The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Aaron]

oil heat in June

2 winters ago, we had record breaking snowfall.

Right now, we already have more snow than all of last year combined
and that is just over the last few days.
The snow still doesn't seem to be record breaking but the arctic chills
of (about 13F and below on my back porch several days ago) is very unusual.

The beginning of fall here was very nice I have to admit. Was up in the
60'sF for a while during some stretches but it was short lived but very
appreciated!

Our springs are getting cooler here. I feel like I got ripped off this year
with the growing season. Usually, the first half of spring is pretty cool
and the second half turns into a real spring, but it was very chilly and
had monsoon like rainstorms up through the beginning of JUNE! I was
on vacation but the beginning of June here was so cold, my friend that
was watching my house had to call me to ask how to turn on the oil furnace... IN JUNE! That is just not right!

[john_g]

Coldest November night on record in parts of UK

Hi

Here in the UK we have just had the coldest night on record, my area was at -12.5C last night:

BBC News - Coldest November night on record in parts of UK

[Michael John Nunnerley]

slight movement

Hi all

Just another thing that I have noticed is reports that parts of the poles are loosing ice and on the other side, difference of east or west of 0 degrees, they have gained ice. Now is there a posibility that the poles have shifted? albeit a tiny fraction of one degree' that would explain the highs and lows in summer and winter seen in different countries in the world, interesting don't you think?

Mike

[aussieaussieaussie]

Simple.

@Peter Linderman
Thank you for posting that article, was a good read. I even learned something!
Yes, 1998 was the hottest year, since then instead of the temperature dropping (which it should of) it as stayed just under 1998 levels.
I think the main thing to take from that article was that last decade was the hottest decade ever. Also I don't think it was biased article at all, half the article was for and the other half againist. Like any good article, give us the information from both sides and let us the reader decide.
Anyhoo, Thanks for the Link!

@Aaron,
From your last post ---
"I'm completely for moving towards a greener world, obviously, considering
what I enjoy spending most of my time on. I want to end the use of
carbon based fuels to reduce noxious pollution and breath cleaner air."
I am glad we both agree here, All I ever try to do is educate people on the value of keeping our ecosystem clean and to stop messing with it!

I'm not so naive to see a statistically insignificant TRACE GAS as being
so responsible for changing the entire climate.
Firstly, no one is saying co2 is the ENTIRE reason, only part of the reason.
I prefer to think of it as a catalyst. I believe the fundamental cause is the dramatic increase of the world human population in the past 100 years.
Is CO2 a trace gas? YES! Is it unimportant? HELL NO! One only has to look at photosynthesis for the answer. Plants are awesome, they covert CO2 to O2, thank god cynobacteria (thats the black stuff on rocks at the beach) started doing this otherwise we couldn't be here!
I believe cutting down the trees is probably more to blame then industrial pollution. But both are bad.


All warming trends throughout history that we know of were FOLLOWED
by some increase in co2 and not the other way around. It is an effect
after the fact and not the cause.
This is a very good point! When I first saw the graph that you refer to, in 1999, when it was published, I said the same thing! But if you read the science journal article is was ripped from you get your answer in the first page!
The data was taken from Antarctica Ice core samples, there is a lag of approx 1000 years between co2 and temp because of the way they measured it.
"Due to the time delay in trapping the atmosphere as the snow is compressed into ice (the ice at any time will always be older than the gas bubbles it encloses."
Also they used the Co2 concentrations to determine the temperature.
If you look closely you see they are actual perfectly in sync!

This is a better Graph which includes methane too!
http://www.john-daly.com/press/lag-time.gif1
Published in 2003, this one shows you that the cycle of heating is really from methane, caused by catastrophic events, I am sure non of us want to be around for!

Another thing to remember is this is; the Ancient records, recorded many cataclysmic events and the earths recovery. When you talk of modern historical records (industrial revolution) Co2 always rises before temperature.

Please just read a little further and the answers will be there!

@Ash,
Yes it's Climate Change! Overall the world is getting warmer but on the small scale what we see is larger variations in temperature. You said we had a cool spring, but you don't mention the heat waves? The top 11 warmest years of all time occurring in the last 13 years? I agree this IS NOT normal!


I will put this very simply and how I see it, it is only my opinion, but please trust me it is a very very well researched opinion.

Climate scientists are saying we will see a larger variability in local temperatures, so lots of records are going to be broken, both highs and lows. But if you add all these numbers up, you get a slight increase. The reason scientists are so alarmed is that the increase for the past 70 years has been exponential. That means it is going up BIG TIME just slowly at first...
Pollution is always increasing, temperature is always increasing - this should worry anyone! Increasing CO2 is only one of many stupid things humanity is doing to this planet today.

Yes, some places on average will get cooler, some places will get warmer - All scientists are saying is: It will vary more (higher highs, lower lows in temp) but overall it is getting warmer thats it!
Have a look at temperatures in 2070 in this pic:
http://www.bacl.ac.uk/images/global_...ctions_map.jpg

The ocean water is warming! So you get more life in the med but on the Great Barrier Reef it's too hot, so the coral dies. Good for the med bad for tropical reefs. Warmer oceans also = more hurricanes!
What you should really worry about is acidification of the ocean!
Most of the CO2 we produce doesn't end up in the air but in the ocean, this is making the oceans more acidic. Very soon (2-3 decades) the level of acidity will reach a level where marine creatures will not be able to produce shells or in coral, calcium carbonate. This will kill the WHOLE ocean food chain! And folks it looks like we might not be able to stop this at all, it's already too late.

Another problem is Politics, you may disagree with the 'Political solutions' i.e. Carbon Tax etc of Climate Change - but this doesn't mean you should disagree with the climate scientists. These are two complete separate entities! Scientist research and report facts - Politicians decide what to do with them!

I know a lot of middle class scientists, most of them dedicate their lives to finding the truth, thats all they care about, Politics & $$$ mean nothing to them - all they are interesting is finding the answer to their question.
Scientists should be trusted as a whole group, but just don't take any one individual scientists claim as gospel. The credibility of the scientific system is in the peer-review process, the whole group is intelligent, while individuals may be corrupt or egotistical or deceitful - the group is very very good at determining Hoax from Truth.

If you have any further pieces of information like aaron's comment above or peters article, I am only too happy to give the opposing opinion so the reader can make a informed opinion. I like to hear the other sides opinion and claims logically, I want to research them and see if they are credible, because I never take anything as gospel, thats just stupid. I am always learning!

My order of concern at this time is this:
Deforestation, Population & Pollution, Animal Extinctions.
We need to stop interfering with this delicate fragile system now before it's too late!

Hope this helps,

Ozy

[aussieaussieaussie]

Hi all

Just another thing that I have noticed is reports that parts of the poles are loosing ice and on the other side, difference of east or west of 0 degrees, they have gained ice. Now is there a posibility that the poles have shifted? albeit a tiny fraction of one degree' that would explain the highs and lows in summer and winter seen in different countries in the world, interesting don't you think?

Mike

Hi Michael,

I can only speak for Antarctica, one of you Northern folk will have too fill us in for the Arctic.

While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean.
It's important to distinguish between Antarctic land ice and sea ice which are two separate phenomena. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the difference between sea ice and land ice. To summarize the situation with Antarctic ice trends:

Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate
Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean

Also remember Land ice is formed over 1000s of years while sea ice melts every year in summer. They key here is Larger Variation, with a warming trend - thats what the science says.

As for your comment with the magnetic pole, it is still doing there normal thing moving north west by about 10 to 15 kilometers per year. I visited the magnetic south pole last year in summer and it was all ocean, no ice!

Hope this helps!

ozy

[nvisser]

@Ash, you are clearly mentally retarded. I only hoped to improve your webpage my pointing out obvious errors that 50% of the Australian population can clearly see is false. Once they see these errors, they will no longer take on board the other more world changing information, and all your hard work is for nothing.
Ash, remove the picture of the standard cloud formation and then we can talk.
As you remove these obvious errors, we can start to talk about the word credibility and have you in the same sentence!
God, your such a egocentric bogan tool, WAKE UP!
If I had the time and willpower, I could go through all your dribble university and point out the very very very obvious errors in measurement and thats before we even start to debate the new science you bring to the table; but I don't have the energy...

Ozy

Unfortunately you will not have the knowledge or find the time to do that as you are to busy abusing other people that actually means something to this forum.

[aussieaussieaussie]

Some clarification....

@Nvisser:

I was only responding to an attack. Which I will not do any more, I will simply supply answers to your common questions...

I love looking up at the sky and I love meteorology, When you work on boats part of your training is cloud formations. They won't let you drive a commercial boat unless you can name everyone by memory! If you want cool cloud formations check out this:
10 Very Rare Cloud Pictures | Cool Pictures | Cool Stuff

As for the 'debate' with Ash, I would like you to look here, where you will find a description of a very common cloud formation....
Cirrus Clouds

Ash's picture on his website, that is called a chemtrail Haarp cloud - is commonly refered to as a mackerel sky.

Show I will wait with baited breath for his reply.

Hope this helps,

Ozy

P.S. Rickoff, give me credit, thats funny!

[Joit]

Looking here at the Cloud.



Shows that the main Cloud is from left to right along and the Stripes what appears oblong mislead to think, the cloud is mainly longish.

Also are there other Threads about Chemtrails.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...e-no-more.html
http://www.energeticforum.com/genera...roduction.html

And there is anywhere for sure Space for to answer this Question.

BTW for those interested our volunteer did another measurement the other day as he has equipment from being a marine biologist, its was to quote "absolutely no water from roof or any other obstruction. . the water last Tues Wed here was 260ppm,". We have another weather stations now i wonder how spraying will effect weather, am sure its for another thread now .



Ash

Noone can tell me that this Trails are normal because they cover them into cheap or scientific Explanations about humidity, and noone can compare anymore how it did look like before 25Years and more, because, there was nothing like this Trails from one end of the Sky to the other.

[Peter Lindemann]

Start Your Own Thread

Ozy,

First, thank you for dialing down your rhetoric and presenting your posts in a more civil tone. That is much appreciated. However, much as you enjoy being the purveyor of "objectivity" here, you are only giving us your opinion, which is OFF TOPIC for this thread.

Although it is not on topic here, most of us in this forum firmly believe that the entire "peer review" system is hopelessly corrupt and thoroughly unreliable to inform the public on matters where the individual is empowered against the accumulated influences of the banks, governments, corporations, and the major media outlets.

Also, I specifically have asked you to start your own thread on Climate Change and NOT post your conventional opinions in our Contrarian Viewpoint thread. It is not your responsibility to provide "objectivity" here, and I am specifically asking you to provide your position on these matters in your own thread.

Your position on this topic has been well stated, but we all have much more important things to do in our lives than debate you in this thread on this topic. The purpose of this thread is NOT to debate this topic, but to CATALOG references in the open literature that SUPPORTS the Contrarian Viewpoint on the Reality of Climate Change and its Natural Causes.

Just to review what WE believe is the cause of Climate Change:

1) variations in Solar Radiation output
2) variations in the elliptical characteristic of the Earth's orbit around the Sun
3) variations in the tilt of the Earth on it's axis
4) variations in ocean currents, such as the "thermohaline circulation"
5) cycling of the "glacial-interglacial" period

These first five "climate drivers" are the most important, and have been the primary determiners of all major climate variations for the last 100 million years. Even today, they remain the primary drivers of WHY the climate presents itself as it is.

Oh, and by the way, the climate has NEVER been stable. It has ALWAYS been changing, and much warmer periods than our present day conditions have occurred in the past.

Then, there are smaller, shorter cycle inputs as well. They include (but are not limited to):

6) the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
7) the Pacific "El Nino-La Nina" variation
8) volcanic emissions of high altitude particulate and Sulfur dioxide

When these Solar and Planetary inputs are combined with the fact that WATER VAPOR accounts for over 95% of the heat trapping activity of the atmosphere, and that Natural Sources account for over 95% of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere in any given year, we just DON'T BELIEVE that the remaining, human produced CO2 (and Methane) is CAUSING the current presentation of climate variation. PERIOD.

This is our well documented and deeply considered point of view, and your "rebuttal" of this is unnecessary and unwelcome in this thread.

Start your own thread if you wish to promote your position on this vitally important issue.

Thank you.

Peter

[Farmhand]

aussie, you make some very good point's.

Another problem is Politics, you may disagree with the 'Political solutions' i.e. Carbon Tax etc of Climate Change - but this doesn't mean you should disagree with the climate scientists. These are two complete separate entities! Scientist research and report facts - Politicians decide what to do with them!

I know a lot of middle class scientists, most of them dedicate their lives to finding the truth, thats all they care about, Politics & $$$ mean nothing to them - all they are interesting is finding the answer to their question.
Scientists should be trusted as a whole group, but just don't take any one individual scientists claim as gospel. The credibility of the scientific system is in the peer-review process, the whole group is intelligent, while individuals may be corrupt or egotistical or deceitful - the group is very very good at determining Hoax from Truth.

Also the cutting down of the tree's is a major problem, they are like pollution filters as well as CO2 to O2 converters I reakon.

I agree the politics should be separate, but are they ? I'm not so sure, I don't have any specifics off hand, but i'm sure i could find something. But such is life!

Cheers

[Joit]

Cutting the Trees...

Again, the Amount of manmade CO2 is about 5%, what i have seen lately,
seems it changes all time a bit, thought its 10%.
So it is again 0,0004% what are manmade.
Another Statement from the main Science, Co2 is at the Atmosphere.
Really, but it is heavier as Air, about 1,5 Times.
So they changed her arguing to, it reflects at the Sealevel,
even, when the Sea absorbs Co2.

Think for yourself in a sober Way, does anyone really think, this 0,004 % really influence the Temperature,
the Amount from the Plants is way higher what is produced,
and do have a bigger Impact as the rest from the Co2.
What do they do beside taking Billions of Dollars that each Country shall pay? ? Still Cutting more Trees,
thats 'Her' Way to reduce Co2?

Even when it is unprooven, that it has an Effect,
because the most Arguments i do see are hypotethically,
the Climate 'could' depend on Co2.
Lately there are much more Blogs about it when you look for manmade co2
on the Net more with a sceptical View
and more Backround on certain Processes on this Story behind.

[aussieaussieaussie]

The final public word on CO2....

Dear Peter Lindemann,

Thank you for explaining your idea's and scope of this thread. I do sincerely apologize for holding back the evidence behind my claim (last post) for a few days and entering into a slapstick fight - I just thought the end justified the means, now I know who on this thread will just attack without even looking at my argument and these people are not worth my time. So I will not waste it anymore.

Your ideas of climate change are not Contrarian by any means, ask any scientist, they will agree with you! Those other 'influences' you describe are actually well researched and peer reviewed - they are just too complex for the average joe to understand, hence these scientific theories get very little media / TV time.

Of course it would also help if more of our smart minds went into Science instead of Finance! Then there would be more researchers.

So I am a little baffled why you are so unimpressed by the peer review process, the process agrees with all your points! In fact there is no way to even begin to try to predict climate change without trying to factor in all these 'Climate Drivers' 1- 8.

Drivers 1,2,3 well they are most certainly not man made - I find them very interesting too! Mainly because the science is so complex, and yes, we get surprises in these sciences ever year.
I am really interested in Driver 1, we know very very little, but a lot of data has been gathered now and much more soon. I personally think the sun probably has like 20 different individual cycles and is going to take us centuries to work them all out!
Next time I read something interesting in this field I will be sure to post it here!

Driver 4, does need a good look at! We have very accurate data on ocean currents going back to 200 years ago, so any change in these currents should be a great cause from concern. If that cycle stops, Europe will be 10degC cooler, but it won't really matter because the whole ocean food chain will die in a matter of years - it all is reliant on those currents.
If the scientists say they think it's man made CO2 acting as a catalyst to the overall system - I am listening! If you have another theory as to why the currents would start to stop, I am all ears!

Driver 5,
In all the evidence I have read from geologists, they all agree (how boring), we have had many cycles of glacial / interglacial, with a few blips in the record caused by large worldwide catastrophic events. I think we have a very good idea for the past 450,000 years on this matter.
See here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...emperature.png
All the geologist agree, and why wouldn't they? there is all this evidence lying around, Rocks! ALL geologists say we should be seeing a very slow cooling trend as per the cycle. What geologists are worried about is that they are not right (which normally they are!) Earth is getting hotter, not going back into a ice age. I think they called it a runaway greenhouse effect, some stupid animal had put a whole lot of pollution in the upper atmosphere and it was turning the earth into a greenhouse.

As for the shorter period cycles,
People have only really been measuring and studying these in the past few decades by meteorologists, we seem to be getting a good grasp on how they work in the last decade, but I think as with any new science there will probably be big surprises!

Of course climate scientists would like to remind you here that any radical changes in these shorter cycles will be evidence for their theory, because they predicted long ago that pollution may disrupt one of these cycles - and lead to man made Climate Change, as in, changes to our weather because of man made pollution.

Its important I think to split these different categories of scientists up, they are talking only about there specialty and the evidence that lays within.
You need to take all these different opinions and make an informed decision yourself.

I have heard the water vapor argument before.
CO2 accounts for between 9-30% of our green house effect.
You may need to provide a document that contains your water vapor = 95% figure because I for sure have never ever come across it.

It is important to understand that water vapor is a feedback of the excess CO2;
"any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means, H2O concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback."

If you still think man made pollution only makes up 5% of the problem per year and nothing to worry about, remember we are cutting the trees down, the only thing that will convert it back into O2. Also this is our annual contribution which has a compound effect because it takes 100 years for it to be reabsorbed. Check out this page from 1998, before the debate raged, for your answers: How Much of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Accumulation Is Anthropogenic?


Anyhoo,

I apologize for discussing my viewpoint on CO2, I have been working with some marine biologists doing coure samples of large slow growing corals. These corals have growth rings like trees that store history of atmospheric CO2, amongst a 1000 other things like temperature, and thier graph of CO2 vs temperature shows no lag and is exactly the same as the Antarctic Ice core samples. It's kinda smoking gun evidence, hasn't been published yet, thought I would help you all understand where these scientists were coming from.

But if debating CO2 is totally taboo on this thread, and my opinion is not wanted on that subject then I will respect that and cease to post about CO2 in the future.

No need to start a new thread,
I will only show you interesting new studies about those 8 points that are not taboo to talk about on this thread. They are all intriguing areas of scientific inquiry, I look forward to any new developments.

Hope this helped,

Ozy

[Peter Lindemann]

UN Climate summit Opens in Cancun, Mexico

Hi Folks,

Here is a leading story on the UN Climate Summit opening today in Cancun, Mexico. Expectations for any agreement are low and most Governments are only sending low level delegations.

BBC News - UN climate talks low on expectation

It is becoming clear that the damage from the "Climate Gate" disclosures has had a huge impact. The IPCC is scrambling to try to rebuild it's credibility without much success.

Peter

PS. Ozy, thanks for your understanding and cooperation.

[aussieaussie]

New Articles at Discovery Channel News

Interesting article out today:
The World: Four Degrees Warmer : Discovery News

Also regarding the whole cloud / water vapor thing, this was just published:
Clouds May Make Warming Worse : Discovery News

If anybody wants the proper links to the science papers just ask, I thought the discovery channel versions were a little bit easier to digest.


@Peter L,
"Climate Gate" did have a huge negative impact, but I believe it was all media hype similar to Anna Nicole Smith etc. I think what actually happened was a very minor fraud. But here is the info to back u my opinion.
'Climate-gate': Beyond The Embarrassment - Science News

@Aaron,
If you post a conclusion and back it up with data that is easily verified to be false and very misleading (ie. CO2 rises after temp). Then don't be surprised if someone like myself, points out the flaw behind your conclusion. You are not the omniscient moderator, you are the moderator, you are here to learn and teach like the rest of us. Don't chuck a childish fit and ban me because I proved your data wrong, just go find some new data to back up your conclusion - if you can't find any, well maybe it's time for a new conclusion.
Banning me from this forum, is just censoring me, nothing else.
Why would you ban someone who starts threads, that many people post on? This just makes no sense and your actions are obviously personal in nature.

Hope this helps,

Ozy

[ashtweth]

Looking here at the Cloud.



Shows that the main Cloud is from left to right along and the Stripes what appears oblong mislead to think, the cloud is mainly longish.

Also are there other Threads about Chemtrails.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...e-no-more.html
http://www.energeticforum.com/genera...roduction.html

And there is anywhere for sure Space for to answer this Question.

Noone can tell me that this Trails are normal because they cover them into cheap or scientific Explanations about humidity, and noone can compare anymore how it did look like before 25Years and more, because, there was nothing like this Trails from one end of the Sky to the other.

Hi Vissie Joit /ALL Thanks for posting that VERY useful data my friends , we can use that dont worry about this Ozy he would not know a HAARP cloud if it bit him on his you know what, the photos he posted are useless compared to what we observe. Not to mention the rest of what he said about our sample was INACCURATE, he has the Gaul to call us mental retarded. Small man(in brains) and big mouth, i remember what i used to do to little men like that in my punk band days

I am sure EF.com will ban him soon, he gets under peoples skins for what, never seen him do a circuit or any thing. Who needs to educate that THING not me or you. Be well my friends have some good news in the new newsletter for ALL soon. Winding one of Dr Stifflers/Lid/slayers Jonny -- Lidmotor Exciter ATM (nice circuit BTW)

Thanks for all that different info Peter, your a STATUE of liberal ground for us. Been a bit sad lately hearing of TJC's stroke, love reading what you have to say always and take note your our dear friend.

Regards
Ash