|
Dintin
Beginner
Posts: 6
Registered: 12/16/2008
Member Is Offline
Points: 105
|
Natural Variability
Explain to me, please, what is inconsistant about natural variability.
READ ALL OF POST!
North Atlantic Warming Tied to Natural Variability; Global Warming May Be At Play Elsewhere
January 3, 2008
NORTH ATLANTIC WARMING TIED TO NATURAL VARIABILITY; BUT GLOBAL WARMING MAY BE AT PLAY ELSEWHERE
A Duke University-led analysis of available records shows that while the North Atlantic Ocean's surface waters warmed in the 50 years between 1950 and 2000, the change was not uniform. In fact, the subpolar regions cooled at the same time that subtropical and tropical waters warmed.
This striking pattern can be explained largely by the influence of a natural and cyclical wind circulation pattern called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), wrote authors of a study published Thursday, Jan. 3, in Science Express, the online edition of the journal Science.
Winds that power the NAO are driven by atmospheric pressure differences between areas around Iceland and the Azores. "The winds have a tremendous impact on the underlying ocean," said Susan Lozier, a professor of physical oceanography at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences who is the study's first author.
Other studies cited in the Science Express report suggest human-caused global warming may be affecting recent ocean heating trends. But Lozier and her coauthors found their data can't support that view for the North Atlantic. "It is premature to conclusively attribute these regional patterns of heat gain to greenhouse warming," they wrote.
"The take-home message is that the NAO produces strong natural variability," said Lozier in an interview. "The simplistic view of global warming is that everything forward in time will warm uniformly. But this very strong natural variability is superimposed on human-caused warming. So researchers will need to unravel that natural variability to get at the part humans are responsible for."
In research supported by the National Science Foundation in the United States and the Natural Environment Research Council in the United Kingdom, her international team analyzed 50 years of North Atlantic temperature records collected at the National Oceanic Data Center in Washington, D.C.
To piece together the mechanisms involved in the observed changes, their analysis employed an ocean circulation model that predicts how winds, evaporation, precipitation and the exchange of heat with the atmosphere influences the North Atlantic's heat content over time. They also compared those computer predictions to real observations "to test the model's skill," the authors wrote.
Her group's analysis showed that water in the sub-polar ocean – roughly between 45 degrees North latitude and the Arctic Circle – became cooler as the water directly exchanged heat with the air above it.
By contrast, NOA-driven winds served to "pile up" sun-warmed waters in parts of the subtropical and tropical North Atlantic south of 45 degrees, Lozier said. That retained and distributed heat at the surface while pushing underlying cooler water further down.
The group's computer model predicted warmer sea surfaces in the tropics and subtropics and colder readings within the sub-polar zone whenever the NAO is in an elevated state of activity. Such a high NAO has been the case during the years 1980 to 2000, the scientists reported.
"We suggest that the large-scale, decadal changes...associated with the NAO are primarily responsible for the ocean heat content changes in the North Atlantic over the past 50 years," the authors concluded.
However, the researchers also noted that this study should not be viewed in isolation. Given reported heat content gains in other oceans basins, and rising air temperatures, the authors surmised that other parts of the world's ocean systems may have taken up the excess heat produced by global warming.
"But in the North Atlantic, any anthropogenic (human-caused) warming would presently be masked by such strong natural variability," they wrote.
NASA wrote that. Guess theirs no global warming in north america.
The following is adapted from a lecture delivered on the Hillsdale College campus on June 30, 2007, during a seminar entitled �Economics and the Environment,� sponsored by the Charles R. and Kathleen K. Hoogland Center for Teacher Excellence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE PAST few years there has been increasing concern about global climate change on the part of the media, politicians, and the public. It has been stimulated by the idea that human activities may influence global climate adversely and that therefore corrective action is required on the part of governments. Recent evidence suggests that this concern is misplaced. Human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way. Climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, regardless of human action. I would also argue that�should it occur�a modest warming would be on the whole beneficial.
This is not to say that we don�t face a serious problem. But the problem is political. Because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.
If not for this economic and political damage, one might consider the present concern about climate change nothing more than just another environmentalist fad, like the Alar apple scare or the global cooling fears of the 1970s. Given that so much is at stake, however, it is essential that people better understand the issue.
Man-Made Warming?
The most fundamental question is scientific: Is the observed warming of the past 30 years due to natural causes or are human activities a main or even a contributing factor?
At first glance, it is quite plausible that humans could be responsible for warming the climate. After all, the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy releases large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The CO2 level has been increasing steadily since the beginning of the industrial revolution and is now 35 percent higher than it was 200 years ago. Also, we know from direct measurements that CO2 is a �greenhouse gas� which strongly absorbs infrared (heat) radiation. So the idea that burning fossil fuels causes an enhanced �greenhouse effect� needs to be taken seriously.
But in seeking to understand recent warming, we also have to consider the natural factors that have regularly warmed the climate prior to the industrial revolution and, indeed, prior to any human presence on the earth. After all, the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years.
In identifying the burning of fossil fuels as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called �scientific consensus.� There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted �consensus� of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC�s report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report�s �Summary for Policymakers.�
Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on the �consensus statement� on climate change by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well over 50 percent.
The second reason not to rely on a �scientific consensus� in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority view�or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.
But aren�t glaciers melting? Isn�t sea ice shrinking? Yes, but that�s not proof for human-caused warming. Any kind of warming, whether natural or human-caused, will melt ice. To assert that melting glaciers prove human causation is just bad logic.
What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time temperatures are rising? That�s an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising. And we should note that the climate has not warmed in the past eight years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly.
What about the fact�as cited by, among others, those who produced the IPCC report�that every major greenhouse computer model (there are two dozen or so) shows a large temperature increase due to human burning of fossil fuels? Fortunately, there is a scientific way of testing these models to see whether current warming is due to a man-made greenhouse effect. It involves comparing the actual or observed pattern of warming with the warming pattern predicted by or calculated from the models. Essentially, we try to see if the �fingerprints� match��fingerprints� meaning the rates of warming at different latitudes and altitudes.
For instance, theoretically, greenhouse warming in the tropics should register at increasingly high rates as one moves from the surface of the earth up into the atmosphere, peaking at about six miles above the earth�s surface. At that point, the level should be greater than at the surface by about a factor of three and quite pronounced, according to all the computer models. In reality, however, there is no increase at all. In fact, the data from balloon-borne radiosondes show the very opposite: a slight decrease in warming over the equator.
The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don�t match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is insignificant. This fact emerges from data and graphs collected in the Climate Change Science Program Report 1.1, published by the federal government in April 2006. It is remarkable and puzzling that few have noticed this disparity between observed and predicted patterns of warming and drawn the obvious scientific conclusion.
What explains why greenhouse computer models predict temperature trends that are so much larger than those observed? The answer lies in the proper evaluation of feedback within the models. Remember that in addition to carbon dioxide, the real atmosphere contains water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. Every one of the climate models calculates a significant positive feedback from water vapor�i.e., a feedback that amplifies the warming effect of the CO2 increase by an average factor of two or three. But it is quite possible that the water vapor feedback is negative rather than positive and thereby reduces the effect of increased CO2.
There are several ways this might occur. For example, when increased CO2 produces a warming of the ocean, a higher rate of evaporation might lead to more humidity and cloudiness (provided the atmosphere contains a sufficient number of cloud condensation nuclei). These low clouds reflect incoming solar radiation back into space and thereby cool the earth. Climate researchers have discovered other possible feedbacks and are busy evaluating which ones enhance and which diminish the effect of increasing CO2.
Natural Causes of Warming
A quite different question, but scientifically interesting, has to do with the natural factors influencing climate. This is a big topic about which much has been written. Natural factors include continental drift and mountain-building, changes in the Earth�s orbit, volcanic eruptions, and solar variability. Different factors operate on different time scales. But on a time scale important for human experience�a scale of decades, let�s say�solar variability may be the most important.
Solar influence can manifest itself in different ways: fluctuations of solar irradiance (total energy), which has been measured in satellites and related to the sunspot cycle; variability of the ultraviolet portion of the solar spectrum, which in turn affects the amount of ozone in the stratosphere; and variations in the solar wind that modulate the intensity of cosmic rays (which, upon impact into the earth�s atmosphere, produce cloud condensation nuclei, affecting cloudiness and thus climate).
Scientists have been able to trace the impact of the sun on past climate using proxy data (since thermometers are relatively modern). A conventional proxy for temperature is the ratio of the heavy isotope of oxygen, Oxygen-18, to the most common form, Oxygen-16.
A paper published in Nature in 2001 describes the Oxygen-18 data (reflecting temperature) from a stalagmite in a cave in Oman, covering a period of over 3,000 years. It also shows corresponding Carbon-14 data, which are directly related to the intensity of cosmic rays striking the earth�s atmosphere. One sees there a remarkably detailed correlation, almost on a year-by-year basis. While such research cannot establish the detailed mechanism of climate change, the causal connection is quite clear: Since the stalagmite temperature cannot affect the sun, it is the sun that affects climate.
Policy Consequences
If this line of reasoning is correct, human-caused increases in the CO2 level are quite insignificant to climate change. Natural causes of climate change, for their part, cannot be controlled by man. They are unstoppable. Several policy consequences would follow from this simple fact:
Regulation of CO2 emissions is pointless and even counterproductive, in that no matter what kind of mitigation scheme is used, such regulation is hugely expensive.
The development of non-fossil fuel energy sources, like ethanol and hydrogen, might be counterproductive, given that they have to be manufactured, often with the investment of great amounts of ordinary energy. Nor do they offer much reduction in oil imports.
Wind power and solar power become less attractive, being uneconomic and requiring huge subsidies.
Substituting natural gas for coal in electricity generation makes less sense for the same reasons.
None of this is intended to argue against energy conservation. On the contrary, conserving energy reduces waste, saves money, and lowers energy prices�irrespective of what one may believe about global warming
Science vs. Hysteria
You will note that this has been a rational discussion. We asked the important question of whether there is appreciable man-made warming today. We presented evidence that indicates there is not, thereby suggesting that attempts by governments to control greenhouse-gas emissions are pointless and unwise. Nevertheless, we have state governors calling for CO2 emissions limits on cars; we have city mayors calling for mandatory CO2 controls; we have the Supreme Court declaring CO2 a pollutant that may have to be regulated; we have every industrialized nation (with the exception of the U.S. and Australia) signed on to the Kyoto Protocol; and we have ongoing international demands for even more stringent controls when Kyoto expires in 2012. What�s going on here?
To begin, perhaps even some of the advocates of these anti-warming policies are not so serious about them, as seen in a feature of the Kyoto Protocol called the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows a CO2 emitter�i.e., an energy user�to support a fanciful CO2 reduction scheme in developing nations in exchange for the right to keep on emitting CO2 unabated. �Emission trading� among those countries that have ratified Kyoto allows for the sale of certificates of unused emission quotas. In many cases, the initial quota was simply given away by governments to power companies and other entities, which in turn collect a windfall fee from consumers. All of this has become a huge financial racket that could someday make the UN�s �Oil for Food� scandal in Iraq seem minor by comparison. Even more fraudulent, these schemes do not reduce total CO2 emissions�not even in theory.
It is also worth noting that tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scare�at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams. In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. Of course, there are also many sincere believers in an impending global warming catastrophe, spurred on in their fears by the growing number of one-sided books, movies, and media coverage.
The irony is that a slightly warmer climate with more carbon dioxide is in many ways beneficial rather than damaging. Economic studies have demonstrated that a modest warming and higher CO2 levels will increase GNP and raise standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture and forestry. It�s a well-known fact that CO2 is plant food and essential to the growth of crops and trees�and ultimately to the well-being of animals and humans.
You wouldn�t know it from Al Gore�s An Inconvenient Truth, but there are many upsides to global warming: Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Canadian farmers could harvest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand.
Mongolia could become an economic superpower. This is all speculative, even a little facetious. But still, might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia? �It�s not that there won�t be bad things happening in those countries,� economics professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies says. �But the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses.� Mendelsohn has looked at how gross domestic product around the world would be affected under different warming scenarios through 2100. Canada and Russia tend to come out as clear gainers, as does much of northern Europe and Mongolia, largely because of projected increases in agricultural production.
To repeat a point made at the beginning: Climate has been changing cyclically for at least a million years and has shown huge variations over geological time. Human beings have adapted well, and will continue to do so.
* * *
The nations of the world face many difficult problems. Many have societal problems like poverty, disease, lack of sanitation, and shortage of clean water. There are grave security problems arising from global terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Any of these problems are vastly more important than the imaginary problem of man-made global warming. It is a great shame that so many of our resources are being diverted from real problems to this non-problem. Perhaps in ten or 20 years this will become apparent to everyone, particularly if the climate should stop warming (as it has for eight years now) or even begin to cool.
We can only trust that reason will prevail in the face of an onslaught of propaganda like Al Gore�s movie and despite the incessant misinformation generated by the media. Today, the imposed costs are still modest, and mostly hidden in taxes and in charges for electricity and motor fuels. If the scaremongers have their way, these costs will become enormous. But I believe that sound science and good sense will prevail in the face of irrational and scientifically baseless climate fears.
Collage lecture.
GLOBAL WARMING:
The Myth, Hype, and the Facts.
GLOBAL WARMING: MYTH VS. REALITY
A few years ago, President Bill Clinton, addressing a group of meteorologists at the White House, said that "Global warming is a fact, and human activity is the cause."
Just recently, the U.N. came out with the IPCC report that said that Humans are the cause of Global warming.
Those two statements above are misleading, false, and CANNOT be backed up with scientific fact!
This may be a harsh reality in light of all of the recent news stories, but quite frankly, any supposed warming of the atmosphere may be coming from the hot air of politicians and environmental groups that are feeding us misinformation. Human activity is the least contributor of problems to the climate, and global warming, does not exist the way we have been led to believe.
First of all, what is global warming? According to current scientific definition, it is an increase in the temperature of the planet over many years of time. Unfortunately, there is currently no set amount of degrees, and no set amount of time. Has this happened? Yes, and no. It all depends upon WHERE the temperatures are measured. In large cities, the temperatures have risen slightly, but in other areas, the temperatures have dropped. The increases are within the Earth's natural variation of temperature. Yes, there have been warmer winters and summers, and the temperature in the large cities has increased slightly, but throughout the years, there has been no significant change in the Earth's temperature.
Keep in mind, that the variations in climate over the years is due to natural causes, more than human interaction. Changes in the Sun's energy output, rotation of the Earth, revolution of the Earth, and debris from comets, meteors, and asteroids, actually have an effect on the climate. Add to that, dust from earthquakes and volcanoes, and we have even bigger impact from natural events. One volcanic eruption for example, puts more pollution into the atmosphere than ten years worth of human activity.
And what about this so called "man-made" pollution? We have all heard about it. But Is it causing the Greenhouse Effect, creating global warming, etc.? Hardly.
Most of the so called "greenhouse gasses" have natural sources; volcanoes, animal and plant respiration, and the oceans. The proponents of this greenhouse effect tell us that carbon dioxide is the main problem, and we should be spending billions of dollars trying to cut back on emissions from cars, factories, etc. According to governmental agencies, to cut back these emissions of twenty percent in the next ten years, we would have to spend about 100 billion dollars a year. And that would still leave one of the biggest polluters untouched; trees.
Yes, trees and plants only clean the air while they are growing. Once fully grown, they actually give off carbon dioxide! The carbon is incorporated into carbohydrate compounds and stored in plant tissue. When the trees and forests are fully grown, the Carbon Dioxide is released back into the air. Also, fallen leaves and branches give off Carbon Dioxide. That "haze" that makes the Smokey Mountains such a beautiful sight, is composed of natural compounds of which much of it is Carbon Dioxide.
Not to worry however, because carbon dioxide is not the main greenhouse gas that we have to worry about; water vapor is. But the environmentalists and the politicians can't do anything about it since it occurs naturally from evaporation, so they tell us that carbon dioxide is the problem. Keep in mind, that if we didn't have the small natural greenhouse effect that the water vapor gives us, the temperature on the Earth would be like that on Mars, where a warm day would be zero degrees!
Of all the Carbon Dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, 51 percent is from plants and trees, 45 percent from the oceans, and only three percent from the burning of fossil fuels!
Surprisingly, this much maligned "Greenhouse Gas" accounts for only 0.035 percent of our atmosphere. The real problem 'Greenhouse Gas" again, is actually water vapor, which accounts for about two percent of our atmosphere. However, it occurs naturally in our atmosphere, due to ocean and water evaporation, and since the global warming folks can't stop it, they ignore it and pick on the Carbon Dioxide instead. According to scientists with the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, "Water Vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas, and plays a crucial role in the global climate system".
The whole thing in a nutshell, is that the Earth's environment and it's climate are very complex, and to really understand what is happening, we must weed out the political, environmental, and media propaganda, and examine the facts. It is very hard to solve a problem, when one does not exist, and as far as global warming and human cause goes, there is no problem to be found, therefore there is none to solve.
***
September 12, 2007 - 300 Scientists Refute Global Warming
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.
Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."
The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers' specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.
"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."
"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." "There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.
The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today's tree line.
Singer emphasized, "Humans have known since the invention of the telescope that the earth's climate variations were linked to the sunspot cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space-amplifying small variations in the intensity of the sun.
Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.
***
Sizzling study concludes: Global warming 'hot air'
'You can spit, have same effect as doubling the carbon dioxide'
Posted: August 20, 2007
10:07 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
A major new scientific study concludes the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on worldwide temperatures is largely irrelevant, prompting one veteran meteorologist to quip, "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."
That comment comes from Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, who said the temperature of the earth is increasing, but that it's got nothing to do with what man is doing.
"Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air."
"Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust," declared astronomer Ian Wilson after reviewing the newest study, now accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research.
The project, called "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System," was authored by Brookhaven National lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.
"Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of (about) 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.," Wilson wrote in a note to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Sunday.
He was referring to the massive expenditures that would be required under such treaties as the Kyoto Protocol.
"Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a double of CO2 were far too high, i.e. 2-4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase," he added.
Bryson's and Wilson's comments were among those from a long list of doubters of catastrophic, man-made global warming, assembled by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and posted on a blog site for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Another leader, Ivy League geologist Robert Giegengack, chairman of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, said he doesn't even consider global warming among the top 10 environmental problems.
"In terms of [global warming's] capacity to cause the human species harm, I don't think it makes it into the top 10," he said. "[Former Vice President Al Gore] claims that temperature increases solely because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sun's heat. That's just wrong … It's a natural interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and vice versa. It's hard for us to say CO2 drives temperature. It's easier to say temperature drives CO2."
Gore made – and stars in – a film about purported global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," that won an Oscar. It has become mandatory for students in many high schools and colleges.
However, the studies assembled by Inhofe's team said that's not necessarily so, according to the scientists.
"If we were to stop manufacturing CO2 tomorrow, we wouldn't see the effects of that for generations," Giegengack said.
"Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038 percent)," said meteorologist Joseph D'Alea, the first director of meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chief of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecast.
"Only 2.75 percent of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amount we emit is said to be up from 1 percent a decade ago. Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (plus 0.45 percent per year)," he said. "We are responsible for just 0.001 percent of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor."
Former Harvard physicist Lubos Motl added that those promoting the fear of man-made climate changes are "playing the children's game to scare each other."
"By the end of the (CO2) doubling, i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million) expected slightly before (the year) 2100 – assuming a business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time – Schwartz and others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming only – a typical fluctuation that occurs within four months and certainly nothing that the politicians should pay attention to," Motl explained.
Joel Schwartz, of the American Enterprise Institute, said, "there's hardly any additional warming 'in the pipeline' from previous greenhouse gas emissions. This is in contrast to the IPCC, which predicts that the Earth's average temperature will rise an additional 0.6 degrees C during the 21st Century even if greenhouse gas concentrations stopped increasing," he added.
"Along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, [this] new study belies Al Gore's claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if Schwartz's results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC's scientific 'consensus,' the environmentalists' climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world's environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?" AEI's Schwartz concluded.
The Senate committee assessment said 2007 could go down in history "as the 'tipping point' of man-made global warming fears."
Meteorologist Joseph Conklin, of the website Climate Police said "global warming" is disintegrating.
"A few months ago, a study came out that demonstrated global temperatures have leveled off. But instead of possibly admitting that this whole global warming thing is a farce, a group of British scientists concluded that the real global warming won't start until 2009," Conklin wrote.
However, a United Nations scientist, Jim Renwick, recently conceded that climate models do not account for the variability in nature, and so are not reliable. And Conklin noted the U.S. National Climate Data Center has compiled data that shouldn't be used, because its reporting points are located on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels and even attached to hot chimneys, a methodology that is "seriously flawed."
WND has previously reported on significant doubts about global warming.
Last September, a leading U.S. climate researcher claimed there's a decade at most left to address global warming before environmental disaster takes place, but the federal government issued a report showing the year 1936 had a hotter summer than 2006.
"The average June-August 2006 temperature for the contiguous United States (based on preliminary data) was 2.4 degrees F (1.3 degrees C) above the 20th century average of 72.1 degrees F (22.3 degrees C)," said the NOAA report. "This was the second warmest summer on record, slightly cooler than the record of 74.7 degrees F set in 1936 during the Dust Bowl era. This summer's average was 74.5 degrees F. Eight of the past ten summers have been warmer than the U.S. average for the same period."
WND also reported on NASA-funded study that noted some climate forecasts might be exaggerating estimations of global warming.
The space agency said climate models possibly were overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms.
The theory many scientists work with says the Earth heats up in response to human emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, causing more water to evaporate from the ocean into the atmosphere.
In addition, WND reported that Dr. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, maintains there has been little or no warming since about 1940.
"Any warming from the growth of greenhouse gases is likely to be minor, difficult to detect above the natural fluctuations of the climate, and therefore inconsequential," Singer wrote in a climate-change essay. "In addition, the impacts of warming and of higher CO2 levels are likely to be beneficial for human activities and especially for agriculture."
****
This latest farce about Global Warming was released On July 30th, 2007.
WASHINGTON -- The number of tropical storms developing annually in the Atlantic Ocean more than doubled over the past century, with the increase taking place in two jumps, researchers say.
The increases coincided with rising sea surface temperature, largely the byproduct of human-induced climate warming, researchers Greg J. Holland and Peter J. Webster concluded. Their findings were being published online Sunday by Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.
Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Hurricane Center, said the study is inconsistent in its use of data.
The work, he said, is "sloppy science that neglects the fact that better monitoring by satellites allows us to observe storms and hurricanes that were simply missed earlier.
****
Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can't decide weather we face an ice age or warming. Four times since the late 1800's, the media had warned us of upcoming doom from either Global Warming, or Global Cooling. As recent as 1975, we were told that Global Cooling would destroy the environment forever. Now just 30 years later, the scientist admitted that they were wrong. Check out these climate hoaxes at:
http://www.businessandmedia....ndice/fireandice_execsum.asp
See a chart of the "predictions" of these hoaxes and misinformation about climate change at:
http://www.businessandmedia..../fireandice_resultschart.asp
****
Even a casual study of climate change during the last few hundred years, shows that there is a possibility that the Earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age. This recovery may explain much warming due to unknown causes that has occurred even during the present interglacial period; the warming rate of this recovery may be as much as 0.5°C/100 years from about 1700 to the present. This is comparable with the rate of 0.6°-0.7°C/100 years, which the IPCC claims to be due to the greenhouse effect. Many glaciers in the world began to recede starting about 1700, and sea ice in the Arctic Ocean began to recede starting in 1800, so these phenomena began long before 1940 when CO2 began to increase rapidly.
In addition, there was one obvious temperature rise from 1920 to 1940, and even a decrease from 1940 to 1975, at the same time as CO2 began to increase rapidly. It is inconceivable that the IPCC did not carefully examine the rise between 1920 and 1940. The rate and magnitude of the increase was similar to those after 1975. Their conclusion should be very tentative until the causes of the 1920-1940 rise can be identified. There is no conclusive evidence that the rise after 1975 is different from the 1920-1940 rise.
by Syun-Ichi Akasofu, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks
****
The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.
The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.
Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.
Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson, chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
***
According to Professor Bob Carter,an environmental scientist at James Cook University who studies ancient climate change:
"The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric C02."
"Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric C02 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent)."
"Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades."
***
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
***
Conveniently overlooked by global warming alarmists, the sun may very well be the most significant factor in changes in our planet's climate. Sami Solanki, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany states, "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures." Increases and decreases in solar activity also seem to correspond with warming and cooling periods throughout the last 1,000 years.
***
William Gray of the Atmospheric Science Department at Colorado State University argues the notion of consensus (of scientists believing in Human induced Global Warming) is "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."
***
More than 17,100 American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's Global Warming Petition, which says in part, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
***
SCIENTISTS OPPOSING THE MAINSTREAM OF GLOBAL WARMING (Wikipedia)
Click HERE to see scientists opposing the Global Warming Scenario.
"For the problem with An Inconvenient Truth is that it is well-made propaganda for the global warming cause rather than well-made climate science. Nowhere does Mr Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet. Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change. This is not surprising, for no such evidence yet exists". "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." "Yet we do not read about natural climate change in the everyday news. Instead, newspapers, radio and television stations bludgeon us with a merciless stream of human-caused global-warming alarmism, egged on by a self-interested gaggle of journalists, environmental lobbyists, scientific and business groups, church leaders and politicians, all of whom preach that we must "stop climate change" by reducing human CO2 emissions. Professor Bob Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University.
***
25 "Truths" left out of GORE'S INCONVENIENT TRUTH (By Iain Murray, National Review Online)
1. Carbon Dioxide's Effect on Temperature. The relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear. Every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. The book's graph on p. 66-67 is seriously misleading. Moreover, even the historical levels of CO2 shown on the graph are disputed. Evidence from plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there is today.
2. Kilimanjaro. The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting not because of global warming but because of a local climate shift that began 100 years ago. The authors of a report in the International Journal of Climatology “develop a new concept for investigating the retreat of Kilimanjaro's glaciers, based on the physical understanding of glacier–climate interactions.” They note that, “The concept considers the peculiarities of the mountain and implies that climatological processes other than air temperature control the ice recession in a direct manner. A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro.”
3. Glaciers. Glaciers around the world have been receding at around the same pace for over 100 years. Research published by the National Academy of Sciences last week indicates that the Peruvian glacier on p. 53-53 probably disappeared a few thousand years ago.
4. The Medieval Warm Period. Al Gore says that the “hockey stick” graph that shows temperatures remarkably steady for the last 1,000 years has been validated, and ridicules the concept of a “medieval warm period.” That's not the case. Last year, a team of leading paleoclimatologists said, “When matching existing temperature reconstructions…the time series display a reasonably coherent picture of major climatic episodes: ‘Medieval Warm Period,' ‘Little Ice Age' and ‘Recent Warming.'” They go on to conclude, “So what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger…or smaller…temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future temperature predictions.”
5. The Hottest Year. Satellite temperature measurements say that 2005 wasn't the hottest year on record — 1998 was — and that temperatures have been stable since 2001 (p.73). Here's the satellite graph:
6. Heat Waves. The summer heat wave that struck Europe in 2003 was caused by an atmospheric pressure anomaly; it had nothing to do with global warming. As the United Nations Environment Program reported in September 2003, “This extreme weather [sic] was caused by an anti-cyclone firmly anchored over the western European land mass holding back the rain-bearing depressions that usually enter the continent from the Atlantic ocean. This situation was exceptional in the extended length of time (over 20 days) during which it conveyed very hot dry air up from south of the Mediterranean.”
7. Record Temperatures. Record temperatures — hot and cold — are set every day around the world; that's the nature of records. Statistically, any given place will see four record high temperatures set every year. There is evidence that daytime high temperatures are staying about the same as for the last few decades, but nighttime lows are gradually rising. Global warming might be more properly called, “Global less cooling.” (On this, see Patrick J. Michaels book, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.)
8. Hurricanes. There is no overall global trend of hurricane-force storms getting stronger that has anything to do with temperature. A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters found: “The data indicate a large increasing trend in tropical cyclone intensity and longevity for the North Atlantic basin and a considerable decreasing trend for the Northeast Pacific. All other basins showed small trends, and there has been no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity. There has been a small increase in global Category 4–5 hurricanes from the period 1986–1995 to the period 1996–2005. Most of this increase is likely due to improved observational technology. These findings indicate that other important factors govern intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones besides SSTs [sea surface temperatures].”
9. Tornadoes. Records for numbers of tornadoes are set because we can now record more of the smaller tornadoes (see, for instance, the Tornado FAQ at Weather Underground).
10. European Flooding. European flooding is not new (p. 107). Similar flooding happened in 2003. Research from Michael Mudelsee and colleagues from the University of Leipzig published in Nature (Sept. 11, 2003) looked at data reaching as far back as 1021 (for the Elbe) and 1269 (for the Oder). They concluded that there is no upward trend in the incidence of extreme flooding in this region of central Europe.
11. Shrinking Lakes. Scientists investigating the disappearance of Lake Chad (p.116) found that most of it was due to human overuse of water. “The lake's decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population” (“Shrinking African Lake Offers Lesson on Finite Resources,” National Geographic, April 26, 2001). Lake Chad is also a very shallow lake that has shrunk considerably throughout human history.
12. Polar Bears. Polar bears are not becoming endangered. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote recently, “Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear (sic) to be affected at present.”
13. The Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream, the ocean conveyor belt, is not at risk of shutting off in the North Atlantic (p. 150). Carl Wunsch of MIT wrote to the journal Nature in 2004 to say, “The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth's rotation, or both”
14. Invasive Species. Gore's worries about the effect of warming on species ignore evolution. With the new earlier caterpillar season in the Netherlands, an evolutionary advantage is given to birds that can hatch their eggs earlier than the rest. That's how nature works. Also, “invasive species” naturally extend their range when climate changes. As for the pine beetle given as an example of invasive species, Rob Scagel, a forest microclimate specialist in British Columbia, said, “The MPB (mountain pine beetle) is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”
15. Species Loss. When it comes to species loss, the figures given on p. 163 are based on extreme guesswork, as the late Julian Simon pointed out. We have documentary evidence of only just over 1,000 extinctions since 1600 (see, for instance, Bjørn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist, p. 250).
16. Coral Reefs. Coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years. This means that they have survived through long periods with much higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations than today.
17. Malaria and other Infectious Diseases. Leading disease scientists contend that climate change plays only a minor role in the spread of emerging infectious diseases. In “Global Warming and Malaria: A Call for Accuracy” (The Lancet, June 2004), nine leading malariologists criticized models linking global warming to increased malaria spread as “misleading” and “display[ing] a lack of knowledge” of the subject.
18. Antarctic Ice. There is controversy over whether the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning or thickening. Recent scientific studies have shown a thickening in the interior at the same time as increased melting along the coastlines. Temperatures in the interior are generally decreasing. The Antarctic Peninsula, where the Larsen-B ice shelf broke up (p. 181) is not representative of what is happening in the rest of Antarctica. Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, acknowledges, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.” According to a forthcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate models based on anthropogenic forcing cannot explain the anomalous warming of the Antarctic Peninsula; thus, something natural is at work.
19. Greenland Climate. Greenland was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than it is now. A recent study by Dr. Peter Chylek of the University of California, Riverside, addressed the question of whether man is directly responsible for recent warming: “An important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming? Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.” (Petr Chylek et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 13 June 2006.)
20. Sea Level Rise. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not forecast sea-level rises of “18 to 20 feet.” Rather, it says, “We project a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m for 1990 to 2100, with a central value of 0.48 m. The central value gives an average rate of 2.2 to 4.4 times the rate over the 20th century...It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise are very unlikely during the 21st century.” Al Gore's suggestions of much more are therefore extremely alarmist.
21. Population. Al Gore worries about population growth; Gore does not suggest a solution. Fertility in the developed world is stable or decreasing. The plain fact is that we are not going to reduce population back down to 2 billion or fewer in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the population in the developing world requires a significant increase in its standard of living to reduce the threats of premature and infant mortality, disease, and hunger. In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford writes, “If we are honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which leads to climate change, leads us then to a stark conclusion: we should cut our trade links to make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Africans stay poor. The question is whether any environmental catastrophe, even severe climate change, could possibly inflict the same terrible human cost as keeping three or four billion people in poverty. To ask that question is to answer it.”
22. Energy Generation. A specific example of this is Gore's acknowledgement that 30 percent of global CO2 emissions come from wood fires used for cooking (p. 227). If we introduced affordable, coal-fired power generation into South Asia and Africa we could reduce this considerably and save over 1.6 million lives a year. This is the sort of solution that Gore does not even consider.
23. Carbon-Emissions Trading. The European Carbon Exchange Market, touted as “effective” on p. 252, has crashed.
24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.' In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.'” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here.
25. Economic Costs. Even if the study Gore cites is right (p. 280-281), the United States will still emit massive amounts of CO2 after all the measures it outlines have been realized. Getting emissions down to the paltry levels needed to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere would require, in Gore's own words, “a wrenching transformation” of our way of life. This cannot be done easily or without significant cost. The Kyoto Protocol, which Gore enthusiastically supports, would avert less than a tenth of a degree of warming in the next fifty years and would cost up to $400 billion a year to the U.S. All of the current proposals in Congress would cost the economy significant amounts, making us all poorer, with all that that entails for human health and welfare, while doing nothing to stop global warming.
OH, and By the way....
Al Gore's Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
Gore's home uses more than 20 times the national average
Al Gore's global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.
Gore's mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore's average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
Gore's extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
***
GLOBAL WARMING: WHO TO BELIEVE?
One must keep in mind, that temperatures on the Earth will rise, and fall, but are within the normal cycles of our planet's climate. According to scientists at the National Climactic Data Center, the weather and climate during the past 20 years has not been out of the ordinary. And further more, the study of tree rings and cores drilled in the ice caps, going back more than 100 years, has indicated no significant change in the climate. These studies have also indicated that the last big warm-up of the Earth was about 600 years ago, long before there was human interaction from factories, cars, and the burning of fossil fuels.
***
According to the Laboratory of Climateology in Arizona, |
|
|
Dintin
Beginner
Posts: 6
Registered: 12/16/2008
Member Is Offline
Points: 105
|
Sorry i think some of the post might have been cut off |
|
|
Dintin
Beginner
Posts: 6
Registered: 12/16/2008
Member Is Offline
Points: 105
|
sorry for triple post but i believe this might be missing
Peer-Reviewed Papers support climate sceptics
September 29, 2007, 5:23 pm
Filed under: Climate Change | Tags: Peer reviewed papers
Over and over again, in the great Climate Debate, we read that “not a single peer-reviewed scientific paper supports the sceptics”. This claim came up recently in a comment from Julian Lees, which appeared on my earlier blog item “Driving to a greener future”. I think the claim originated with Al Gore, and like so much that Al Gore says, it's transparent nonsense. On the contrary, we have recently seen a steady increase in the number of peer-reviewed sceptical papers.
2007 alone has provided an abundance of peer-reviewed papers debunking the man-made CO2 “consensus”. A recent survey of peer-reviewed papers from 2004-2007 reveals that less than half of published papers endorse man-made global warming theory. In the past 4 months, there has been a rush of sceptical peer-reviewed papers. A good reference is the US Senate report: http://epw.senate.gov/public...-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
Even the impeccably correct New York Times admits that the earth is well within natural climate variability. All the promoters of climate alarmism have to go on are unproven computer model predictions of doom. But two top UN scientists admit models are not predictions and are not reliable. (Renwick and Trebwernth)
Antarctic Sea ice is at an historic maximum, and Antarctica is not following predicted global warming models. Greenland has COOLED since the '30 and ‘40s. (Follow the Greenland link in report above — peer-reviewed studies literally make a mockery of Greenland melt fears). Even the UK Met Office concedes that global warming has stopped in past few years. The southern hemisphere is cooling. Alarmists should really go and check the literature before insisting that “all serious scientists endorse man-made global warming”. |
|
|
Indy
Super Administrator
Posts: 4746
Registered: 6/24/2004
Member Is Offline
Points: 92745
Mood: Resident Skeptic
|
Greetings and welcome to the site. It is super late tonight so I will come back to this thread and read it tomorrow.
BTW congrats on the longest post in the history of this site :-)
"I think God gives us children so death won't come as such a disappointment." - Two and a Half Men |
|
|
Dintin
Beginner
Posts: 6
Registered: 12/16/2008
Member Is Offline
Points: 105
|
Thanks  I try my best. |
|
|
FatalWishes
Administrator
Posts: 7489
Registered: 6/24/2004
Location: Fort Worth Texas
Member Is Offline
Points: 144516
Mood: Aging Cynic
|
| Quoting Indy - posted on 12/17/2008 at 02:39 |
Greetings and welcome to the site. It is super late tonight so I will come back to this thread and read it tomorrow.
BTW congrats on the longest post in the history of this site :-)
|
+1
|
|
|
Dintin
Beginner
Posts: 6
Registered: 12/16/2008
Member Is Offline
Points: 105
|
All right! I won an award! |
|
|
Dintin
Beginner
Posts: 6
Registered: 12/16/2008
Member Is Offline
Points: 105
|
I think some of the post might have been cut off so tell me if it cuts off at some point. |
|
|
|
|
| Site Stats |
Registered Users: 203
Topics: 4624
Posts: 26376
News Stories: 263725
|
|
![[*]](/images/corporate/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
posted on 12/16/2008 at 21:28
