Cooling Hits Al Gores home

liverock

New member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Location
Out of sight
Nashville, the home of leading global warming prophet Al Gore, has enjoyed the coolest July 21 on record, observes Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker
Sunday Telegraph: 5:17PM BST 25 Jul 2009

It was delightfully appropriate that, as large parts of Argentina were swept by severe blizzards last week, on a scale never experienced before, the city of Nashville, Tennessee, should have enjoyed the coolest July 21 in its history, breaking a record established in 1877. Appropriate, because Nashville is the home of Al Gore, the man who for 20 years has been predicting that we should all by now be in the grip of runaway global warming.

His predictions have proved so wildly wrong – along with those of the British Met Office's £33 million computer model which forecast that we should now be enjoying a "barbecue summer" and that 2009 would be one of "the five warmest years ever" – that the propaganda machine has had to work overtime to maintain what is threatening to become the most expensive fiction in history.

The two official sources of satellite data on global temperatures, for instance, lately announced that June temperatures had again fallen, to their average level for the month over the 30 years since satellite data began. By contrast, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, run by Mr Gore's closest ally and scientific adviser, James Hansen – one of the two official sources of global temperature data from surface weather stations – announced that in that single month the world had warmed by a staggering 0.63 degrees C, more than its net warming for the entire 20th century.

In the past few years, Dr Hansen's temperature record has become ever more eccentric, often wildly at odds with the other three officially recognised data sources, all of which showed a dramatic drop in temperatures in 2007 leading to markedly cooler summers and two of the coldest and snowiest winters the world has known for decades. All this has equally made nonsense of the predictions of the computer models that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relies on, which are programmed to assume that temperatures should soar in line with rising levels of greenhouse gases.

Carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, but temperatures – apart from those revealed by Dr Hansen – have seriously parted company with them. This has not prevented the propaganda machine's media groupies continuing to peddle a daily stream of stories about how in all directions global warming is already affecting the world for the worse.

Soay sheep are shrinking in size (I am sure they've really noticed the global warming up on that bleak Scottish islet). The tiny Pacific nation of Tuvalu, we are yet again told, is pleading for international aid, as it sinks below the rising ocean – even though an expert study in 2001 showed that sea levels around Tuvalu have in fact been falling for 50 years. Even a report on the record number of Painted Lady butterflies in Britain this summer cannot resist ending with a ritual forecast that many butterfly species will soon disappear because of "climate change".

Meanwhile even America's foremost pro-warmist scientific blog, RealClimate – run by, among others, Dr Michael Mann of "hockey stick" fame – concedes that global temperatures are not only declining but are likely to continue to do so for at least another decade – after which, of course, they will leap up again higher than ever.

None of this is proving of much assistance to the politicians still desperately hoping to reach agreement on a new climate treaty in Copenhagen in December. With the still-developing countries, led by China, India, Russia and Brazil, all saying that they will only co-operate if rich governments such as the US and the EU compensate them to the tune of trillions of dollars a year, the chances of any meaningful successor to the Kyoto Protocol look like zero. (India's environment minister delights these days in saying that his country has no intention of sabotaging its fast-growing economy by agreeing to curb its CO2 emissions.)

But we are already committed, in any case, to paying out barely credible sums for our blind faith in global warming (quite apart from the £100 billion Gordon Brown wants us to spend on 10,000 more useless windmills, most of which he hasn't got a hope of seeing built).

A new study by an Australian analyst, Joanne Nova, based on official figures (available at the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute), shows that since 1991 US federal spending alone on climate change has been $79 billion. The cost of international carbon trading in 2008 was a staggering $126 billion, and is soon likely to run into trillions, making buying and selling the right to emit CO2 "the largest single commodity traded" in the world. Yet for all that money (along with countless billions more spent in Britain and elsewhere), "no one is able to point to a single piece of evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has a significant effect on global climate".

Are we all missing something – apart from all that money, of course?
 

just me

New member
Joined
Apr 9, 2006
Location
im lost, have no idea
I posted this on another forum back in april... according to this guy, we are going in the opposite direction...

Last night, the 700 club had a segment on the so called global warming.... According to a Dr Patrick Michaels, the climate is actually in a cool down trend... Says we havent had any warming in 12 years... Supposedly there is evidence that the sun has cooled down. He has written a book called Climate of Extremes. If you want to watch the segment, its about 15 minutes into the program .. Im not sure how that site works. So if you have to search, the segment was on April 21 Wouldnt it be crazy if we went into an ice age instead of a warming trend?!
http://www.cbn.com/media/index.aspx?s=/ ... gm=700club
 

jfh

perpetual student
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Location
Texas, USA
I'm in Global Warming in central Texas.

http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html

I think all the global warming came here. El Nino should change that by October. It doesn't help that we have had 100+ degrees days for over 30 days consecutive. It is acting like Arizona. The deer are eating trees, since there is nothing else left. Lake Travis has huge islands in it now. Also, missing vehicles are being found. It is beginning to look like a small river.
 

Arrowwind09

Standing at the Portal
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
And record breaking temps in Seattle:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009298178_heat04.html

And breaking heat records in Portland Oregon also.

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_072309_extreme_heat_medford_oregon.6b470349.html

and 112 degrees in Redding, California!!!!


and all around the northwest as well as phoenix:

http://weather.weatherbug.com/weather-news/weather-reports.html?story=9785

http://www.lortihomesblog.com/phoenix-saw-record-heat-in-may

You can't just look at one place and say global warming is not happening. And where it is happening of most concern is in the Artic Circle.

http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-connor041006.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/science/earth/16gree.html

http://video.google.com/videosearch?client=safari&rls=en&q=warming+in+Greenland&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=UVlvSpTfEJSINuH0gNgI&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4#

And check out these photos in Alaska! What Bush didn't want you to know! Just released a couple of days ago.

"The photographs serve as a stark reminder of how global warming is changing the Arctic. More than a million square kilometres of sea ice were missing in the summer of 2007 compared to the year before - a record loss."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1202257/Revealed-The-secret-evidence-global-warming-Alaska-Bush-did-want-see.html#ixzz0MaOupPQL


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1202257/Revealed-The-secret-evidence-global-warming-Alaska-Bush-did-want-see.html
 

liverock

New member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Location
Out of sight
Original Poster
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/26/lindzen-on-climate-hysteria/#more-9591
Lindzen on Climate Hysteria



Resisting climate hysteria
by Richard S. Lindzen on Quadrant Online
July 26, 2009

A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.

For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.

Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature is the fact that there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface. Measurements show that warming at these levels is only about 3/4 of what is seen at the surface, implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect, and, quite possibly, not all of even this really small warming is due to man (Lindzen, 2007, Douglass et al, 2007). This further implies that all models predicting significant warming are greatly overestimating warming. This should not be surprising (though inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community).

Climate alarmists respond that some of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past decade. Given that we are in a relatively warm period, this is not surprising, but it says nothing about trends.
Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished. However, a really important point is that the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant.

Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc. etc. all depend not on some global average of surface temperature anomaly, but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind. The state of the ocean is also often crucial. Our ability to forecast any of these over periods beyond a few days is minimal (a leading modeler refers to it as essentially guesswork). Yet, each catastrophic forecast depends on each of these being in a specific range. The odds of any specific catastrophe actually occurring are almost zero. This was equally true for earlier forecasts of famine for the 1980’s, global cooling in the 1970’s, Y2K and many others. Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean.

In view of the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 4 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect.

And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.

With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased and that the case for such warming as was seen being due in significant measure to man, disintegrating. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.
Read the complete essay with references at Quadrant Online

Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology
 

EarlyBird

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Location
Northern Ky.
And here we in most of Ky and southern Ohio, are experiencing the Coolest July EVER in recorded history. Of course, August starts tomorrow, so things may change. One plus factor - we got our Condo management to promise to keep our swimming pool open for almost all of September to make up for our too cool July. LOL!
 

Arrowwind09

Standing at the Portal
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Exxon Mobile announces this past week or so that they will start working on using algae for making bio-fuels. This is a great plan I think, as algae will produce more oil per weight and free up agricultural land for food production....sorry to the farmers who invested in bio fuels but they were probably subsidized anyway.

The big plus with algae is that they utilize CO2 and produce very little, mostly making oxygen. Production facilities can be placed in areas where land has no production value.

With climate change we should expect high variability in temperatures around the world as patterns respond to increased heat. Just because you live in a hot area does not mean it will remain hot as it once was. The big picture needs to be looked at, and right now the big picture says that there is a significant warming trend up in the arctic.

Melting ice roads and permafrost in the Arctic affect communites survival
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/webmedia/trbmedia/AM2009/742bec/softvnetplayer.htm
 

Arrowwind09

Standing at the Portal
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
The reason there is alarm is that if current trends continue cities in Florida, New York, Europe will go underwater! This could cause financial problems and I suppose you want 3 or 4 million people moving into your back yard?

Now, we may not be able to change things, especially if it is all caused by changes in the sun activity, but I think we should do what we can.
 


Top