The Great Global Warming Swindle

[sucahyo]

I hope colder winter and hotter summer is not caused by less earth protection air, whatever it is.

[alsy]

cold there, but heat wave here.

For you people on the cold part of the globe, i wish we could trade a bit of our heat for your cold. We are in the midst of a heat wave and heading into record temperatures it seems.
Adelaide heading for record hot week - Yahoo!7 News
Although the article refers to Adelaide which is roughly 700 to 750 km (about 450 miles) from my City, we have been having very siimilar weather. 43 degrees celsius (109F) today, and same temperature forecasted for the next two days. Forecasted to ease back after about the weekend, but still hot. It was 41 C (106F) yesterday. I do not recall ever experiencing repeatedly hot weather like this, without the weather cooling down after a day or two.

There is something going on with these extremes at both ends of the globe.

While we are busy arguing and pointing fingers, what about the the sum value of heat which the human population creates on this planet. Is that something to totally ignore?
Man generates heat from;
-800 million cars;
-electrical motors. They are everywhere; computers(fans, hard drives), refrigerators, building air cooling & heating systems, pumps, industry processes,
-electricity generation,
-Other industry processes
-any electrical or electronic product generates heat.
-every thing else that generates heat

One could assume all the heat generated by humans escapes into the atmosphere. One could completely ignore it too.

[alsy]

Government statistics supports Global Warming

I just remembered that i had seen some information some time ago on a government web site regarding statistics. It is called The Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

Although the data is only for Australia, i think the continent is sizeable enough to make it a realistic possibility of being a global trend as well.

One can select various data, but what is of interest here, is the Temperatures in the Timeseries. The data stretches back to about the year 1910. There are options in the drop down menu for; Min ; Max, and Mean values; rainfall; sea temperatures. Unless the graphs are a fabrication by what i would call " the Cabal", the information clearly points to global warming. It is most evident in the Sea Surface Temperature dating back to 1900.

Timeseries Graphs

[ashtweth]

some say cooling, its as hot as a rattle snakes BUTT here, and his tennis shoes too

Deadly heatwave causes havoc across south-eastern Australia
Deadly heatwave causes havoc across south-eastern Australia - Telegraph

[dave_cahoon]

Little ice age 1400s?-1800s

Hi People,

After the little ice age; I would expect a 100 year warming even more...
The sunspot connection has me worried; About it suddenly happening
again.

Dave

[dave_cahoon]

The magnetic block wall has something to do with heat in bulk,
Magnetism and heating/cooling on a planetary scale is related.

After the last solar pole flip the poles seemed to pull into the star
and as it settled for a while the pole were both of the same polarity
and the equator was the other pole. Since then sunspots are minimum.

Leading to possibly another maunder minimum and ice age, mini or not.

the either way dude
Dave

[BobM2006]

Water not rising, just looked.

I am not a climate person or a weather geologist or any of those things. But I try to have common sense. What bothers me is the politicians that try to control companies, budgets, government, etc, yes like Al Gore. This guy knows not a lot more than I do, as he is a journalist and a politician. And what I am saying is this globe and the solar system, not to mention the galazy and universe, are too vast for us to be able to get a handle on just what the climate will be in 10 years or 20 years or 100 years or 100,000 years, or yes a million years.

Back to my scale. I have been living here 25 years about a block from a bay that opens into the Gulf of Mexico. I have been walking down to the same dock ever few days since I have lived here. And I look at the depth of the water on the dock, where it comes to on high tide, low tide, and storms, and it has not gone up a half inch over those marks since I have lived here 25 years. Now all I want is for those marks I am looking at to go up maybe a full inch before all the politicians, the saps, the United Nations, the tree huggers, and the Chicken Little's go running off in all directions saying the poles are melting. Is that too much to ask, that is before I cut back on driving, any more than I already have, to look for a place to live inland, to start turning co2 consumption control over to that crazy politician at the governor's office, to have the government and the United Nations take over the oil companies and control the distribution of oil, before we allow some others in other countries to control how much air conditioning I can use, to allow my life to be run by the government, please cannot I wait until I see the water rising an inch here on the ocean near where I live?

Look no one is saying that change does not take place over time, and yes the weather may very well be warming, just as it probably did 100,000 years ago before it went on a 20,000 year cooling cycle. And no one is saying that some CO2 might have some effect on this, just as those volcanos, and lightning, and forest fires, and meteors falling into the atmosphere and burning did 100,000 years ago. And no one is saying that sun spots do not effect all this, etc. I am just saying all those computer models will tell you what you want to hear based on what you base your program on. I will even say that sunspots may actually cause the earth to heat so much that we will all be inundated and roasted to extinction. That may happen or it may happen with cars burning CO2, and maybe rationing ourselves from driving or running our air conditioners may save the day, but I do not think those things are going to happen before we get some solid evidence. It turns my stomach for the poor sap tree huggers to say Oh My God we don't have time to wait to start cutting back and fighting this global warming. The only thing that turns it worse is Gore or somebody standing up on national TV and saying everything has been settled, all the evidence is now in, that we now know we are destroying life on earth, and there is no more room for argument or discussion. Now folks for someone to say this he has to be one more dumb bunny, and how dumb was I to have voted for this guy.

I think it was a sad day when politicians started to using "global warming" to toot their own horns, or the bureacrats at the United Nations to say it is definately in the can that global warming will destroy the environment if controls are not instituted. It was a sadder day when guys that call themselves scientists started pandering to which ever side funded their so called research.

Look folks tomorrow I am going down to look at those marks on the docks and if the water is not up an inch or so from where it goes to regularly, then I am going to come home, set down on my patio, not turn on those politicians on TV, and hope that little bird that comes to visit me from time to time comes by and sings me a song or two. If he does come then we, he and I, are not, for a little while, going to worry about the world coming to an end.

Bob

[jibbguy]

It doesn't add-up

Bob, i can appreciate your comments. I also live on the water, in the FL Keys. In the over 20 years i have been coming here for vacation, and the 3 that i actually lived here, i've seen the water rise about 3 cm's against our dock.

Now, it is very difficult to accurately measure this: It must be done at the same lunar cycle day, at dead slack tide. And there cannot have been several days of overly hot or colder temperatures above the average before hand (since sea water will expand and contract, even locally). Also, there cannot have been much wind for several days (as it will "push" the water and change levels). But when these conditions are met, the small change can be seen as you said.

During that time, as an avid diver, i have also seen the water get noticeably cloudier... From all the toilets flushing into the water. And from the fact that the local politicians are more interested in getting payola from the condo developers than building adequate sewage treatment plants. I have also watched most of the coral reefs around here die.

The idea from the "Pro-" side of this equation is that the time to try and stop or slow it all is before the major melt-offs occur. Simple physics and math will tell us that the water would then rise... With disastrous consequences for everybody on the planet. Are we so sure it won't rise?

I have never met Al Gore, don't trust him, and really don't care what he has to say. I've come to the conclusion that because of the constant attacks on him from the political right, he has actually become a hindrance to the cause. I think it is "very odd"... And highly suspect... that he has been chosen to be the major spokesman for this issue that is really "trans-partisan" and should be way above politics... Considering he is the one person who is automatically disliked by about 49% of the population from the get-go. Many people will crap on what he supports, simply because he is the one saying it.

The "Ron Paul Revolution" was an extremely powerful new force in American politics. Think about this: What do you think "they" (those who hold power) fear most...? Could it be an alliance between the Left and the Ron Paul people (...suddenly being the most populous faction in American politics)? Q: What is the single largest issue that they disagree on? A: Global Warming. Divide and conquer.

The people in power have no need to use GW as a means to control us further: They already have enough ways to do so. "Homeland Security" (a term i despise, since it was coined by hitler in 1933) has worked very nicely. Now they are using the fear of economic collapse... Fear of losing our pensions, 401k's, jobs, healthcare. Unfortunately, i know many peeps who would walk into tyranny with arms wide and mouths shut... Giving up their personal freedoms to keep their corporate jobs, to keep from losing their $300k homes, to get relief from their $20k of credit card debt.

[BobM2006]

Pollution and global warming?

Jibbguy:

Without a doubt there are many areas where water pollution is a serious problem for fish, coral reefs, scuba divers, etc. No one disputes this. The same for polluted air in some areas. But these rivers, sewage dumps, etc, when corrected have shown to correct itself in relatively short time and in a very measurable way. Like the water clears up and fish come back. And smog clears up or improves as regards the air.

The thing is that is totally different than the Global Warming bureacrats and etc, that say adding CO2 to the air will cause global catastrophy unless soon corrected. I am just trying to say that per what my Grandfather said about weather in his time does not sound a lot different than what I am seeing now. And he was alert and working and raising a family on a farm in the early part of the 1900's.

As for observing water rising by eyeballing it on marks on docks over a good many years and observing at relatively the same times and conditions and seasons is not that tough an observation for a sane person. There can be some changes in some places as the Earth is not a perfect ball and it morphs some due to changes in tides, wind currents, seasons, sun spots, and yes climate cycles. No doubt the gravitational pulls of the moon and planets effects it some too. But with all that I have seen nothing remarkable. You say you have seen an inch rise, but you also say why this small amount could be due to any number of reasons. That is my argument. All these things you mention are not going to bring down civilization. I still say to ration ourselves is foolish, and it certainly is if we can't get every other country to do it, and I can assure you we cannot. Try getting the Chinese to stop burning coal for example.

I am just saying the big burner increaser in our culture over the last hundred years has been the automobile, and that, as much as it seems to us small thinkers, it has not been enough to cause catastrophy to the planet, in my humble opinion. There is even some evidence and argument that it might be beneficial for plant life, which life on Earth is dependent upon, and some global warming itself would be beneficial to plants as well.

Again local pollutions are one thing, and catastrophic global warming is entirely another. The attacks on pollution which has cleaned up rivers and streams, and helped with smog in places like Los Angeles, did not require rationing of driving or gasoline nor did it cut back on air conditioning, etc. Much more sensible measures were used.

An example of bureaucrats getting in over their heads to me is the area here where I live. We have beautiful beaches and with the world's most beautiful sand dunes. Well someone decided that people were not to walk on these dunes as the foot steps and paths would provide erosion trails and the dunes would be eroded away by wind and rain cutting along these paths. So I am forbidden from walking along these dunes and enjoying the scenry of the beaches and the ocean. Well it happens that this area is also in an area frequented by hurricanes, and guess what, yep ever so often the dunes get washed away by a particularly bad hurricane. And so efforts are made right away for them to start naturally coming back, and this includes no people walking on them. To me life is for the living. I am a tree hugger as much as the next person, but it is just dumb to keep people from walking on the dunes when a storm will in all probability wash them and change them around anyway.

If we can assure that catastrophy is in the offering due to buring fossel fuels than that is one thing, but if it is a theory only, and I think it is, then lets conserve oil in a meaningful way that is respectful to people living on this globe today. And that does not mean restricting our standard of living to severe degrees, when what will probably happen is someone else will severly restrict others, but favored people such as himself will be exempt of course.

Bob

[jibbguy]

Hehehe Bob, yes yer right my rant about the water pollution and political corruption here in the Keys has nothing to do with GW Its just one of those things that once i get wound-up on, its gonna blow!

I'm old enough to remember the bad-old-days before the great successes of the Ecology movement in the 70's. I grew up on the shores of Lake Erie, which was arguably the very worst example of how Man can ruin his enviroment... The entire lake stank, even out in the center of it you could not see more than 3" down. Oil, dead fish, and styrofoam balls could be seen floating in it all over. And once the laws changed, and chemical and large manufacturing corps were forced to clean up their act, the Great Lakes bounced back amazingly quickly... Now, it is actually possible to drink the water 20 miles out in Lake Erie (.. as a stunt, i don't recommend it for regular use lol). The point of this is that it didn't take hardly any changes in our life style to accomplish this.... Only in the life-styles of corporate executives

So it is with Climate Change. They want to sell you on the horrors of the worst-possible scenarios of Carbon taxes (a totally dead-dog in Congress anyway), energy rationing, draconian measures outlawing jet skis, snowmobiles, 4-wheelers, SUV's, and power boats... You name it. Orwellian nightmares of government control and loss of Freedoms.

However, the greatest possible gains in this would come the same way as it did in the 70's: From the corporations changing their polluting ways. Ending or curtailing the huge amounts of pollutants going out from coal and oil fired boilers, and the gassing-out from strip mines would be by far the most effective thing we could do... And not only for carbon, but a whole range of dangerous chemicals.

I would submit to you all, that forcing these changes would not have any more effect on us as the Ecology movement of the 70's did (for most peeps, that means having to sort your trash for recycling). These things CAN be done without losing our liberty.

However... They will never be done at all as long as the people who have to foot the bill for those changes can convince everyone that it is an "evil conspiracy" .

[BobM2006]

Rant about the water pollution

Jebb,

All that polution of the 70's that you are blaming on the bad old corportations was mostly caused by city, county, and state mishandling of sewage and mostly dumping it into local waters. Or the same city, county, and state officials not passing laws to stop the polluting offenders.

But whatever, you acknowledge it can be cleared up fairly quickly by stopping the water polluting (or air polluting). And you are going against your own argument as you are also claiming it is the automobile causing the current catastrophy of the planet. That my friend is me and you, us coarse folks that travel, and cool and heat our houses and light them. You say oh it would all be cleared up by the smallest of corrections in our standards of living. Cut back a little here and a little there, hardly noticeable. Well now does that not depend on how far you are told to cut back? Do you trust bureacrats that much, especially when they don't have to cut back? I sure do not. But again I would go along with what ever they said cut back to if they had a valid basis for so ordering me to do so, and I am saying they do not. It is all a theory. Twenty five years ago the theory was global cooling, another ice age coming. Somewhere along the line it was the greenhouse effect, and a hole in the ozone, and other things. The media sold this as it sounded good and exciting enough to sell papers and magazines and get people to watch the news. Then the politicians got into it as a way to control things. It stems from politicians finding they could control with passing laws requiring Environmental Impact Statements, and then when these EIS's said the snail darter was endangered they could forbid the bridge or the dam or whatever. Unless there was proper campaign contributions properly donated of course.

I am not saying that corporations should not have to abide by laws just like all the rest of us poor saps do. They should be required to be responsible. But within that statement I do not accept that corporations are not run by responsible people. They are people like me and you. They are not the media styreotypes of the cigar chomping, spatz wearing, stick pin wearing fat slobs of baby eaters and general bullmooses. They are just like every single person born in our epoque and era, just like you and me, they will not do any thing that does not benefit them in some way, and they will stop doing anything that does not continue to benefit them in some way. This however does not make us bad people. It just makes us human people that will do good far more than they will do bad. And yes I have heard of the evil Enron monsters, but they were hauled into court and heartily chastised.

And if you think bureacrats assuming control would suddenly bloom into grey beard noble leaders always having no self interest as opposed to those bad old executives you are accusing of taking us down the prim rose path, then you are truly self deluded. Actually under your grey beard selfless leadership you wouldn't have that at all. You would have the exact people that would otherwise run the corporations. And they would run the govenment owned and managed system exactly the same way they would the corporations. The only difference being there would be no restraining tandem institution as exists under our free enterprise system which is electoral government with its checks and balances. If the government is all there is then who is going to restrain them? Occasional revolutions perhaps?

But back to pollution, it is my view that the advocates of catastrophic Global Warming claim that burning fossel fuels is the monster of the midway, not mismanaged sewage, garbage, trash, fertilizers, insecticides, etc. So I think they are saying that no matter how much we clean up streams, rivers, and oceans as long as we drive SUVs as much as we want then we are headed for unbridled weather and water inundation. I am just saying Hey guys until we are sure lets not force most of us into lawn mower sized vehicles that we can only drive a limited amount. Or put most of us on bicycles, or cut off electricity much of the time to shut down cooling and heating. Hey I live in Florida and I am not sure I can make it without my AC in the summer.

[Peter Lindemann]

Latest Report on Arctic Sea Ice for 2008

Hi Guys,

Just found this report on the extent of Arctic Sea Ice at the end of 2008. The result...... same as 1979!

DailyTech - Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

What can I say?

Peter

[poii]

Latest Report on Arctic Sea Ice for 2008

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

February 15, 2009
In an opinion piece by George Will published on February 15, 2009 in the Washington Post, George Will states "According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979."

We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.

It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts.

end quote




I believe ice thickness explains the winter/summer area divergence from 1979 to now on the graph at the link below. Also we are now at solar minimum, just wait 5 years.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...a.ice.area.pdf

[anut]

Thank you for your clearing up this.

The Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly graph looks very urgy:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...rrent.anom.jpg

We are now at the solar minimum. Apparently, any rebound in solar radiation will further complicate the problem.

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

February 15, 2009
In an opinion piece by George Will published on February 15, 2009 in the Washington Post, George Will states "According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979."

We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.

It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts.

end quote




I believe ice thickness explains the winter/summer area divergence from 1979 to now on the graph at the link below. Also we are now at solar minimum, just wait 5 years.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...a.ice.area.pdf

[Peter Lindemann]

Predicting the Future

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today

February 15, 2009
In an opinion piece by George Will published on February 15, 2009 in the Washington Post, George Will states "According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979."

We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.

It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts.

end quote

I believe ice thickness explains the winter/summer area divergence from 1979 to now on the graph at the link below. Also we are now at solar minimum, just wait 5 years.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...a.ice.area.pdf

Dear Poii,

Thanks for posting this link. It does a better job of explaining the recent data than the article that I found. Thank you.

But this brings up another point I would like to make, and that is, the generally recognized "pseudoscience" of "predicting the future". No one has ever been any good at it, and this includes the "Global Warming Cabal".

The most important historic reference here is in relation to the WEATHER. It was determined, early in the 20th century, that "knowing" what tomorrow's weather will be like would be quite valuable. The people involved in collecting information about what the weather is like "right now" (meteorologists) did NOT want to get into the business of "predicting" the weather. To overcome this problem, they INVENTED A NEW WORD to describe what they were going to be doing, and the WEATHER FORECAST was created. They were relatively assured that the public would not think of them as mere "psychics" if they replaced the word "predict" with the word "forecast", and so, the "spin doctor" was born and the public doubt about predictions was quieted.

Even with the biggest computer models available today, with all of the previous weather data in them, the weather forecast spewed out by these machines is very often WRONG. This is certainly true of long-term forecasting, but is also quite often true of the forecast for tomorrow's weather. The fact is, the Natural World is a living system, and knowing what a living system might do, or how it might respond to a specific stimulation, is nothing more than a GUESS.

"Global Warming" represents a climate forecast, a "long-term" climate forecast. It is based on incomplete data, run through relatively crude computer models of the climate system.

In engineering, there are very sophisticated 3-D physics simulation software packages available now. These computer models were developed over many generations of programming, and tested repeatedly against real world results, to fine tune the program code. Now, these software packages are remarkably accurate and automobiles and jet aircraft are designed, built and tested in the simulators before being built in physical form. When built, they perform nearly flawlessly, because of the accuracy of the software to MODEL the REAL CONDITIONS of the physics involved.

This is, in fact, what is missing with the Global Warming computer models. There has been no long-term, fine-tuning against real world conditions. If this "Global Warming" software was for sale, and the climate was a product in commerce, no one would buy it, because the method isn't mature enough to warrant placing a value on it. It's like Earthquake Prediction.... nobody believes in that! And no one would believe in Climate Prediction either if it had not been sold to us by a well funded media.

The rest is just fear-mongering and a multi-billion dollar PR campaign to sell the MYTH that it is the HUMANS that have caused the planet to warm up. This myth only looks reasonable if you look at short time frames, ignore solar output variations, and assume that the climate is inherently stable. The other way it looks reasonable is to not look too deeply at it and just believe what you're told.

Long-term climate data shows huge, natural swings of climatic conditions on this planet, many of which are related to solar activity, and many others related to other factors like deep ocean currents and atmospheric composition. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is one of the necessary components in the atmosphere that is used by plants to produce photosynthesis and release Oxygen. The ratio of these gases in the atmosphere has NEVER been stable. NEVER. There is no "base line". There are mean averages during different eras, but these are all different.

CO2 is routinely pumped into commercial greenhouse operations to INCREASE plant growth. And that would be the natural response of the living system on the planet if CO2 were actually "getting out of control".

Peter