grinding halt.
"Our daytime temperatures will struggle to get above freezing, with the wind-chill factor keeping the `real feel' temperature well below that for a period of time."

Despite the gloomy outlook, the Indian summer looks set to continue until at least the end of September. Much of the country has been enjoying the best weather in more than three months, with this week being the driest since June.
Temperatures will remain at 65F (18C), above the seasonal average, with plenty of sun and little rain.
"It's going to remain very nice indeed over the next 10 days or so," said Sarah Holland of the Met Office. "It is the belated summer eveyone has wanted."

Source





South Africa faces 'winter wonderland' after snow and coldest September temps in recorded history

It is early spring in South Africa but spring is not springing very well

Parts of KwaZulu-Natal were transformed into a "winter wonderland" after snowfalls blanketed several areas of the province. Temperatures plummeted into the low teens, with residents of Kokstad and Giants Castle waking up to 0C. Durban experienced its coldest September night in recorded history on Friday night. Snowfalls were reported in Kokstad, Matatiele, Underberg, Mooi River, Bulwer, Himeville and Nottingham Road.

Several roads in the province were closed and people were advised not to go snow hunting, as they risked becoming stuck in traffic and not being able to keep themselves warm. The road between Harding and Kokstad was closed for most of yesterday, but has since been reopened.

Transport spokesperson Nonkululeko Mbatha said four accidents had been reported on the N3 freeway between Ashburton and Nottingham road as a result of the snow and several people had been seriously injured. "All motorists on the N3 are urged to reduce their speed," she said. The severe weather also disrupted power supplies in a number of areas including Underberg and Kokstad. Cellphone communication was also down.

The weather service said the cold spell was due to a high pressure system to the east of the country, and an upper air trough brought the cloudy and very cold conditions to parts of the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal. The weather service predicted further rain for Sunday.

Source






Kansas Chamber of Commerce lends ear to scientist who disputes man-made global warming

Global warming? So what. That was the message Monday from research scientist and best-selling author Roy Spencer to legislative leaders, lobbyists and leading business officials at the Kansas Chamber of Commerce business and energy summit. Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and author of "Climate Confusion."

Spencer doesn't deny that Earth is warming, but he attributes that to natural climate cycles and not to the increase in greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels "There are many of us skeptical of mankind being the cause of global warming," he said. And, he said, increased carbon dioxide is not a bad thing, and can either be absorbed by the environment or have positive effects, such as increased agricultural production.

Most scientists disagree with Spencer's findings. They believe increases in carbon dioxide from human burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, are causing climate changes that, if left unchecked, will result in catastrophic flooding, storms, famine and changes in the environment. But Spencer said nature is always changing in ways that produce winners and losers. Even if mankind is affecting the environment, he asked, "Why is it wrong for the climate to be different because we are here?"

During a question-and-answer session, Stormont-Vail HealthCare president and chief executive officer Maynard Oliverius noted that carbon dioxide emissions have skyrocketed in recent years. "So what?" Spencer said. "What's your point?"

Spencer also advised the several hundred people in attendance not to trust the mainstream media on the topic of carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. "You will be misled on what is out there in the scientific literature," he said.

Nancy Jackson, executive director of the Climate and Energy Project at the Land Institute in Salina, attended the forum and said Spencer's talk supported the position of the Kansas Chamber of Commerce, which has urged the construction of two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas. The proposed project has been rejected by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius because of concerns about carbon dioxide emissions. "I would clearly prefer that a forum on energy and business in the state of Kansas include diverse viewpoints," Jackson said. "I'm hopeful we will see that in the future."

Source






Greenie laws threaten Australia's gas industry and would INCREASE CO2 emissions

AUSTRALIA'S $15 billion gas industry could shrink by more than a quarter by 2020 unless it is protected from the economic effects of the proposed emissions trading scheme. The industry will use new analysis to reinforce its concerns to the Rudd Government that excluding LNG from compensation under the proposed ETS will stall up to $60billion of new investment, and will actually worsen climate change by forcing developing economies, including China, to build more coal-fired power stations.

The new modelling, by Frontier Economics, estimates the 10 per cent cut in greenhouse emissions by 2020 proposed by the Government's chief climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, will require a $54 a tonne price for carbon and will slow the economy by nearly 2 per cent over the next 12 years.

Victoria's brown coal industry will be forced to halve its output, while the nation's natural gas and LNG projects would be cut by about 25 per cent because they are not eligible for compensation under the scheme outlined in the Rudd Government's green paper in July.

The Frontier report says LNG and natural gas will suffer from a shrinking electricity market and the perverse effects of downstream industries such as copper and gold processing not receiving compensation under the scheme, while rival sectors such as coal mining will be eligible.

The gas industry's warning of "carbon leakage" - the flight of investment to economies with no carbon price, resulting in no net benefit to the environment - is in direct retaliation to claims made last week that the $15 billion LNG industry should not be protected from a carbon price. A report commissioned by the Climate Institute questioned the effectiveness of any scheme to compensate trade-exposed industries such as LNG without detailed cost-benefit analysis. The analysis by economists McLennan Magasanik Associates said all global LNG resources were already being exploited, so any reduction in Australian production as a result of increased costs under an emissions trading scheme would have no impact on global investment.

But the chief executive of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, Belinda Robinson, said yesterday less LNG production in Australia meant the emissions of Asia-Pacific countries would worsen as they used coal instead. "If the carbon pollution reduction scheme has the perverse outcome of penalising Australian LNG to the benefit of the Chinese coal industry, there will be massive carbon leakage and the Australian economy and the global environment will suffer for no good reason," she said. "We will be faced with a situation of leakage-plus, where lost Australian LNG production is replaced by coal production. "For every tonne of greenhouse gases emitted in Australia through the production of LNG, between 5.5 and 9.5 tonnes are saved in China."

Energy analysts Wood Mackenzie say Australia is substantially "underweight" as an LNG producer - accounting for only 8 per cent of the global market - and already supplies the most expensive LNG in the Asia-Pacific region.

Source

***************************************

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.

*****************************************

1 comment:

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Re "it'd be golder if not for global warming", New Scientist had an article on that precise subject nearly two years ago, trying to claim that any cooling effect from the sun would "offset" our influence for a few decades. I think they realised how silly the idea was even then because it wasn't particularly well argued.