Anyone who has ever heard the term 'global warming' should read this:

[gsvol]

Statement to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University, made on February 25, 2009.

Madam Chairman and members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee on Environment and Public Works to testify on Climate Change. My name is William Happer, and I am the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University. I am not a climatologist, but I don't think any of the other witnesses are either. I do work in the related field of atomic, molecular and optical physics.

I have spent my professional life studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation withgases - one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect.

I have published over 200 papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. I am a member of a number of professional organizations, including the American Physical Society and the National Academy of Sciences.

I have done extensive consulting work for the US Government and Industry. I also served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy (DOE) from 1990 to 1993, where I supervised all of DOE's work on climate change.

I have come here today as a concerned citizen to express my personal views, and those of many like me, about US climate-change policy. These are not official views of my main employer, Princeton University, nor of any other organization with which I am associated.

Let me state clearly where I probably agree with the other witnesses.

We have been in a period of global warming over the past 200 years, but there have been several periods, like the last ten years, when the warming has ceased, and there have even been periods of substantial cooling, as from 1940 to 1970.

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased from about 280 to 380 parts per million over past 100 years. The combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, has contributed to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And finally, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the earth's surface to warm.

The key question is: will the net effect of the warming, and any other effects of the CO2, be good or bad for humanity?

I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind.

I predict that future historians will look back on this period much as we now view the period just before the passage of the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution to prohibit "the manufacturing, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors."

At the time, the 18th amendment seemed to be exactly the right thing to do - who wanted to be in league with demon rum? It was the 1917 version of saving the planet.

More than half the states enacted prohibition laws before the 18th amendment was ratified. Only one state, Rhode Island, voted against the 18th amendment. Two states, Illinois and Indiana, never got around to voting and all the rest voted for it.

There were many thoughtful people, including a majority of Rhode Islanders, who thought that prohibition might do more harm than good. But they were completely outmatched by the temperance movement, whose motives and methods had much in common with the movement to stop climate change.

Deeply sincere people thought they were saving humanity from the evils of alcohol, just as many people now sincerely think they are saving humanity from the evils of CO2.

Prohibition was a mistake, and our country has probably still not fully recovered from the damage it did. Institutions like organized crime got their start in that era.

Drastic limitations on CO2 are likely to damage our country in analogous ways.

But what about the frightening consequences of increasing levels of CO2 that we keep hearing about?

In a word, they are wildly exaggerated, just as the purported benefits of prohibition were wildly exaggerated.

Let me turn now to the science and try to explain why I and many scientists like me are not alarmed by increasing levels of CO2.

The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work.

Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life.

However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player.

There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree.

Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can.

It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but you're are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.

Since most of the greenhouse effect for the earth is due to water vapor and clouds, added CO2 must substantially increase water's contribution to lead to the frightening scenarios that are bandied about.

The buzz word here is that there is "positive feedback." With each passing year, experimental observations further undermine the claim of a large positive feedback from water.

In fact, observations suggest that the feedback is close to zero and may even be negative.

That is, water vapor and clouds may actually diminish the already small global warming expected from CO2, not amplify it. The evidence here comes from satellite measurements of infraredradiation escaping from the earth into outer space, from measurements of sunlight reflected from clouds and from measurements of the temperature the earth's surface or of the troposphere, the roughly 10 km thick layer of the atmosphere above the earth's surface that is filled with churning air and clouds, heated from below at the earth's surface, and cooled at the top by radiation into space.

But the climate is warming and CO2 is increasing. Doesn't this prove that CO2 is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect?

No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2.

There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels.

The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide.

Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models.

The climate has changed many times in the past with no help by mankind.

Recall that the Romans grew grapes in Britain around the year 100, and Viking settlers prospered on small farms in Greenland for several centuries during the Medieval Climate Optimum around 1100.

People have had an urge to control the climate throughout history so I suppose it is no surprise that we are at it again today. For example, in June of 1644, the Bishop of Geneva led a flock of believers to the face of a glacier that was advancing "by over a musket shot" every day. The glacier would soon destroy a village. The Bishop and his flock prayed over the glacier, and it is said to have stopped.

The poor Vikings had long since abandoned Greenland where the advancing glaciers and cooling climate proved much less susceptible to prayer.

Sometimes the obsession for control of the climate got a bit out of hand, as in the Aztec state, where the local scientific/religious establishment of the year 1500 had long since announced that the debate was over and that at least 20,000 human sacrifices a year were needed to keep the sun moving, the rain falling, and to stop climate change. The widespread dissatisfaction of the people who were unfortunate enough to be the source of these sacrifices played an important part in the success of the Spanish conquest of Mexico.

The existence of climate variability in the past has long been an embarrassment to those who claim that all climate change is due to man and that man can control it.

When I was a schoolboy, my textbooks on earth science showed a prominent "medieval warm period" at the time the Vikings settled Greenland, followed by a vicious "little ice age" that drove them out.

So I was very surprised when I first saw the celebrated "hockey stick curve," in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC.

I could hardly believe my eyes. Both the little ice age and the Medieval Warm Period were gone, and the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 had suddenly become absolutely flat until the last hundred years when it shot up like the blade on a hockey stick.

This was far from an obscure detail, and the hockey stick was trumpeted around the world as evidence that the end was near.

We now know that the hockey stick has nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature records and incorrect statistical analysis.

There really was a little ice age and there really was a medieval warm period that was as warm or warmer than today.

I bring up the hockey stick as a particularly clear example that the IPCC summaries for policy makers are not dispassionate statements of the facts of climate change.

It is a shame, because many of the IPCC chapters are quite good. The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me of the motto of Orwell's Ministry of Information in the novel "1984:" "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future."

The IPCC has made no serious attempt to model the natural variations of the earth's temperature in the past. Whatever caused these large past variations, it was not due to people burning coal and oil.

If you can't model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future?

Many of us are aware that we are living in an ice age, where we have hundred-thousand-year intervals of big continental glaciers that cover much of the land area of the northern hemisphere, interspersed with relative short interglacial intervals like the one we are living in now.

By looking at ice cores from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, one can estimate past temperatures and atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Al Gore likes to display graphs of temperature and CO2 concentrations over the past million years or so, showing that when CO2 rises, the temperature also rises. Doesn't this prove that the temperature is driven by CO2?

Absolutely not! If you look carefully at these records, you find that first the temperature goes up, and then the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere goes up.

There is a delay between a temperature increase and a CO2 increase of about 800 years. This casts serious doubt on CO2 as a climate driver because of the fundamental concept of causality. A cause must precede its effect.

For example, I hear my furnace go on in the morning about six o'clock, and by about 7 o'clock, I notice that my house is now so warm that I have too many covers on my bed. It is time to get up. It would never occur to me to assume that the furnace started burning gas at 6 o'clock because the house got warm at 7 o'clock. Sure, temperature and gas burning are correlated, just like temperature and atmospheric levels of CO2. But the thing that changes first is the cause.

In the case of the ice cores, the cause of increased CO2 is almost certainly the warming of the oceans.

The oceans release dissolved CO2 when they warm up, just like a glass of beer rapidly goes flat in a warm room. If not CO2, then what really causes the warming at the end of the cold periods of ice ages?

A great question and one of the reasons I strongly support research in climate.

I keep hearing about the "pollutant CO2," or about "poisoning the atmosphere" with CO2, or about minimizing our "carbon footprint."

This brings to mind another Orwellian pronouncement that is worth pondering: "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."

CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving "pollutant" and "poison" of their original meaning.

Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration.

CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth. Commercial greenhouse operators often use CO2 as a fertilizer to improve the health and growth rate of their plants.

Plants, and our own primate ancestors evolved when the levels of atmospheric CO2 were about 1000 ppm, a level that we will probably not reach by burning fossil fuels, and far above our current level of about 380 ppm.

We try to keep CO2 levels in our US Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels.

We are all aware that "the green revolution" has increased crop yields around the world. Part of this wonderful development is due to improved crop varieties, better use of mineral fertilizers, herbicides, etc.

But no small part of the yield improvement has come from increased atmospheric levels of CO2.

Plants photosynthesize more carbohydrates when they have more CO2. Plants are also more drought-tolerant with more CO2, because they need not "inhale" as much air to get the CO2 needed for photosynthesis.

At the same time, the plants need not "exhale" as much water vapor when they are using air enriched in CO2. Plants decrease the number of stomata or air pores on their leaf surfaces in response to increasing atmospheric levels of CO2. They are adapted to changing CO2 levels and they prefer higher levels than those we have at present.

If we really were to decrease our current level of CO2 of around 400 ppm to the 270 ppm that prevailed a few hundred years ago, we would lose some of the benefits of the green revolution.

Crop yields will continue to increase as CO2 levels go up, since we are far from the optimum levels for plant growth. Commercial greenhouse operators are advised to add enough CO2 to maintain about 1000 ppm around their plants.

Indeed, economic studies like those of Dr. Robert Mendelsohn at Yale University project that moderate warming is an overall benefit to mankind because of higher agricultural yields and many other reasons.

I remember being forced to read Voltaire's novel, Candide, when I was young. You recall that Dr. Pangloss repeatedly assured young Candide that he was living in "the best of all possible worlds," presumably also with the best of all CO2 concentrations.

That we are (or were) living at the best of all CO2 concentrations seems to be a tacit assumption of the IPCC executive summaries for policy makers.

Enormous effort and imagination have gone into showing that increasing concentrations of CO2 will be catastrophic, cities will be flooded by sea-level rises that are ten or more times bigger than even IPCC predicts, there will be mass extinctions of species, billions of people will die, tipping points will render the planet a desert.

A few months ago I read that global warming will soon bring on a devastating epidemic of kidney stones. If you write down all the ills attributed to global warming you fill up a very thick book.

Much is made about tropical diseases like malaria and yellow fever devastating the populations of temperate climates because of the burning of fossil fuels and the subsequent warming of the earth.

Many people who actually work with tropical diseases, notably Dr. Paul Reiter, a specialist on tropical diseases, have pointed out how silly all of this is.

Perhaps I can add a few bits of history to illustrate this point. One of the first military expenditures of the Continental Congress in 1775 was $300 to purchase quinine for the Continental Army and to mitigate the effects of malaria. The Continental Congress moved from the then Capital of the United States , Philadelphia, to my home town of Princeton, New Jersey, in the summer of 1783 for two reasons.

The first was that the Congress had not yet paid many soldiers of the Revolutionary War their promised wages, and disgruntled veterans were wandering up and down the streets of Philadelphia.

Secondly, there were outbreaks of malaria in cities as far north as Boston. The Congress knew you were less likely to catch malaria in Princeton than in Philadelphia.

In 1793 there was not only malaria, but a horrendous outbreak of yellow fever in Philadelphia. Many thousands of people died in a city with a population of about 50,000. And I should point out that Philadelphia was a bit cooler then than now, since the little ice age was just coming to an end.

Controlling tropical diseases and many other diseases has little to do with temperature, and everything to do with curtailing the factors that cause the spread - notably mosquitoes in the case of malaria and yellow fever.

Many of the frightening scenarios about global warming come from large computer calculations, "general circulation models," that try to mimic the behavior of the earth's climate as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere.

It is true that climate models use increasingly capable and increasingly expensive computers. But their predictions have not been very good.

For example, none of them predicted the lack of warming that we have experienced during the past ten years. All the models assume the water feedback is positive, while satellite observations suggest that the feedback is zero or negative.

Modelers have been wrong before. One of the most famous modeling disputes involved the physicist William Thompson, later Lord Kelvin, and the naturalist Charles Darwin. Lord Kelvin was a great believer in models and differential equations. Charles Darwin was not particularly facile with mathematics, but he took observations very seriously. For evolution to produce the variety of living and fossil species that Darwin had observed, the earth needed to have spent hundreds of millions of years with conditions not very different from now.

With his mathematical models, Kelvin rather pompously demonstrated that the earth must have been a hellish ball of molten rock only a few tens of millions of years ago, and that the sun could not have been shining for more than about 30 million years.

Kelvin was actually modeling what he thought was global and solar cooling. I am sorry to say that a majority of his fellow physicists supported Kelvin. Poor Darwin removed any reference to the age of the earth in later editions of the "The Origin of Species." But Darwin was right the first time, and Kelvin was wrong.

Kelvin thought he knew everything but he did not know about the atomic nucleus, radioactivity and nuclear reactions, all of which invalidated his elegant modeling calculations.

This brings up the frequent assertion that there is a consensus behind the idea that there is an impending disaster from climate change, and that it may already be too late to avert this catastrophe, even if we stop burning fossil fuels now.

We are told that only a few flat-earthers still have any doubt about the calamitous effects of continued CO2 emissions. There are a number of answers to this assertion.

First, what is correct in science is not determined by consensus but by experiment and observations.

Historically, the consensus is often wrong, and I just mentioned the incorrect consensus of modelers about the age of the earth and the sun.

During the yellow fever epidemic of 1793 in Philadelphia the medical consensus was that you could cure almost anything by bleeding the patient. Benjamin Rush, George Washington's Surgeon General during the War of Independence, and a brave man, stayed in Philadelphia throughout the yellow fever epidemic. He worked tirelessly to save the stricken by bleeding them, the consensus treatment of the day.

A few cautious observers noticed that you were more likely to survive the yellow fever without the services of the great man. But Dr. Rush had plenty of high level-friends and he was backed up by the self-evident consensus, so he went ahead with his ministrations. In summary, a consensus is often wrong.

Secondly, I do not think there is a consensus about an impending climate crisis. I personally certainly don't believe we are facing a crisis unless we create one for ourselves, as Benjamin Rush did by bleeding his patients.

Many others, wiser than I am, share my view. The number of those with the courage to speak out is growing.

There may be an illusion of consensus. Like the temperance movement one hundred years ago the climate-catastrophe movement has enlisted the mass media, the leadership of scientific societies, the trustees of charitable foundations, and many other influential people to their cause.

Just as editorials used to fulminate about the slippery path to hell behind the tavern door, hysterical op-ed's lecture us today about the impending end of the planet and the need to stop climate change with bold political action.

Many distinguished scientific journals now have editors who further the agenda of climate-change alarmism.

Research papers with scientific findings contrary to the dogma of climate calamity are rejected by reviewers, many of whom fear that their research funding will be cut if any doubt is cast on the coming climate catastrophe.

Speaking of the Romans, then invading Scotland in the year 83, the great Scottish chieftain Calgacus is quoted as saying "They make a desert and call it peace."

If you have the power to stifle dissent, you can indeed create the illusion of peace or consensus.

The Romans have made impressive inroads into climate science.

Certainly, it is a bit unnerving to read statements of Dr. James Hansen in the Congressional Record that climate skeptics are guilty of "high crimes against humanity and nature."

Even elementary school teachers and writers of children's books are enlisted to terrify our children and to promote the idea of impending climate doom.

Having observed the education of many children, including my own, I am not sure how effective the effort will be. Many children seem to do just the opposite of what they are taught.

Nevertheless, children should not be force-fed propaganda, masquerading as science.

Many of you may know that in 2007 a British Court ruled that if Al Gore's book, "An Inconvenient Truth," was used in public schools, the children had to be told of eleven particularly troubling inaccuracies.

You can easily find a list of the inaccuracies on the internet, but I will mention one. The court ruled that it was not possible to attribute hurricane Katrina to CO2.

Indeed, had we taken a few of the many billions of dollars we have been spending on climate change research and propaganda and fixed the dykes and pumps around the New Orleans, most of the damage from Hurricane Katrina could have been avoided.

The sea level is indeed rising, just as it has for the past 20,000 years since the end of the last ice age.

Fairly accurate measurements of sea level have been available since about 1800. These measurements show no sign of any acceleration.

The rising sea level can be a serious local problem for heavily-populated, low-lying areas like New Orleans, where land subsidence compounds the problem. But to think that limiting CO2 emissions will stop sea level rise is a dangerous illusion.

It is also possible that the warming seas around Antarctica will cause more snowfall over the continent and will counteract the sea-level rise.

In any case, the rising sea level is a problem that needs quick local action for locations like New Orleans rather than slow action globally.

In closing, let me say again that we should provide adequate support to the many brilliant scientists, some at my own institution of Princeton University, who are trying to better understand the earth's climate, now, in the past, and what it may be in the future.

I regret that the climate-change issue has become confused with serious problems like secure energy supplies, protecting our environment, and figuring out where future generations will get energy supplies after we have burned all the fossil fuel we can find.

We should not confuse these laudable goals with hysterics about carbon footprints. For example, when weighing pluses and minuses of the continued or increased use of coal, the negative issue should not be increased atmospheric CO2, which is probably good for mankind.

We should focus on real issues like damage to the land and waterways by strip mining, inadequate remediation, hazards to miners, the release of real pollutants and poisons like mercury, other heavy metals, organic carcinogens, etc.

Life is about making decisions and decisions are about trade-offs.

The Congress can choose to promote investment in technology that addresses real problems and scientific research that will let us cope with real problems more efficiently.

Or they can act on unreasonable fears and suppress energy use, economic growth and the benefits that come from the creation of national wealth.

William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University where his main areas of focus have been on atomic, molecular and optical physics. His professional work has been in studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with gases -- one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect.


Some notes of my own, the only "high crimes against humanity and nature," mentioned by James Hansen were those he has committed himself. I would add "treason" against his fellow Americans. gs

For one Hansen still refuses to divulge his algorithm used to generate graph data, however through painstaking effort, concerned private citizens found enough errors to force NASA to revise some of their past statements.

Revised NASA climate statements reveal;

1998 wasn't the hottest year since 1900, 1934 was.

5 of the 10 hottest years came before WW II and one in 1953.

4 years since 2000 have been cooler than 1900.

Additionally: Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”

For anyone interested in real science rather than UN IPCC and democrat propaganda, you can't beat the above article published Aug. 18, 2009.

Perhaps this will finally end the attempt by the Obama Administration as well as congress to tax a substance that trees need to survive, the very air we exhale thousands of times a day.

Think about it, that's what I'm talking about.

 

[TennTradition]

I have no problems with some (or maybe a lot) of what he says, but he obviously disagrees with the views of many other scientists on the role of feedback. My conclusions are certainly different than his, but they are informed by the compilation of studies he disagrees with for the most part, I guess.

I don't think that bringing up the CO2 lags temperature argument and using Al Gore's movie as an example of misinformation is overly useful anymore - it has been explained and agreed to many times. However, maybe I am wrong, because it keeps on being brought up...by Lindzen, for example, and now Happer. I get annoyed at the wide-eyed look often held when this point is made, like, see, 'bet you didn't know that.' Maybe its just me...

I submit the following for the record:

Hearing Archives :Committee on Ways & Means :: U.S. House of Representatives :

 

[gsvol]

I have no problems with some (or maybe a lot) of what he says, but he obviously disagrees with the views of many other scientists on the role of feedback. My conclusions are certainly different than his, but they are informed by the compilation of studies he disagrees with for the most part, I guess.

I don't think that bringing up the CO2 lags temperature argument and using Al Gore's movie as an example of misinformation is overly useful anymore - it has been explained and agreed to many times. However, maybe I am wrong, because it keeps on being brought up...by Lindzen, for example, and now Happer. I get annoyed at the wide-eyed look often held when this point is made, like, see, 'bet you didn't know that.' Maybe its just me...

I submit the following for the record:

Hearing Archives :Committee on Ways & Means :: U.S. House of Representatives :

For the record, Prinn's presentation from 2 1/2+ years ago is merely a regurggitation of IPCC findings which is marxist dogma under a thin veil of pseudo-science, liberally sprinkled with PC buzz words.

At the bottom of my original post in this thread is a link to summation of a report by Lindzen, (also of MIT) presented in June of '09 with the latest data showing the IPCC predictions concerning the effects of CO2 to be six times the true factor.

Up late or early in the land of the midnight sun??

I spent about three hours last night picking apart Prinn's piece, (that work lost due to PC crash) for one thing his sensational remarks about the history of earth temperature have been revised, brought about by painstaking efforts by individuals who demanded to see the raw data used to compile the IPCC reports, no wonder the IPCC is extremely secretive about what they use to arrive at their conclusions.

Revised NASA satelite data show only 3 years to be the warmest since 1900 and 4 years since 2000 have been cooler than 1900.

If the IPCC is so infallible, then why has the first ten years of their predicted conclusions been the opposite of reality and bearing that in mind how do we put any credence in their predictions for the whole of the 21st century???

Also: (among many other things, most of which are flawed IPCC data or just outright misrepresentation of facts and/or erroneous, even silly conclusions based on nonsequiturish thinking or rhetoric as the case may be.)

New findings indicate today's greenhouse gas levels not unusual.

"Stopping climate change" may be all the rage with celebrities and environmental lobbyists, but fortunately for the rest of us, the scare's scientific foundation is rapidly disintegrating.

One of the fundamental pillars of the hypothesis that humanity is causing dangerous climate change is the belief that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), the greenhouse gas of concern in countries such as Canada, have been rising steadily since the start of the industrial revolution.

But what if CO2 levels have not increased? How could our emissions of this otherwise benign gas then have anything to do with the past century's modest warming?


While Antarctic ice core records supposedly 'prove' a significant increase in CO2 in this period, there are serious problems with this data.

Besides the fact that ice bubbles take about 80 years to form and so cannot give a single year accurate measure, the continual freezing, refreezing and pressurization of ice columns may greatly alter the original composition of the air trapped in the bubbles.

Nevertheless, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many others have accepted as meaningful the ice core results that indicate a pre-industrial CO2 level of 280 parts per million (ppm), in comparison with today's 385 ppm.


The most accurate way to determine the atmosphere's average CO2 content is to simply conduct a direct chemical analysis at many different places and times.

Fortunately, there are more than 90,000 direct measurements by chemical methods between 1857 and 1957.

However, in what appears to be a case of 'cherry-picking' data to fit a pre-determined conclusion, (by the UN IPCC)gs, only the lower level CO2 data were included when the pre-industrial average was calculated.

This is the average that was used to supposedly 'validate' the long term ice core records on which Al Gore and others depend.

So, if not 280 ppm, what was the real pre-industrial level of CO2?

In a new scientific paper in the journal Energy and Environment, German researcher Ernst-Georg Beck, shows that the pre-industrial level is some 50 ppm higher than the level used by computer models that produce all future climate predictions.

Completely at odds with the smoothly increasing levels found in the ice core records, Beck concludes, "Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated, exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942, the latter showing more than 400 ppm."

In a paper submitted to US Senate Committee hearings, Polish Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, a veteran mountaineer who has excavated ice from 17 glaciers on six continents, stated bluntly, "The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic [human] causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere.

This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false."


Another measure of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is the size of stomata, the small openings on plant leaves which vary in size with CO2 levels.

Stomata data also support Beck's conclusions.

Dr. Tim Ball (author of this article) is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the Univ. of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Bare in mind also that Earth has naturally been undergoing a warming trend that began before the industrial revolution had anything to do with the weather and that during warming trends the warming of ocean temperatures naturallly releases CO2 into the atmosphere.

If you had children or grandchildren in publicly funded school would you want them propagandized with Al Gore's clap trap pseudo-science????

What the UN IPCC and the current illegitimate administration in DC with their democrat socialist backers in congress along with international bankers and energy moguls want is worse than throwing the baby out with the bath water, what they want to do is tantamount to killing the American dream that has served us well for over two hundred years.

UN IPCC accused of falsifying and destroying data to validate their incorrect predictions.

I AM SHOCKED!!!, Shocked I tell you, we all know the UN and it's IPCC is completely objective and totally bereft of any sort of corruption or hidden political agenda!!!! :hmm:

 

[volinbham]

I have no problems with some (or maybe a lot) of what he says, but he obviously disagrees with the views of many other scientists on the role of feedback.

How solid is the concensus on feedback? What's the likelihood this guy is right about feedback?

Just curious.

 

[gsvol]

Do I really have to say that??







From the article; Up against the warming zealots:

For any period of global warming that is primarily caused by increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, the laws of both physics and logic require all three of the following conditions to be true:

The temperature of the troposphere must increase at a faster rate than that of the lower atmoshpere.
The rise in the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide must be followed by an increase in global average temperature, and

The rise in global average temperature must be preceded by rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Unfortunately for those who have ulterior, political motives for having you believe that global warming is caused by human production of carbon dioxide, none of the three necessary conditions hold:

Since satellite measurements began in the 1960s, at no time did the temperature of the troposphere ever increase at a faster rate than that of the lower atmosphere--in other words, to believe that global warming is caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide is to believe, for no known reason, that the laws of physics do not apply in this special case.

There have been many periods, such as the last 9 years since 1998, and also the period from the 1940s to the 1970s, when increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have not been followed by increasing average global temperatures--so either the laws of logic do not apply, or else increased levels of carbon dioxide do not cause global warming, and

The ice core data show that carbon dioxide levels almost always rise only after a preceding rise in average global temperatures--so either the laws of cause and effect are reversed, or else rising levels of carbon dioxide are not a cause of global warming, but are instead an effect thereof.

To the utter dismay of the global warming lobby, the world does not appear to be getting warmer.

According to their own figures (from the UN-linked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the temperature has been static or slightly declining since 1998. The satellite data confirms this. This is clearly awkward.

The least one should expect of global warming theory is that the Earth should be getting warmer.

Then there's the ice-core data, the jewel in the crown of global warming theory. It shows there's a connection between carbon dioxide and temperature: see Al Gore's movie. But what Gore forgets to mention is that the connection is the wrong way around; temperature leads, CO2 follows.

Then there's the precious "hockey stick". This was the famous graph that purported to show global temperature flat-lining for 1000 years, then rising during the 19th and 20th centuries. It magicked away the Medieval warm period and made the recent warming look alarming, instead of just part of the general toing and froing of the Earth's climate.

But then researchers took the computer program that produced the hockey stick graph and fed it random data. Bingo, out popped hockey stick shapes every time. (See the report by Edward Wegman of George Mason University in Virginia and others.)

In a humiliating climb down, the IPCC has had to drop the hockey stick from its reports, though it can still be seen in Gore's movie.

And finally, there are those pesky satellites. If greenhouse gases were the cause of warming, then the rate of warming should have been greater, higher up in the Earth's atmosphere (the bit known as the troposphere). But all the satellite and balloon data says the exact opposite. In other words, the best observational data we have flatly contradicts the whole bally idea of man-made climate change.

They concede that CO2 cannot have caused the warming at the beginning of the 20th century, which was greater and steeper than the recent warming.

They can't explain the cooling from 1940 to the mid-'70s. What are they left with? Some mild warming in the '80s and '90s that does not appear to have been caused by greenhouse gases.

The whole damned theory is in tatters.

No wonder they're defensive.

Expect feedback to get warmer.

 

[IPorange]

How solid is the concensus on feedback? What's the likelihood this guy is right about feedback?

Just curious.

It's as solid as they come, honestly. There are two types of feedback: positive and negative. There seem to be more and stronger positive feedback mechanisms regarding global temperature. I'm not going to try and combat the walls of copy-and-paste, but here's a link that lays things out pretty fairly:

Climate Feedback Mechanisms and Human Response

 

[IPorange]

From the article; Up against the warming zealots:




Expect feedback to get warmer.

A lot of the things you quoted from the article don't make sense to me. First portion you bolded: the troposphere IS the lowest level of Earth's atmosphere. There's nothing lower to "not warm" as quickly.

The whole "CO2 lags behind temperature rise in ice cores" is a very tired avenue. It's been addressed many times before.

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

In regards to the IPCC report's data showing the temperature has been static since 1998, we've had a cooler last two years (cooler relative to the current trend, still warmer than most of the last 100 years). So yes, if one measured temperatures relative to the hottest year on record, it appears as if we are static or cooler. Not that awkward, given the context. Of course, 10 or 11 years doesn't make for a picture of climate. Especially when one factors in the slight dip in solar output of the last few years: The Solar Cycle and Global Warming : Starts With A Bang


The hockey stick was made into a bigger deal than it was. Here's a corrected version, with different sources color-coded:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

To call it a "humiliating climb down" is just bluster. They published corrected graphs showing the same data that have not met with controversy.


Again, your snippet refers to the troposphere as being the higher atmosphere. It's not. It's the lowest part, and the part we live in. What your article is trying to say is that the STRATOSPHERE has been cooling, not warming. This is true. But far from contradicting the theories behind GCC, it supports it. The long wave radiation that the Earth radiates back into space has always been partly trapped and reflected back by greenhouse gasses. As the amount of greenhouse gasses increases, even less long wave radiation is getting to the higher levels of the atmosphere, thus they are cooling while the lower atmosphere, the troposphere, is warming.


I know you have more than dug your heels in on your opinion on things and am sure my post will meet swift rebuke and retaliation with all sorts of smarty-pants remarks. That's cool. It doesn't make you any less wrong. Who's really the zealot, here?

 

[gsvol]

More negative feedback:

"The readings at Logan Airport are an absolute joke and yet these are the official readings that make up Boston's climatological data.

I don't know how many times these past winters that Logan would be reporting 40 degrees and rain while the rest of Boston would be 31 degrees and snowing.

In one ludicrous example I can remember a few years back, Boston proper got socked with a foot of snow and yet Logan Airport reported something like 4.3 inches of slush.

But if anybody knows the geography of Logan Airport, they would know that nobody lives out there but the seagulls. It is basically landfill, covered with concrete and surrounded by water on three sides so the temperatures are unduly influenced by the surrounding salt water and all the concrete.

About the stupidest place you could put a weather station in the Boston area."
John Q. Citizen

 

[IPorange]

There is a difference between weather and climate change, and the author of that quote is oblivious to it.

 

[TennTradition]

How solid is the concensus on feedback? What's the likelihood this guy is right about feedback?

Just curious.

For the most part, as far as I can tell, the consensus is quite strong on feedbacks (those that we know about, at least). I can say that the water feedback is VERY significant portion of the projected temperature rise. Basically, more warming causes more water vapor to enter the air when in turn causes some more greenhouse warming. However, some of that water will form clouds, and clouds reflect sunlight, becomes a form of negative feedback. So, there is both positive and negative feedback at play.

IP - where does the debate on clouds stand? I know than Prinn said a few years ago when I took his class that there was still a lot of work being done on cloud formation to try to understand the feedback better...where has that gone? I will say that if they get water wrong, then they will get the temperature predictions wrong. Interestingly enough, I also think that the cloud formation issue is a function of aerosols, further coupling the feedbacks.

 

[orangeblooded2]

TT.

I have picked up on some information about the earths magnetic field going weak over a large portion of the south Atlantic. Some of the statements have the earth in dire straights in about 1500 years. I understand the mechanism of the magnetic field, however I would like to know if any anomaly specific research is going on currently. Not saying it is or is not a contributing factor to global warming. just something that should be researched.

 

[gsvol]

It's as solid as they come, honestly. There are two types of feedback: positive and negative. There seem to be more and stronger positive feedback mechanisms regarding global temperature. I'm not going to try and combat the walls of copy-and-paste, but here's a link that lays things out pretty fairly:

Climate Feedback Mechanisms and Human Response

Honestly??? As solid as jelly nailed to the wall??

Not combat cut and pastes?? No you are going to combat with links to simplified IPCC propgaganda written to impact juevenile mentality!!!

And we all know the IPCC can be trusted on the same level as your own mother to protect us from harm of any kind.

Notice in their double plus good duck speak "if and would be" morphs into "can and will be."

And notice you cannot cut and past their articles so that on some informed forum it can be torn to pieces with logic and factoids.

They admit; "Currently it is NOT KNOWN whether these changes will be negative or positive feedback."

Now that's what I call rock solid; ie "We don't know" which is the only truthful thing I've ever heard from the IPCC.

I can get far more accurate data from my pet weather rock.

A few observations to date;

1. If it is day time and it's not cloudy, the rock will become hotter.

2. If it is day time and it is cloudy, the rock will warm some but not significantly.

3. If it is night time and cloudy, the rock will cool.

4. If it is night time and clear skied, (whether the sky appears to be falling or not), the rock will cool more that if it were cloudy.

5. Several other observations involving cloudy days and clear nights and/or clear days and cloudy nights and/or if both day and night cloud cover are the same and /or if half, one quarter, or even one eigth of either are the same or different with the caveat that spring and fall equinox and winter and summer solstice have an appreciable affect, plus if I pee on the rock that doesn't neccessaily mean it is or is not raining, it only means that even with a pet weather rock, there can be man made interventions,..... then there are those enigmas such as; if the top of the rock is white, does that mean it's snowing or does it mean some endangered (or shrinking) specie has flown by and left a little message??


Politics of Climate Science: Selective Research, Ignored Facts.

Ignorance and Misunderstanding is Everywhere.

Generally the public is unaware water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gases by volume and CO2 is less than 4%, yet water vapor is virtually ignored.

(Also ignored is that man made CO2 is only a small percentage of the total CO2 content of the atmoshere on this planet.)gs
...................................

Thomas Huxley said, “The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

The hypothesis that human CO2 is causing warming is slain because they essentially ignored the role of water vapor in the atmosphere, but when used it was done incorrectly. Of course, none of this speaks to clouds, the other major water problem in the atmosphere for the global warming hypothesis and computer models.

Now the world is in a blind alley with energy and economic policies based on predictions from climate models that omit major elements and use false assumptions.

Another note; our sun plays a far far greater role in the formation of cloud cover on Earth than mankind can ever possibly achieve with anything remotely resembling present technology.

 

[TennTradition]

Unfortunately I can't help you at all on that one, orangeblood. This really isn't my research area, just an interest, so I only keep up to certain aspects...and the magnetic field and how that might affect climate isn't one of them. My guess is, yes, it is being done...but I can't point you in any direction. Anyone else got anything?

 

[gsvol]

There is a difference between weather and climate change, and the author of that quote is oblivious to it.

No, what's painfully apparent is that you appear be oblivious to the fact that such idiotic input from ill stationed and inconsistent weather stations contribute a great deal of the data entered into incompetently written computer programs that end up with laughable predictions by the IPCC on climate change!!

In short, stupid in, stupid out.

 

[gsvol]

A lot of the things you quoted from the article don't make sense to me.

No doubt! I have no problem understanding that you don't understand much of what exists outside your sheeple mentality.

First portion you bolded: the troposphere IS the lowest level of Earth's atmosphere. There's nothing lower to "not warm" as quickly.

You do understand the various levels of the atmosphere??

The whole "CO2 lags behind temperature rise in ice cores" is a very tired avenue. It's been addressed many times before.

It's a fact, what is your problem?

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

Please tell me you jest.

In regards to the IPCC report's data showing the temperature has been static since 1998, we've had a cooler last two years (cooler relative to the current trend, still warmer than most of the last 100 years). So yes, if one measured temperatures relative to the hottest year on record, it appears as if we are static or cooler. Not that awkward, given the context. Of course, 10 or 11 years doesn't make for a picture of climate. Especially when one factors in the slight dip in solar output of the last few years:

Solar output is tantamount to understanding our planet's weather.

If we could just understand how fusion works, all our energy needs would be no problem.

The Solar Cycle and Global Warming : Starts With A Bang

Space probes have shown other planets in our solar system, such as Mars, Neptune and Jupiter to be experiencing global warming, demonstrate how human activity has caused this and you have my attention.

The hockey stick was made into a bigger deal than it was. Here's a corrected version, with different sources color-coded:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

By the IPCC and their moronic proponents, which had to totally retreat from their idiotic hockey stick claims but who still persist.

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change reported in 2009 that the “Medieval Warm Period was: (1) global in extent, (2) at least as warm as, but likely even warmer than, the Current Warm Period, and (3) of a duration significantly longer than that of the Current Warm Period to date.”

In addition, The Science and Public Policy Institute reported in May 2009: “More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was real, global, and warmer than the present.

And the numbers grow larger daily.” After promoting the eco-group World Wildlife Fund's new climate study, the Washington Post also digs up a scientist with a woeful reputation, Robert Corell, and chooses not to identify his employment with the partisan Heinz Foundation, vice-chaired by Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Senator John Kerry (who recently claimed: Global Warming Is The Next 9/11) Eilperin felt compelled to state that Fred Singer was a “skeptic” but the reporter felt no obligation to label any other scientists she cited in the article.

Reporter Eilperin wrote: “Robert Correll, who chairs the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, said the paper in Science will likely 'in the long haul become a seminal piece in the scientific literature" because it allows other climate researchers "to set their work in a long time scale.'”

First off, Eilperin misspelled Corell's name as “Correll.”

Second, Eilperin could not find the space in her article to note Corell's affiliation with former Vice President Al Gore or his role in the left-wing Heinz Center or the fact that Corell, has been under fire for dubious climate claims. I

n addition, Corell has been linked to an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and he was reportedly sponsored by the left-leaning Packard Foundation.

Robert Corell Publicly Rebuked For Incorrect Climate Claims:

Most shockingly, Corell was publicly rebuked for incorrect climate claims by a prominent scientist who studies Greenland in 2007.

Corell made the assertion that he knew Greenland was being impacted by man-made global warming, stating: "I spent four months on the [Greenland] ice cap in 1968 and there was no melting at all."

Corell did not even attempt to give a balanced historical view of Greenland's ice and temperature history. (for inconvenient report see: 2007 analysis of peer-reviewed literature debunks fears of Greenland melting)

But Corell's assertion in a September 8, 2007 UK Guardian article that earthquakes triggered by melting ice are increasing in Greenland was rebuffed by University of North Carolina's Jose Rial.

Rial is a prominent climatologist/seismologist working on glacial seismic activity in Greenland. Corell's erroneous claim prompted Rial to take the unusual step of writing a letter to the UK Guardian.

"I also know that there is no evidence to suggest that these quakes 'are happening far faster than ever anticipated' [as Corell claimed,"] wrote Rial in a September 13, 2007 letter.

Rial criticized the newspaper for presenting a 'falling-sky' alarmist perspective and added that "it will take years of continued surveying to know whether anything here [in Greenland] is 'accelerating' towards catastrophe, as the article [featuring Corell] claims."

Corell has also been under fire for his work as the chair of the Arctic Impact Assessment report from 2004.

This report was challenged immediately for its computer model generated scary scenarios of an alleged global warming ravaged future Arctic. See: Study Claiming Rapid Arctic Ice Melt Refuted at U.N.'s Climate Conference – Dec. 15, 2009

Corell currently serves as the Vice President of Programs at The Heinz Center, which gave a $250,000 award to NASA scientist James Hansen in 2001.

Corell's personal relationship with former Vice President Al Gore, allowed him to enjoy a private screening of “An Inconvenient Truth” at the invitation of former Vice President Al Gore in 2006. Corell is on record for giving former Gore's film two thumbs up for accuracy.

Bull hockey.

To call it a "humiliating climb down" is just bluster. They published corrected graphs showing the same data that have not met with controversy.

Nothing the IPCC has published has not met with controversy.

Again BULL HOCKEY!

Again, your snippet refers to the troposphere as being the higher atmosphere. It's not. It's the lowest part, and the part we live in. What your article is trying to say is that the STRATOSPHERE has been cooling, not warming. This is true. But far from contradicting the theories behind GCC, it supports it.

I think you need to go back and read that again, how did you test in reading comprehension???

The long wave radiation that the Earth radiates back into space has always been partly trapped and reflected back by greenhouse gasses. As the amount of greenhouse gasses increases, even less long wave radiation is getting to the higher levels of the atmosphere, thus they are cooling while the lower atmosphere, the troposphere, is warming.

Above the homosphere lies the heterosphere, a layer in which the gases are stratified into four shells. The lowermost shell is dominated by molecular nitrogen (N2); next, a layer of atomic oxygen (O) is encountered, followed by a layer dominated by helium atoms (He), and finally, a layer consisting of hydrogen atoms (H).

Our real problem is that helium is penetrating the hydrogen layer and escaping planet gravity at an alarming rate. We are totally clueless as to what that may mean for the future of mankind, evolutionary progression and/or the ability of the UN to control all the known overt (or even covert) governments of the world.

I know you have more than dug your heels in on your opinion on things and am sure my post will meet swift rebuke and retaliation with all sorts of smarty-pants remarks. That's cool. It doesn't make you any less wrong. Who's really the zealot, here?

Since you seem to desire to make the discussion personal rather than objective, let me ask you some personal questions;

1. Do you ride a bicycle?
2. Do you own a 'dumb white MFer' T-shirt?
3. What year do expect our sun to nova?

 

[IPorange]

You're ability to absorb the information you want and ignore the rest is incredible.

Yes, I do own a bicycle. That's about the only part of your post that worth the time to respond to.


Your personal assumptions about me only show the absurdity of your posts even more to those who know me. I take comfort in the fact that you are probably significantly older than me, and I will likely get to enjoy a few balmy years on this Earth without you there to tell me it's only a dry heat.

 

[gsvol]

You're ability to absorb the information you want and ignore the rest is incredible.

Yes, I do own a bicycle. That's about the only part of your post that worth the time to respond to.


Your personal assumptions about me only show the absurdity of your posts even more to those who know me. I take comfort in the fact that you are probably significantly older than me, and I will likely get to enjoy a few balmy years on this Earth without you there to tell me it's only a dry heat.

Does your bike have a clothes pin holding a piece of cardboard in the spokes to make it sound like a motor bike??

Ditto your buying into global warming hysterics while ignoring most all the factoids.

Ditto your personal projections toward me.

When/if you should reach my age, you will look back and see you should have listened more to me NOW.

This advocation of hysteria and 'government should seize control' all started in about 1957, began to peak in the late '60s and died down for a while near the end of the '70s. Notable were Nixon's EPA that has degenerated to level taxing cow farts while mostly ignoring the worst polluters and that same hysteria had a huge bearing on Carter's moronic energy policies.

It was revived during the Clinton administration and is presently being promoted more that ever in history with even more deception and distortion of facts.

Back in the mid to late '60s I began to parrot some of that rhetoric I had heard from university professors and read in the media. Immediately I met with counter arguments and through my own investigations found that promoters of radical hysteria produce arguments that are 99% purely unadulterated BS!! That was fact then and that is fact now.

What ever the motivation of the alarmists, and rest assured they have ulterior motives, their arguments are full of holes and do not hold water.

Some factoids;

The sun has by far the most impact on Earth's warming or cooling and that is constantly changeing.

If we could control solar activity we could keep the temperature of our planet within some sort of norms but we have no clue how to do that and perhaps never will.

ScienceDaily (Jun. 7, 2002) HANOVER, N.H.
Thanks to new calculations by a Dartmouth geochemist, scientists are now looking at the earth's climate history in a new light. Mukul Sharma, Assistant Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth, examined existing sets of geophysical data and noticed something remarkable: the sun's magnetic activity is varying in 100,000-year cycles, a much longer time span than previously thought, and this solar activity, in turn, may likely cause the 100,000-year climate cycles on earth. This research helps scientists understand past climate trends and prepare for future ones.
100,000-Year Climate Pattern Linked To Sun's Magnetic Cycles

One important nature induced mitigating factor;

During a warming period about 75,000 years ago, the effects of one volcanic eruption put Earth into a 1,000 year mini ice age.

From NASA.gov, September 30, 2008:

Coinciding with the string of blank suns is a 50-year record low in solar wind pressure, a recent discovery of the Ulysses spacecraft. (See the Science@NASA story Solar Wind Loses Pressure.) The pressure drop began years before the current minimum, so it is unclear how the two phenomena are connected, if at all. ...

"There is also the matter of solar irradiance," adds Pesnell. "Researchers are now seeing the dimmest sun in their records. The change is small, just a fraction of a percent, but significant. Questions about effects on climate are natural if the sun continues to dim."

Article:
Spotless Sun: Blankest Year of the Space Age [50 years]:
NASA - Spotless Sun: Blankest Year of the Space Age

We recently almost experienced a new record number of days without sunspots this year but a small solar eruption with a one day duration appeared on Sept. 1, 2009 and we have visual records for four hundred years.

The Spotless streak went to 52, one short of the record. That puny spot was gone on Sep.2.

Here we report a ... reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number.

According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago.

We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Solanki et al. 2004 11,000 Year Sunspot Number Reconstruction

Second most important factor that determines Earth's mean temperature and climate, (as far as we know), the atmosphere:

The majority of which concerns the troposphere;

(Your misunderstaning of facts presented previously in this thread have to do with surface vs upper level troposphere evidence.)

Physics vs alarmism:

The climate forces which have led to the estimated 0.6C degree temperature increase over the past 100 years or more (according to the International Panel on Climate Change) have been assumed to be man-made CO2 emissions from advanced nations including the U.S. We know this can’t be true for several reasons.

The first is that water vapor provides 95 percent of the total of the greenhouse gases, not CO2. The total of the CO2 represents less than 3 percent of the total.

The second is that of the total atmospheric CO2 inventory, the manmade fraction is less than 3 percent of the CO2 total and therefore far less than 1 percent of the total greenhouse gas inventories.

Third, studies of the recent climate variations are finding, for example, (See article by J. Oestermans, Science, p. 375, April 29, 2005) that glaciers have been receding since 1750 or so, well before any significant man-made CO2 emissions occurred.
.............................................

It seems more logical that natural forces are still at work with warming and cooling our climate. For example, Fred Singer and Dennis Avery pointed out in their book Unstoppable Global Warming that over the past 1,000,000 years in climate observations, there have been about 600 periods of warming, and we can surmise from these cycles that among them are about 599 periods of cooling.

Now we have learned much more based upon observations of cosmic radiation, their sources, and the Sun’s magnetic fields, combined and new discoveries in the laboratory.

A new and more comprehensive understanding of our planetary environment has emerged. This gives us a scientifically defensible explanation of both global warming and cooling.

As the Oesterman study of the 250 years of receding glaciers shows, warming preceded the CO2 increases of the 20th century.

That is, man-made CO2 was not significantly involved in this 200 year warming period on the earth. Nor does man-made CO2 explain those 600 periods of warming over the past 1,000,000 years.

We have known that cosmic radiation is a source of very powerful radiation, more powerful than any in those huge manmade accelerators. We also know that the more energetic cosmic rays can reach the surface of the Earth passing completely through the atmosphere.
.......................

These collisions are truly nuclear in nature, highly energetic, and take place in our atmosphere every second. These are the nuclear processes by which the atmosphere acts as a protective shield to inhabitants on the earth.
..............

The streams of cosmic radiation originate from deep space sources both within our galaxy, the Milky Way, and as well as from galaxies more distant.

....................................

The extent of the deflection depends upon the strength of the magnetic field of the Sun. The solar magnetic field has been known, studied, and measured for only a few decades. As with other stars, the Sun is able to deflect many, but not all, of these particles of cosmic radiation away from our solar system and our planet according to well-known rules of physics and

Albert Einstein once remarked that higher mathmatics must at some point resort to philosphy and evidently his philosophy was pretty good since his theory of relativity has recently been once more validated in that gravity has been proven to have the same speed as the measurable speed of light. (the truth that the speed of light is affected by gravity sort of points to the possible step to a higher understanding of the theory of relativity to me but who cares?)

(It is also ture that man has been able to both retard and enhance the speed of light in laboratories.)

At any rate the theory of AGW should be put in it's place forever by the evidence we have at hand which all points to the fact that man has very very little impact on the weather on planet Earth.

I will say though that sulfer emmissions from coal fired plants was never desirable but we do have the technology to reduce those to zero and have come a long way toward doing just that in America if not in India and China.


Since water covers 70% of our globe, would not oceanic readings, surface and subsurface, play a huge role in global weather??

The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming” for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.

More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400 fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale.

- SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: July 2009

As significant as the above results are, it is not the Pièce de résistance. What is - the curious minded what to know? It is the ERBE results. The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment with 15 years worth of data. The ERBE result is absolutely devastating to the entire Global Warming Theory.

I can reproduce that for you but you would no more understand it than you would the complex chemical formulas produced by anonymous writers on the idiotic wiccanpedia site.

The ERBE results, which are factual data from real measurements made by satellite, show the exact opposite result from the UN/IPCC Projections (computer models which are not real data). As seas warm on earth, the earth releases more heat into space and the satellite results prove it.

All of this data leads to the conclusion that the UN/IPCC models are not only wrong, they are so far off the mark as to be laughable. The satellite and bathythermograph data clearly do not match the IPCC theory, which means that the theory is incorrect.

What this data does tell us is if CO2 concentration should double, global temperatures will not rise by the devastating 6 degrees F the UN predicts, but by a completely harmless 1 degree F. The ERBE data shows an Earth system that is radiating more heat into space as sea surfaces warm, in other words a system at equilibrium, and is clearly demonstrated by observed data.

The UN theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is dead wrong.

The United States House of Representatives has passed a Carbon tax (Cap and Trade) as have other governments in Europe, based on these completely erroneous models.

There are only a couple of conclusions to be made of this. Either the world has been misled by scientists working for the UN and IPCC due to faulty science, or faulty science has been deliberately used in a global scheme to generate tax revenues for the Governments instituting Cap and Trade Taxation policies.

Either way, the world has been the victim of some very bad science. The results of which can be seen in drastically reduced GDP in countries with the Cap and Trade laws in place, as well a a 5 - 10% decrease in standard of living for those citizens living there , all with little or no effect on emissions globally.

If you want to pay 40 to 50% more for your home (or your mom and dad's home) energy needs, without even doing one whit to correct your perceived problem, fine do so but please don't foster such idiotic measures on me, that's in effect declaring econimic war against me and I'm game to the core, I sure as all hell am not going to tuck my tail and slink under the porch!

Come on dog!!!

 

[kptvol]

gravity has been proven to have the same speed as the measurable speed of light. (the truth that the speed of light is affected by gravity sort of points to the possible step to a higher understanding of the theory of relativity to me but who cares?)

What?

 

[orangeblooded2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by gsvol


gravity has been proven to have the same speed as the measurable speed of light. (the truth that the speed of light is affected by gravity sort of points to the possible step to a higher understanding of the theory of relativity to me but who cares?)


This sounds more along the lines of Quantum theory. Not relativity. In so much as something like Gravitons mediating the forces of gravity. Which models that all other forces of nature with similar particles like electromagnetism and light protons would be effected.

 

[gsvol]

What?

Screeeeeech, remind me to put new brake pads on my time travel machine, I was so sure I had read the results of this test.

Results may be withheld until various politicos can theorize how gravity may be affected by humans, which would in turn, naturally contribute to AGW!! hmy:

Musings on the theory of gravitivity;

I do know that if you walk out in the dark to see what's amiss at the hen house and it's been sleeting with a freezing rain and you slip and bust your butt, your flashlight will hit the ground at about the same time as your ass, so I would predict gravity and light speed are about the same. :unsure:

Try using a stop watch for your own experiments and tell me what you think.

If you want to get technical though, consider this counter argument before the results are made public:

All four of the fundamental forces involve the exchange of one or more wave-like particles.
Strong Force -> pion (and others)
Weak Force -> W and Z
Electromagnetic Force -> photon
Gravity -> graviton

Such exchange forces may be either attractive or repulsive. The maximum range of each exchange force is further dictated by the uncertainty principle. Since the particles involved are created and exist only in the exchange process, they are called "virtual" particles.

(I've always thought that anti-gravity engines should work with positively charged photons and negativley charged gravitons but since that has never worked long enough to be practrible, I'm thinking of using negative photons and positive gravitons but am having trouble finding any of either at the supermarket.)

If a force involves the exchange of a virtual particle, then that particle has to "get back home before it is missed" in the sense that it must fit within the constraints of the uncertainty principle, and a particle of mass m and energy E=MC^2 can be exchanged if it does not go outside the bounds of the uncertainty principle.

The graviton is the exchange particle responsible for force of gravity. Although it has not been directly observed, a number of its properties can be implied from the nature of the force. Since gravity is an inverse square force of apparently infinite range, it can be implied that the rest mass of the graviton is zero.

The photon is the exchange particle responsible for the electromagnetic force. The infinite range of the electromagnetic force is due to the zero rest mass of the photon, but so long as the photon has a non-zero mass (i.e. not at rest), it is capable of deflection by gravity due to its ability to exchange gravitons.

Where it gets interesting, however, is that we know that photons (much less gravitons) are not normally at rest. Moreover, photons that are not at rest will always be affected by the gravity of a large object (and this is proven by observation).

This would imply that photons not at rest have mass, except that we know that anything that travels at light speed can not have mass. Thus, one is left to conclude that photons not at rest gain an imaginary or "virtual" mass that can exchange gravitons.

This is experimentally verifiable. Recent experiments have demonstrated that as light slows to near-zero velocity, it is less and less affected by gravity.

Thus: Theory on the Speed of Gravity
Part Two:
(Virtual Mass of Graviton)
E=MC^2
All mass has energy
Gravity (G) is the energy of a mass, therefore
G=E/M
G=CGp (Theory on the Speed of Gravity)
Gravity and Light are inter-related due to the virtual mass of gravitons and photons at speed, therefore G=C^2
Gp=C
Gp = Virtual Mass of Graviton / Virtual Mass of Photon
Virtual Mass of Graviton = C * Virtual Mass of Photon

Uh-oh, that might not make sense without part one:

Part One
(Speed of Gravity)
1. Light has no real mass
2. Photons of light have no real mass at rest.
3. Photons of light not at rest have virtual mass.
4. Non-resting photons emit gravitons, giving light a virtual mass and a real gravity.
5. Gravity can appreciably bend light due to the emission by photons of gravitons.
6. Light does not appreciably bend gravity.
7. Gravity can appreciably bend light because gravitons have much more virtual mass than photons.
8. Gravitons have much more virtual mass than photons because gravitons travel much faster than photons.

Therefore, Gravity is much faster than the speed of Light.

The Speed of Gravity (G) can hereby be represented as the speed of light (C) multiplied by the constant Gp. G=CGp. Gp represents the ratio of difference in virtual mass between photons and gravitons. The ratio of this difference in virtual masses is equal to C.

The Speed of Gravity is therefore the speed of light squared (G=C^2), 3.4703029E10 miles per second.

In contrast, Ralph Sansbury describes the near-instantaneous propagation speed of gravity and related phenomena as essentially equivalent to the computed necessary speed of a sub-electron particle.

Sansbury says that the electron structure is really a number of charged particles (he calls subtrons) orbiting within the classical radius of an electron. His calculation gives the surprising result that these subtrons are moving at the much faster speed of 2.5 million light years per second (1.4686906E19 miles per second).

One thing is certain, and we have Hiroshima and Nagasaki to prove it, if you squeeze one electron toward the center of it's orbit to the degree of one angstrom unit, it will react violently and in doing so will encounter other electrons in other nearby atoms if nearby atoms are also radioactive and thus create a milisecond chain reaction that is devastating to any and all nearby matter. The use of hydrogen in such a process greatly enhances the effect.

Now my own personal theory is this, we all live on a planet that has a molten core with a thin crust on it's surface on which we all live, now in my estimation if everyone got all uptight at one time, that just might cause the crust to crumble, bringing about a huge chain reaction by the core that might just splatter us all over the solar system if not out into the milky way and possibly even beyond, (who actually really knows the power of the force, including Luke SkyWalker?) so I always recomment that people be cool and avoid getting up tight, some times I even recomend just chilling out if someone seems to be overly up tight!