To calculate the earth’s temperature at any given moment in time is virtually impossible. Just consider the challenge. The earth’s temperature is constantly changing, it is never static; half the earth is in the sun, half in the dark, and the rotation of the earth causes that split to be forever moving.
Then there is the atmosphere itself. The atmosphere is the most fluid part of the planet, by far. The air is always moving, the jet stream is moving north and south while blowing west to east, constantly changing, from hour to hour. Clouds form and disappear, humidity rises and falls, winds pick up or go calm, hurricanes form, cold fronts move, warm fronts move, and barometric pressure also changes from moment to moment.
And then there are elements like volcanoes which spew millions of tons of dirt and ash into the atmosphere, almost overnight. This infusion of material into the atmosphere causes global temperatures to drop, almost immediately, for summers to disappear, crops to fail, and other consequences. Plus the influence of known temperature influences factors like the sun, and sunspots, and the ever changing closeness of the earth to the sun.
All of these factors, and more, affect the global temperature, and all of them are in constant flux. Then we consider the problem of measuring the temperature of the surface of the earth’s oceans. There are no permanent monitoring stations on the surface of the oceans; most oceanic weather and temperature reports come from ships, which are not stationary. Satellites are able to provide accurate, though some dispute this, temperature readings, but not over the entire globe at every given moment.
So what is the real temperature? For environmentalists to claim global temperatures are rising is more than a stretch. They are making this claim based, not on real, recorded temperatures, but on computer models, all of which have been shown to be entirely faulty and without merit. And if real data does show a temperature rise, so what? We know temperatures rise and fall, weather cycles, it is ever changing, so how can anyone possibly claim to know the global temperature?
And, of course, the presumption is that rising global temperatures are bad, which is also highly debatable. Rising temperatures mean more food production, more forest production, less starvation, more rain; and less severe, cold weather.
NASA’s website reports: “For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14 Celsius, i.e. 57.2 F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58 F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.” Interpretation? We really have no idea what the global mean is–but we will continue to pretend that we do. NASA goes on, “Don't get too excited about calculating Earth's precise mean temperature since radiative balance has yet to measured .” Interpretation? There are parts of the earth’s temperature variants that we haven’t begun to understand, let a lone calculate.
NASA continues, “The bottom line is that we do not know what the planet's current temperature is, although satellite-mounted instruments and Argo autonomous floats are giving us a better picture than we had before. We do not know what the planet's temperature was 100 years ago with any meaningful precision. We have no way of telling whether Earth will be warmer or cooler at the beginning of Solar Cycle 25 (SC24 is just sputtering to a start now and it is reasonable to guess Earth will be slightly warmer in the midst of the roughly 11 year cycle, although there is no guarantee).”
Pretending to know the earth’s temperature does not change the fact it is unknowable. But so-called scientists cannot be deterred by this embarrassment; they will still claim to know the temperature of the earth, even if they have to make it up–which is what they do. Computer models to the rescue...and continue to claim to know the earth’s temperature; and it will be what they say it is because they are the experts, and they know. We mere mortals are just expected to follow along, stay in line, and believe the all-knowing environmentalists who put forth this tripe..
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Debunking CO2 Myths
The eccentricity of the earth, or the distance between the earth and sun, varies over thousands of years in it’s travel through the Milky Way. But there is a one to one correlation between that distance, and temperature on the earth. The closer the earth is to the sun, the warmer the temperatures on the earth, the further away earth is, the colder the temperatures. This cycle, called the Milankovitch Cycle, is a 100,000 year cycle. At the bottom of each 100,000 year cycle, the earth experiences an ice age, at the other extreme of that cycle, the glaciers are gone, and the earth is at its warmest. Guess what end of that cycle the earth is currently in? Yup, the closest, and the warmest, and the earth will soon be cooling (probably already begun).
It is true that when temperatures rise, CO2 also rises. This is a result of several factors, more growth, more forestation, longer growing seasons, more kelp in the oceans, etc. But a well published chart shows this correlation has existed for at least the last 500 thousand years, and every cycle but the last occurred before man even knew what carbon fuels were.
This is the same graph that Al Gore showed all those elementary kids in making his case that when CO2 increases, global temperatures increase. He was lying, it works the other way around, and Al Gore knew it. Using Gore’s logic, the rising CO2 levels caused the earth to move closer to the sun. Not likely.
Here’s another view of CO2. CO2 makes up about 300 ppm of the earth’s atmosphere, that means that for every 1,000,000 parts of everything else in the atmosphere, 300 of those parts are CO2. So do your own tests. Let’s say you have a 1,000,000 gallon pool of water, maintained at 90 degrees; and of that 1 million gallons, 300 gallons of it is 95 degree Gatorade. Do you think the temperature of the pool of water will drop by removing the Gatorade? Not hardly, the quantity of warmer Gatorade is insignificant.
The climate change crowd are wont to blame global warming, as minuscule as it may be (and completely disputed by others), on man and his use of carbon fuels, etc. Man is the guilty party here, else why political action to stop whatever it is man is guilty of, so action must be taken to reverse the trend.
Water is also a greenhouse gas, in fact, H2O and CO2 have almost identical greenhouse properties, yet environmentalists want only to focus on CO2, why not H2O? There is roughly 100 times more H2O in the atmosphere than CO2. In my example of the pool of water, why would you try to affect the temperature of the pool by addressing the 300 gallons of Gatorade, and not the 1 million gallons of water? It makes no sense.
Weather is a function of temperature and pressure. The atmosphere responds to temperature and pressure, and it doesn’t care what’s in that atmosphere, H2O, CO2, or any other gas. When temperature increases, water vapor in the atmosphere increases, when pressure decreases, the water falls out in the form of rain, snow, hail, or dew. The atmosphere is a self-regulating marvel, it will not be over-heated, or under-cooled. Nearly all of the worthless computer models predict rising global temperatures as a result of an anticipated rise in CO2 levels, but none of these take into consideration real weather factors such as this. More total energy leaves the earth's surface in evaporated water than through thermal radiation. If the earth does start to warm, more moisture is sucked into the atmosphere, and when it rains or snows, more heat is radiated upward. When this water turns to rain up in the sky, that energy is released as radiation in the frequency of water vapor. So there is a huge source of radiation far above the surface of the earth that will skew the H2O readings at the top of the atmosphere and mislead many to assume that CO2 is far more effective in absorbing radiation than is water.
And since CO2 only adds the weight of the carbon in it’s molecule (the oxygen molecule is already there), the real addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is even less than environmentalists would have us believe. Global warming disciples like to talk about “feedback” from the CO2 in the atmosphere, but numerous experiments have shown that CO2 provides no more feedback than does H2O. And though there is variability across the earth, (deserts, mountains, etc), 70% of the earth is water and is the overpowering force on weather.
If someone with more education than you gives you a 500 page study, full of calculus and scientific terms you don't understand, that concludes a battleship can be lifted out of the water with a single strand of sewing thread, what would you do? Would you accept it as fact because the other person is "smarter" or apply your own education and your own common sense and state there must be an error somewhere in those 500 pages of calculations.
Thanks to http://www.globalwarmingtested.com/ for the foregoing data.
It is true that when temperatures rise, CO2 also rises. This is a result of several factors, more growth, more forestation, longer growing seasons, more kelp in the oceans, etc. But a well published chart shows this correlation has existed for at least the last 500 thousand years, and every cycle but the last occurred before man even knew what carbon fuels were.
This is the same graph that Al Gore showed all those elementary kids in making his case that when CO2 increases, global temperatures increase. He was lying, it works the other way around, and Al Gore knew it. Using Gore’s logic, the rising CO2 levels caused the earth to move closer to the sun. Not likely.
Here’s another view of CO2. CO2 makes up about 300 ppm of the earth’s atmosphere, that means that for every 1,000,000 parts of everything else in the atmosphere, 300 of those parts are CO2. So do your own tests. Let’s say you have a 1,000,000 gallon pool of water, maintained at 90 degrees; and of that 1 million gallons, 300 gallons of it is 95 degree Gatorade. Do you think the temperature of the pool of water will drop by removing the Gatorade? Not hardly, the quantity of warmer Gatorade is insignificant.
The climate change crowd are wont to blame global warming, as minuscule as it may be (and completely disputed by others), on man and his use of carbon fuels, etc. Man is the guilty party here, else why political action to stop whatever it is man is guilty of, so action must be taken to reverse the trend.
Water is also a greenhouse gas, in fact, H2O and CO2 have almost identical greenhouse properties, yet environmentalists want only to focus on CO2, why not H2O? There is roughly 100 times more H2O in the atmosphere than CO2. In my example of the pool of water, why would you try to affect the temperature of the pool by addressing the 300 gallons of Gatorade, and not the 1 million gallons of water? It makes no sense.
Weather is a function of temperature and pressure. The atmosphere responds to temperature and pressure, and it doesn’t care what’s in that atmosphere, H2O, CO2, or any other gas. When temperature increases, water vapor in the atmosphere increases, when pressure decreases, the water falls out in the form of rain, snow, hail, or dew. The atmosphere is a self-regulating marvel, it will not be over-heated, or under-cooled. Nearly all of the worthless computer models predict rising global temperatures as a result of an anticipated rise in CO2 levels, but none of these take into consideration real weather factors such as this. More total energy leaves the earth's surface in evaporated water than through thermal radiation. If the earth does start to warm, more moisture is sucked into the atmosphere, and when it rains or snows, more heat is radiated upward. When this water turns to rain up in the sky, that energy is released as radiation in the frequency of water vapor. So there is a huge source of radiation far above the surface of the earth that will skew the H2O readings at the top of the atmosphere and mislead many to assume that CO2 is far more effective in absorbing radiation than is water.
And since CO2 only adds the weight of the carbon in it’s molecule (the oxygen molecule is already there), the real addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is even less than environmentalists would have us believe. Global warming disciples like to talk about “feedback” from the CO2 in the atmosphere, but numerous experiments have shown that CO2 provides no more feedback than does H2O. And though there is variability across the earth, (deserts, mountains, etc), 70% of the earth is water and is the overpowering force on weather.
If someone with more education than you gives you a 500 page study, full of calculus and scientific terms you don't understand, that concludes a battleship can be lifted out of the water with a single strand of sewing thread, what would you do? Would you accept it as fact because the other person is "smarter" or apply your own education and your own common sense and state there must be an error somewhere in those 500 pages of calculations.
Thanks to http://www.globalwarmingtested.com/ for the foregoing data.
Monday, October 26, 2009
The Weather And The Environment
Truth is hard to come by in any discipline, and when it comes to weather, it is particularly difficult to come by. But pearls of truth do exist, real, recorded observations are true; meticulously researched and appropriately peer-reviewed research can establish clear patterns, and dependable data. Weather is fickle and challenges even the very best, the most highly educated, and those with the longest experience.
Weather forecasting is a hazardous business, and largely futile and frustrating because the weather often will not cooperate with the forecasts. With all our technology, satellites, weather balloons, multiple reporting stations, computers, and the internet, weather forecasters still get blind sided by the weather: a cold front inexplicably stalls, local temperatures spike up or down while locales surrounding this area do not, micro bursts strike an area without warning and almost always without a prediction from the local weather forecasters. So when someone claims to predict what the weather will be 20, 40, or 100 years in the future, pardon me if I don’t believe it.
Truth becomes even more difficult when major contributors to what we know, engage in a well orchestrated effort to deceive, to skew the data, to publish only one side of the issue, or publish without peer review, and often without research. And worse, these same contributors go to great lengths to silence their detractors. Al Gore’s infamous “the debate is over,” declaration should be published in every textbook and printed on every editorial page of every newspaper in the world, showing the idiocy of such a closed minded statement. Gore only wished the debate was over, in truth, it was only beginning. If he can stifle the debate, then he wins the argument, if not, then the truth will come out and he will look rather foolish in the end.
The environmental cartel engages in every controlling, deceptive, and manipulative effort imaginable, in an attempt to limit what people know about the environment, and in this case, global warming. For example environmentalists really, really want global warming to be a really, really bad thing. They are more than “religious” about stopping growth, development, logging, mining, ATV trails, hunting, farming, driving, dam building, power plant building, and just about any other modern activity. It is their belief that the earth, all of it, should be left in its pristine state, undisturbed, and unused by man in any way. Just how they propose to do this with 6 billion people living on it they don’t say, but the inference is that most of those people need to go away, and only a few of the environmentally pure should remain to enjoy and protect the undisturbed planet.
In 1996 the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of the United Nations, published it’s now famous report. The report was “approved” on November 30, 1995. But the only significant line in the 586 page report, a last minute change, made after midnight, with most of the delegates gone from the room, and without the knowledge of most of those who contributed to the report, stated “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.” But no evidence of this wild claim was contained in the report, no studies cited, and no names attached to the statement. It was an editorial opinion slipped into a supposedly scientific document by the environmental authors.
The former head of the National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, said of the IPCC report, “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to the IPCC report.” That is because there was no peer review of this outrageous conclusion.
Ironically, 1996 was the coldest year in a decade, but environmentalists are never deterred by contradicting data, their zeal is religious, and we are expected to simply accept their conclusions on faith. Sadly, the environmental movement has succeeded in controlling what goes into virtually every textbook in America, and have legions of true believers in the media who are more than willing to publish their deceptive conclusions.
CO2 levels increase in the fall and winter months, then decrease in the Spring and Summer months. Global warming alarmists want to use only the Fall and Winter numbers (increasing figures), and ignore the Spring and Summer declining figures, thus skewing the truth.
“There is no evidence that climate variability or hazardous events (floods, tornadoes, heat waves, frost, and even volcanoes) would be more frequent as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases.” (Wittwer)
We are witnessing the greatest, orchestrated effort to deceive in modern history. The science is not there, the data is not there, and the debate is all one sided–the way environmentalist must have it in order to win their political battles. On a level playing field, with open debate, and a search for truth, environmentalism would look ridiculously stupid, and they can’t have that.
“The jet stream, which powers winter storms and which is forecast to become weaker with global warming, is getting stronger.” (Patrick Michaels, Professor of Envrionmental Sciences, University of Virginia.)
“Hurricanes are becoming weaker and the severe ones are less frequent.” (Michaels)
“The vast share of the planet’s small warming is in the coldest places in the dead of winter. The fact is there is no change at all in the area of the United States experiencing above normal temperatures, even as all climate models predict a dramatic rise.” (Michaels)
In virtually every case, environmental climate claims prove to be false. In nearly all supposed associations of global warming with dire and adverse world weather conditions, the truth proves otherwise. All climate models are worthless and should be dismissed out of hand. Polar bears can, and do, swim in Arctic waters for miles, they are never stranded on a floating piece of ice. The quantity of Arctic ice is actually increasing, the quantity of Antarctic ice is decreasing, so what? Weather cycles, it changes, then changes back, so what?
Weather forecasting is a hazardous business, and largely futile and frustrating because the weather often will not cooperate with the forecasts. With all our technology, satellites, weather balloons, multiple reporting stations, computers, and the internet, weather forecasters still get blind sided by the weather: a cold front inexplicably stalls, local temperatures spike up or down while locales surrounding this area do not, micro bursts strike an area without warning and almost always without a prediction from the local weather forecasters. So when someone claims to predict what the weather will be 20, 40, or 100 years in the future, pardon me if I don’t believe it.
Truth becomes even more difficult when major contributors to what we know, engage in a well orchestrated effort to deceive, to skew the data, to publish only one side of the issue, or publish without peer review, and often without research. And worse, these same contributors go to great lengths to silence their detractors. Al Gore’s infamous “the debate is over,” declaration should be published in every textbook and printed on every editorial page of every newspaper in the world, showing the idiocy of such a closed minded statement. Gore only wished the debate was over, in truth, it was only beginning. If he can stifle the debate, then he wins the argument, if not, then the truth will come out and he will look rather foolish in the end.
The environmental cartel engages in every controlling, deceptive, and manipulative effort imaginable, in an attempt to limit what people know about the environment, and in this case, global warming. For example environmentalists really, really want global warming to be a really, really bad thing. They are more than “religious” about stopping growth, development, logging, mining, ATV trails, hunting, farming, driving, dam building, power plant building, and just about any other modern activity. It is their belief that the earth, all of it, should be left in its pristine state, undisturbed, and unused by man in any way. Just how they propose to do this with 6 billion people living on it they don’t say, but the inference is that most of those people need to go away, and only a few of the environmentally pure should remain to enjoy and protect the undisturbed planet.
In 1996 the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of the United Nations, published it’s now famous report. The report was “approved” on November 30, 1995. But the only significant line in the 586 page report, a last minute change, made after midnight, with most of the delegates gone from the room, and without the knowledge of most of those who contributed to the report, stated “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.” But no evidence of this wild claim was contained in the report, no studies cited, and no names attached to the statement. It was an editorial opinion slipped into a supposedly scientific document by the environmental authors.
The former head of the National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, said of the IPCC report, “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to the IPCC report.” That is because there was no peer review of this outrageous conclusion.
Ironically, 1996 was the coldest year in a decade, but environmentalists are never deterred by contradicting data, their zeal is religious, and we are expected to simply accept their conclusions on faith. Sadly, the environmental movement has succeeded in controlling what goes into virtually every textbook in America, and have legions of true believers in the media who are more than willing to publish their deceptive conclusions.
CO2 levels increase in the fall and winter months, then decrease in the Spring and Summer months. Global warming alarmists want to use only the Fall and Winter numbers (increasing figures), and ignore the Spring and Summer declining figures, thus skewing the truth.
“There is no evidence that climate variability or hazardous events (floods, tornadoes, heat waves, frost, and even volcanoes) would be more frequent as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases.” (Wittwer)
We are witnessing the greatest, orchestrated effort to deceive in modern history. The science is not there, the data is not there, and the debate is all one sided–the way environmentalist must have it in order to win their political battles. On a level playing field, with open debate, and a search for truth, environmentalism would look ridiculously stupid, and they can’t have that.
“The jet stream, which powers winter storms and which is forecast to become weaker with global warming, is getting stronger.” (Patrick Michaels, Professor of Envrionmental Sciences, University of Virginia.)
“Hurricanes are becoming weaker and the severe ones are less frequent.” (Michaels)
“The vast share of the planet’s small warming is in the coldest places in the dead of winter. The fact is there is no change at all in the area of the United States experiencing above normal temperatures, even as all climate models predict a dramatic rise.” (Michaels)
In virtually every case, environmental climate claims prove to be false. In nearly all supposed associations of global warming with dire and adverse world weather conditions, the truth proves otherwise. All climate models are worthless and should be dismissed out of hand. Polar bears can, and do, swim in Arctic waters for miles, they are never stranded on a floating piece of ice. The quantity of Arctic ice is actually increasing, the quantity of Antarctic ice is decreasing, so what? Weather cycles, it changes, then changes back, so what?
Friday, October 23, 2009
Is The Earth Really Warming?
Despite Al Gore’s insulting declaration that “The debate is over,” the debate continues, and hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists continue to debate this issue and challenge the very heart of environmental issues. Here are some succinct observations from others on the issue.
1. There is no trend in the global satellite temperature record since 1979. (Robert Davis, Professor Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia)
2. Although models suggest a global warming (since 1880) of 2-5C, observable data cannot even show a .5C increase in temperature; and anything less than .5C simply show negative feedback. (Richard Siegmund Lindzen Ph.D. (b. February 8, 1940, Webster, Massachusetts) is a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT.)
3. The determination of the globally averaged temperature is virtually impossible (Lindzen)
4. None of the three standard observable calculations indicate any significant temperature change since the mid 1800s. (Lindzen)
5. The earth’s current average temperature (15 degrees C), is close to the “black body” temperature (the temperature without any greenhouse warming). (Lindzen)
6. For most of the planet, temperature records are very sparse, particularly before 1900. Large ocean basins, desert regions, and mountainous areas are limited in their long term historical temperature records. (Robert Balling, Director of the Laboratory of Climatology at Arizona State University)
7. Since 1751, Europe has warmed by only .5 degrees, and most of the warming occurred between 1890 and 1950, no warming has occurred in the most recent half century. (Balling)
8. Recorded data show some warming has occurred during the colder months of the year, and cooling has occurred during the warmer months of the year. Some scientists choose to ignore the cooling months and report only on the warming months. (Balling)
9. The period of rapid warming in Europe between 1890 and 1950 corresponds precisely to a time when solar sunspots rose most quickly. (Balling)
10. Europe has not experienced warming over the past 55 years. (Balling)
11. Europe represents less than two percent of the earth’s surface, nonetheless, climate models predict substantial warming in Europe. (Balling)
12. There is no evidence to support the prediction for substantial warming in the future. (Balling)
13. Predictive climate changes derived from computer simulations are far from accurate and may be deceptive. (Sylvan Wittwer, Director Emeritus of the Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Professor of Horticulture)
14. Global satellite readings of temperatures over the earth show there has been no warming. (Wittwer)
Lindzen, Balling, Davis and others observe that in the United States, weather stations in remote areas have been systematically removed and placed near urban areas. Urban areas are known to give higher temperatures than non-urban areas, so the data is now skewed. Further, these scientists report that satellite readings show no temperature increase over the past 30 years. This has caused environmentalists to challenge the use of satellite readings because they tend to dispute the claims of the global warming alarmists. Environmentalists claim that if the surface temperatures are rising, then the satellite readings should reflect that, but they don’t; calling into question the accuracy of surface readings.
1. There is no trend in the global satellite temperature record since 1979. (Robert Davis, Professor Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia)
2. Although models suggest a global warming (since 1880) of 2-5C, observable data cannot even show a .5C increase in temperature; and anything less than .5C simply show negative feedback. (Richard Siegmund Lindzen Ph.D. (b. February 8, 1940, Webster, Massachusetts) is a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT.)
3. The determination of the globally averaged temperature is virtually impossible (Lindzen)
4. None of the three standard observable calculations indicate any significant temperature change since the mid 1800s. (Lindzen)
5. The earth’s current average temperature (15 degrees C), is close to the “black body” temperature (the temperature without any greenhouse warming). (Lindzen)
6. For most of the planet, temperature records are very sparse, particularly before 1900. Large ocean basins, desert regions, and mountainous areas are limited in their long term historical temperature records. (Robert Balling, Director of the Laboratory of Climatology at Arizona State University)
7. Since 1751, Europe has warmed by only .5 degrees, and most of the warming occurred between 1890 and 1950, no warming has occurred in the most recent half century. (Balling)
8. Recorded data show some warming has occurred during the colder months of the year, and cooling has occurred during the warmer months of the year. Some scientists choose to ignore the cooling months and report only on the warming months. (Balling)
9. The period of rapid warming in Europe between 1890 and 1950 corresponds precisely to a time when solar sunspots rose most quickly. (Balling)
10. Europe has not experienced warming over the past 55 years. (Balling)
11. Europe represents less than two percent of the earth’s surface, nonetheless, climate models predict substantial warming in Europe. (Balling)
12. There is no evidence to support the prediction for substantial warming in the future. (Balling)
13. Predictive climate changes derived from computer simulations are far from accurate and may be deceptive. (Sylvan Wittwer, Director Emeritus of the Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Professor of Horticulture)
14. Global satellite readings of temperatures over the earth show there has been no warming. (Wittwer)
Lindzen, Balling, Davis and others observe that in the United States, weather stations in remote areas have been systematically removed and placed near urban areas. Urban areas are known to give higher temperatures than non-urban areas, so the data is now skewed. Further, these scientists report that satellite readings show no temperature increase over the past 30 years. This has caused environmentalists to challenge the use of satellite readings because they tend to dispute the claims of the global warming alarmists. Environmentalists claim that if the surface temperatures are rising, then the satellite readings should reflect that, but they don’t; calling into question the accuracy of surface readings.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Is Global Warming & Elevated CO2 A Good Thing?
The blind assumption of environmentalists, many politicians, the media, and educators is, global warming is bad, it’s terrifying, and we must act to stop it or we will all die...ala Al Gore; and if they're right, they have the leverage to enact the draconian governmental actions they seek. But when science looks at the data and the reality of a warmer world, what do they find?
1. Over the past 80 years, levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have risen from less than 300 ppm to over 360 ppm. During this span, food production has risen by five-fold. (Sylvan Wittwer, Director Emeritus of the Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Professor of Horticulture)
2. The rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are very favorable for the production of food. (Wittwer)
3. History reveals that for food production, warming is better than cooling. (Wittwer)
4. Elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have a decidedly beneficial effect on crop production, and an increase in water-use efficiency. An increase in CO2 actually causes a water conservancy benefit. (Wittwer)
5. Rising CO2 levels increase food production, forestry output, and biological productivity, with an improvement in water-use efficiency. (Wittwer)
6. A warming trend would increase the lengths of the growing seasons, encourage farmer adaptations, and favor the introduction of new technologies and cultural practices. (Wittwer)
7. There is a near one to one relationship between increased atmospheric CO2, and increased food production. (Wittwer)
“Cooler conditions are not beneficial to the residents in Europe. Cooler European temperatures have resulted in the worst of conditions, famines, plagues, starvation, suffering, and social unrest. It is painfully clear that the costs of cooling in Europe far outstrip the cost of regional warming. Global warming would have been more than welcomed by the inhabitants of post 1300 Europe.
From approximately A.D. 900 to 1300, temperatures in Europe were about 1 degree or more above the levels observed there today. This was known as the Little Climatic Optimum. The agricultural productivity and the agro-economy of Europe flourished.” (Robert Balling, Director of the Laboratory of Climatology at Arizona State University)
Wittwer declares the following: “There is currently a blind spot in the political and informational systems of the world. This is accompanied by a corruption of the underlying biological and physical sciences. It should be considered good fortune that we are living in a world of gradually increasing levels of atmospheric CO2.”
1. Over the past 80 years, levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have risen from less than 300 ppm to over 360 ppm. During this span, food production has risen by five-fold. (Sylvan Wittwer, Director Emeritus of the Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Professor of Horticulture)
2. The rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are very favorable for the production of food. (Wittwer)
3. History reveals that for food production, warming is better than cooling. (Wittwer)
4. Elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have a decidedly beneficial effect on crop production, and an increase in water-use efficiency. An increase in CO2 actually causes a water conservancy benefit. (Wittwer)
5. Rising CO2 levels increase food production, forestry output, and biological productivity, with an improvement in water-use efficiency. (Wittwer)
6. A warming trend would increase the lengths of the growing seasons, encourage farmer adaptations, and favor the introduction of new technologies and cultural practices. (Wittwer)
7. There is a near one to one relationship between increased atmospheric CO2, and increased food production. (Wittwer)
“Cooler conditions are not beneficial to the residents in Europe. Cooler European temperatures have resulted in the worst of conditions, famines, plagues, starvation, suffering, and social unrest. It is painfully clear that the costs of cooling in Europe far outstrip the cost of regional warming. Global warming would have been more than welcomed by the inhabitants of post 1300 Europe.
From approximately A.D. 900 to 1300, temperatures in Europe were about 1 degree or more above the levels observed there today. This was known as the Little Climatic Optimum. The agricultural productivity and the agro-economy of Europe flourished.” (Robert Balling, Director of the Laboratory of Climatology at Arizona State University)
Wittwer declares the following: “There is currently a blind spot in the political and informational systems of the world. This is accompanied by a corruption of the underlying biological and physical sciences. It should be considered good fortune that we are living in a world of gradually increasing levels of atmospheric CO2.”
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Real Data Dispute Global Warming Hype
If global warming is really occurring, that is, a consistent upward trend world wide to warming temperatures, one would expect some of the prophetic declarations, by weather scientists, that are supposed to accompany warmer temperatures, to begin to show up. But they aren’t.
Let’s review the global warming predictions, those events we should be seeing when temperatures rise world wide:
1. Increased hurricane activity. It hasn’t happened. There is actually a decline in the number of hurricanes, and few of high velocity and destructive power. The 1950s was the peak decade of hurricane activity, mostly level since then, with no trend.
2. Higher, high temperatures world wide. No high temperature records have been set on any continent in the past thirty years. In the U.S. there have been no record high temps in any state in the past fifteen years, and the majority of the high temps all occurred before the 1950s.
3. Increased droughts, and of longer duration. This is a strange prediction since as temperatures rise, the air holds more water, and historically, produces more rainfall. Predictably, there is no increase in droughts worldwide.
4. Increased tornado activity. There were more tornadoes during the 1960s, than any other decade since records have been kept. Again, the trend simply is not there.
Here’s an overview of U.S. locations, their highest record temperatures, and the date. All locations represent the record high for that state:
1. Lake Havasu City, Arizona, 128 degrees, 1994
2. Greenland Ranch, CA (Death Valley), 134 degrees, 1913
3. Orofino, Idaho, 118 degrees, 1934
4. Keokuk, Iowa, 118 degrees, 1934
5. Plain Dealing, Louisiana, 114 degrees, 1936
6. New Bedford, Mass, 107 degrees, 1975
7. Moorhead, Minnesota, 114 degrees, 1936
8. Laughlin, Nevada, 125 degrees, 1994
9. Steele, North Dakota, 121 degrees, 1936
10. Pendleton, Oregon, 119 degrees, 1898
11. Camden, South Carolina, 111 degrees, 1954
12. Seymour, Texas, 120 degrees, 1936
13. Saint George, UT 117 degrees, 1985
14. Ice Harbor Dam, Washington, 118 degrees, 1961
15. Basin, Wyoming, 115 degrees, 1983
There are no record temperatures in the United States since 1994. This contradicts the accepted trend by so-called experts in the field. It is noteworthy that only computer models show an increased trend in high temperatures, the actual recorded data do not show any such trend. Indeed, the majority of extreme temperatures, wind, drought, rainfall, and other extreme weather phenomenon occurred during the 1930s, long before Al Gore and the anthropomorphic climate change brainwashing campaign began.
Even on a regional basis, the American Southwest, the area of the U.S. with the highest overall temperatures, reached it’s peak during 1994, but has returned to normal since then. Los Angeles’ worst heat wave occurred during August and September of 1955.
Weather can be sliced up in a variety of ways, and one must be aware of what is actually being reported. There is the overall record high for a given date, the highest average temperatures for the entire year, or for the summer period, or for a given “heat wave” period of the summer.
One must also be aware of what has happened in the United States over the past two or three decades, with regard to weather stations and weather reporting. It is well understood that temperatures in and around large metropolitan areas are higher than the surrounding agricultural or thinly populated areas. Nearly 70 percent of the earth is water, and there are no permanent weather stations on any of the oceans of the earth. During the past two to three decades monitoring stations in remote areas have been eliminated and new monitoring stations established inside large metropolitan areas. This “trick” skews the data. We are no longer comparing orange to oranges, and there is no valid comparison with data gathered prior to the removing of these remote stations. This practice has artificially warmed the earth; it has not really warmed, but the additional reporting from within the densely populated areas skews the data upward–thus the feigned panic by environmentalists that something must be done to reduce CO2 levels, and reverse the “trend” of world wide warming.
This is intellectual dishonesty at its worst, essentially faking the data so political decisions can be made in your (environmentalists) favor. So even though the world is not really warming, the “experts” have created the appearance that it has, and will make policy based on that falsehood.
Let’s review the global warming predictions, those events we should be seeing when temperatures rise world wide:
1. Increased hurricane activity. It hasn’t happened. There is actually a decline in the number of hurricanes, and few of high velocity and destructive power. The 1950s was the peak decade of hurricane activity, mostly level since then, with no trend.
2. Higher, high temperatures world wide. No high temperature records have been set on any continent in the past thirty years. In the U.S. there have been no record high temps in any state in the past fifteen years, and the majority of the high temps all occurred before the 1950s.
3. Increased droughts, and of longer duration. This is a strange prediction since as temperatures rise, the air holds more water, and historically, produces more rainfall. Predictably, there is no increase in droughts worldwide.
4. Increased tornado activity. There were more tornadoes during the 1960s, than any other decade since records have been kept. Again, the trend simply is not there.
Here’s an overview of U.S. locations, their highest record temperatures, and the date. All locations represent the record high for that state:
1. Lake Havasu City, Arizona, 128 degrees, 1994
2. Greenland Ranch, CA (Death Valley), 134 degrees, 1913
3. Orofino, Idaho, 118 degrees, 1934
4. Keokuk, Iowa, 118 degrees, 1934
5. Plain Dealing, Louisiana, 114 degrees, 1936
6. New Bedford, Mass, 107 degrees, 1975
7. Moorhead, Minnesota, 114 degrees, 1936
8. Laughlin, Nevada, 125 degrees, 1994
9. Steele, North Dakota, 121 degrees, 1936
10. Pendleton, Oregon, 119 degrees, 1898
11. Camden, South Carolina, 111 degrees, 1954
12. Seymour, Texas, 120 degrees, 1936
13. Saint George, UT 117 degrees, 1985
14. Ice Harbor Dam, Washington, 118 degrees, 1961
15. Basin, Wyoming, 115 degrees, 1983
There are no record temperatures in the United States since 1994. This contradicts the accepted trend by so-called experts in the field. It is noteworthy that only computer models show an increased trend in high temperatures, the actual recorded data do not show any such trend. Indeed, the majority of extreme temperatures, wind, drought, rainfall, and other extreme weather phenomenon occurred during the 1930s, long before Al Gore and the anthropomorphic climate change brainwashing campaign began.
Even on a regional basis, the American Southwest, the area of the U.S. with the highest overall temperatures, reached it’s peak during 1994, but has returned to normal since then. Los Angeles’ worst heat wave occurred during August and September of 1955.
Weather can be sliced up in a variety of ways, and one must be aware of what is actually being reported. There is the overall record high for a given date, the highest average temperatures for the entire year, or for the summer period, or for a given “heat wave” period of the summer.
One must also be aware of what has happened in the United States over the past two or three decades, with regard to weather stations and weather reporting. It is well understood that temperatures in and around large metropolitan areas are higher than the surrounding agricultural or thinly populated areas. Nearly 70 percent of the earth is water, and there are no permanent weather stations on any of the oceans of the earth. During the past two to three decades monitoring stations in remote areas have been eliminated and new monitoring stations established inside large metropolitan areas. This “trick” skews the data. We are no longer comparing orange to oranges, and there is no valid comparison with data gathered prior to the removing of these remote stations. This practice has artificially warmed the earth; it has not really warmed, but the additional reporting from within the densely populated areas skews the data upward–thus the feigned panic by environmentalists that something must be done to reduce CO2 levels, and reverse the “trend” of world wide warming.
This is intellectual dishonesty at its worst, essentially faking the data so political decisions can be made in your (environmentalists) favor. So even though the world is not really warming, the “experts” have created the appearance that it has, and will make policy based on that falsehood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)