The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 34/600)
rogergarrison DEC 13, 03:36 PM
Nothing else was just on tv. Just happened that they were showing An Inconvenient Truth with Al again on the Discovery Channel. Knowing what I do now, his BS was even more maddening to watch the second time. What a load of crap and his audience was taking it all, hook ..line...and sinker. Reminded me of Charles Manson.
fierobear DEC 13, 05:04 PM

quote
Originally posted by Fastback 86:

I swear, we have THE MOST shortsighted environmentalists in this state. I'm all for saving the planet, but you have to measure that kind of ambition against reality.



That's been one of my major points all along. As for "saving the planet", the planet couldn't care less what the temperature is. It's been *much* hotter and colder throughout Earth's history.

As for reality, the people pushing these efforts don't seem interested in reality. It's one reason why I keep calling this a "global warming religion", because it's exactly how they are acting...like religious zealots.
fierobear DEC 13, 05:05 PM

quote
Originally posted by Phranc:

I wonder where all the industry will move to when Cali taxes and fines them into nothing? Nevada? Oregon? Or more likely in Mexico where the new petroleum plant went.



Most likely? Mexico, India, China and southeast Asia.

It's comedic the way they think the job losses will be more than made up with by "green jobs" and tech, or that fighting global warming will actually *help* the economy. What a bunch of wishful bullshit.
Raydar DEC 13, 07:00 PM

quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
...As for reality, the people pushing these efforts don't seem interested in reality. It's one reason why I keep calling this a "global warming religion", because it's exactly how they are acting...like religious zealots.




We are building a religion
We are building it bigger
We are widening the corridors
And adding more lanes

We are building a religion
A limited edition
We are now accepting callers
For the pendant key chains

To resist it is useless
It is useless to resist it
His cigarette is burning
But he never seems to ash

He is grooming his poodle
He is living comfort eagle
You can meet at his location
But you better come with cash

Now his hat is on backwards
He can show you his tatoos
He is in the music business
He is calling you dude!

Now today is tomorrow
And tomorrow today
And yesterday is weaving in and out

And the filthy white lines
That the airplane leaves behind
Are drifting right in front
Of the waining of the moon

He is handling the money
Hes serving the food
He knows about your party
He is calling you dude!

Now do you believe
In the one big sign
The doublewide shine
On the bootheels of your prime

Doesnt matter if youre skinny
Doesnt matter if youre fat
You can dress up like a sultan
In your onion head hat

We are building a religion
We are making a brand
Were the only ones to turn to
When your castles turn to sand

Take a bite of this apple
Mr. corporate events
Take a walk through the jungle
Of cardboard shanties and tents

Some people drink pepsi
Some people drink coke
The wacky morning dj
Says domocracys a joke

He says now do you believe
In the one big song
Hes now accepting callers
Who would like to sing along

She says, do you believe
In the one true edge
By fastening your safety belts
And stepping towards the ledge

He is handling the money
He is serving the food
He is now accepting callers
He is calling me dude!

Now do you believe
In the one big sign
The doublewide shine
On the bootheels of your prime

Theres no need to ask directions
If you ever lose your mind
Were behind you
Were behind you
And let us please remind you
We can send a car to find you
If you ever lose your way

We are building a religion

We are building it bigger

We are building

A religion

A limited

Edition

We are now accepting callers...
For these beautiful...
Pendant keychains

- Comfort Eagle -- Cake
partfiero DEC 13, 08:54 PM

quote
Originally posted by fierobear:


Most likely? Mexico, India, China and southeast Asia.

It's comedic the way they think the job losses will be more than made up with by "green jobs" and tech, or that fighting global warming will actually *help* the economy. What a bunch of wishful bullshit.



What is sick about this sh!t is we are getting taxed up the a$$, companies are going over seas because of the "GREEN" regulations, and all the while our economy gets weaker and weaker, while most of the rest of the developing world looks like this.
I guess if our little part of the world is clean, no matter what it cost, we can sleep easy knowing we did our part.
I took this picture while in China, and the scene is repeated street after street throughout most of the city.
And to top it off, Beijing has four times the population as this city.

[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 12-13-2008).]

fierobear DEC 14, 02:04 PM
(Ryan, the following might explain how TSI might not be sufficient to drive the warm/cool cycles, and the observed effects)

The following is an interesting article about the combination of TSI and PDO, which seem to correlate well with the observed temperature trends over the last century. FYI, TSI refers to Total Solar Irradiance, and PDO is Pacific Decadal Oscillation. It's a long article, but here is the meat:

The Real Link Between Solar Energy, Ocean Cycles and Global Temperature
(excerpt)

I can emphasise the importance of this issue for our near future by examining the period 1940 to 2008.

From around 1940 solar input was high during cycles 18 and 19 but then it reduced for a while during solar cycle 20 but (importantly) PDO was negative throughout. That remained the basic scenario until 1975. The background warming from two very active solar cycles 18 and 19 was cancelled out and then when we experienced the weaker cycle 20 combined with the continuing negative PDO we legitimately feared global cooling.

From 1975 to about 2000 PDO was positive and we experienced powerful solar cycles 21, 22 and the peak of 23 (which although less intense than the other two had a double peak). That combination produced the level of global warming that led to such concern from the IPCC and the modellers. It is important to note that taken together solar cycles 18, 19, 21, 22 and the double peak of cycle 23 produced the most intense period of solar activity since the Maunder minimum and that period of weak solar activity produced frigid conditions which, if repeated now, would be disastrous for our much more highly populated world. One only has to look at China’s reports of last winter’s ‘climate crisis’ to see that certain areas of China were rendered uninhabitable for a time.

In my personal opinion it was criminal for the IPCC and the modellers to ignore all that on the basis of some nebulous concept termed Total Solar Irradiance.

On the basis of the information in the public domain about solar cycles and the positive PDO it should have been blatantly obvious that the world would warm up without the need to speculate on a contribution from CO2 or anything else. But, no, they left the solar component out of the models and saw no significance in a positive PDO.

That brings me to the present scenario that I find rather worrying.

As Mr. Rawls points out we now have a less active sun combined with the start of a negative PDO.

Thus:

1) Active sun in cycles 18 and 19 then a less active sun in cycle 20 plus a negative PDO = cancelling out of expected warming followed by cooling when the sun gets less active in cycle 20 (!940 to 1975).

2) Active sun during cycles 21, 22 and the double peak of 23 plus positive PDO = significant warming. (1975 to 1998)

3) Slightly quieter sun during extended tail end of cycle 23 plus positive PDO = stable temperatures. (1998 to 2007).

4) Quiet sun as cycle 23 fizzles out and cycle 24 is deferred plus a negative PDO = Rather chilly in my opinion. (2007 to 20 ?)

Could it be that the IPCC and the modellers have been completely wrong footed and are now recommending exactly the opposite policy decisions to those that the world really needs?

I should emphasise the problems ahead of us if the solar driver theory is correct.

It would mean that the current cooling process will consolidate and continue for decades. I would prefer to be wrong because crops will fail, growing areas reduce, summers shorten and the environments suitable for plant and animal life will shrink towards the equator again after the past few decades of northward and southward expansion.

The past few decades that led to such painful heart searching will, in retrospect, look like very pleasant times.

=====================

I'll be looking more into this in the coming days.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-14-2008).]

fierobear DEC 14, 03:07 PM
Follow-up to the TSI and PDO correlation with temperature. I'm not sure if I've posted this before, but it would bear repeating. I won't reproduce all the graphs and so forth here, it's best to just read the link. But I'll put the conclusion info.

Warming Trend: PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2



And his conclusion:

Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the sun and oceans than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.

Given the recent cooling of the Pacific and Atlantic and rapid decline in solar activity, we might anticipate given these correlations, temperatures to accelerate downwards shortly.

While this isn’t a “smoking gun” it is as close as anything I’ve seen. Time will give us the qualified answer as we have expectations of a lower Solar Cycle 24 and changes in the Pacific now happening.
fierobear DEC 15, 07:38 PM
Obama is going for the whole enchilada on Global Warming, despite TEN PLUS YEARS of no warming while CO2 has gone up 5%. My comments in italics:

Obama announces energy and environment team

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama on Monday named an environmental and energy team that he said signaled his determination to tackle global warming quickly and develop alternative forms of energy. He vowed to "move beyond our oil addiction and create a new hybrid economy."

Obama selected Nobel-prize winning physicist Steven Chu as energy secretary and Carol Browner, a confidante of former Vice President Al Gore, to lead a White House council on energy and climate. Browner headed the Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton administration.

Chu, 60, is director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., and is a leading advocate of reducing greenhouse gases by developing new energy sources.

The selection of Chu, a Chinese American who shared a Nobel Prize for physics in 1997, received widespread praise on Capitol Hill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he looked forward to "confirming Dr. Chu as quickly as possible."

"His appointment should send a signal to all that my administration will value science. We will make decisions based on the facts, and we understand that facts demand bold action," Obama said at a news conference in Chicago.

Too bad the facts are against human-caused warming

Obama also announced his choice of Lisa Jackson, former head of New Jersey's environmental agency, as EPA administrator and Nancy Sutley, a deputy Los Angeles mayor, as chair of the White House Council on Environment Quality.

Obama made clear he plans take energy policy in a sharply different direction from President George W. Bush, promising aggressive moves to address global warming and pump money and support into research into alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and biofuels.

"America must develop new forms of energy and new ways of using it," he said.

Obama said the dangers of being too heavily dependent on foreign oil "are eclipsed only by the long-term threat of climate change which unless we act will lead to drought and famine abroad, devastating weather patterns and terrible storms on our shores, and disappearance of our coastline at home."

All of the above are FALSE

He rejected the notion that economic development and environmental protection cannot go hand in hand.

"We can spark the dynamism of our economy through a long-term investment in renewable energy that will give life to new businesses and industries with good jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced," he said.

Obama has said he wants to spent $15 billion a year to boost alternative energy and energy conservation to make public buildings more efficient, modernize the electricity grid, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions while protecting and preserving natural resources.

Chu's selection was viewed as a clear signal that science would weight heavily in the Obama administration. Chu is a widely respected scientist who has been a vocal advocate for aggressive action to deal with climate change. At the Berkeley lab, he has pushed research into the use of plants and energy from the sun as fuel.

Aggressive action against a problem that doesn't exist. Great.

In brief remarks, Chu said: "What the world does in the coming decade will have enormous consequences that will last for centuries. It's imperative that we begin without further delay."

Yes! Don't delay! Act NOW, even though the science is BOGUS!!!

He said Obama had "set the tone and pace for moving our country forward with optimism and calm determination. I hope to emulate his example."

Obama said Browner would "coordinate energy and climate policy" from the White House and "will be indispensable in implementing an ambitious and complex energy policy."

Browner's role has been described as "energy czar" but it's unclear how much power she will have. The selection of Chu, a scientist and not a political figure, suggests that Browner's political roles in crafting energy and environmental legislation would be considerable. Both Jackson, the new EPA chief, and Sutley worked for Browner at the EPA in the 1990s.

Browner, 53, a protege of Gore, served for eight years, longer than anyone else, as EPA administrator during the Clinton administration. No stranger to hard-nose politics, she frequently clashed with conservative Republicans in Congress over environmental regulations.

Carole Browner, a "protege of Al Gore". Great, I guess this means more lies will be shoved down our throats as "Inconvenient Truths"?
Phranc DEC 15, 08:31 PM
Who needs facts when you have a "cause".
partfiero DEC 15, 09:46 PM

quote
Originally posted by Phranc:

Who needs facts when you have a "cause".



This whole thing at this point is all about "a million new areas they can tax in the name of global warming".