End Times and Current Events

General Category => Weather/Earthquakes/Global Science Hoax's => Topic started by: Mark on January 29, 2012, 10:05:00 am



Title: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on January 29, 2012, 10:05:00 am
Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

    Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years



The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1krcYepjM


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 29, 2012, 03:58:29 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHS042a-Nb0


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on February 07, 2012, 06:26:18 am
Europe Snow Freezes Global Warming Claims

 :o wooops

Bosnian authorities have started using helicopters to evacuate the sick and deliver food to thousands of people cut off by the heaviest snowfall the nation has ever experienced.

Unusually heavy snow and below freezing temperatures have shut down much of Europe.

"This is unbelievable. I can't remember snow like this in past 30 years," Sarajevo resident Mirsada Mitrovic said.

More than 100 remote villages were isolated Monday by snow nearly 7 feet high in the mountains. More than 3 feet of snow has fallen in Sarajevo.

While the "mini Ice Age" barreled across Europe, a scientific debate also stirred as a result.

In London, The Independent reported that the extreme weather has nothing to do with what some call global cooling.

Instead the paper said it's actually about global warming, a popular claim throughout Europe.

The European Union considers global warming to be a scientific fact. So when there is a heat wave, media reports of "climate change" usually follow.

But now that Europe is in the freezer, many climate experts have gone silent.

Anne-Elisabeth Moutet is a Paris-based columnist for the London Telegraph.

"Climate change is an article of faith and an article of law (in the European Union)," she explained.

"You have this lemming effect where all the scientists are sort of blindly following climate change because so many have invested interest in it," Moutet added.

In Ukraine, temperatures have fallen to 33 below zero. At least 135 people have died.

And in Rome, it was a rare sight as Pope Benedict appeared above a St. Peter's Square still covered with snow from the day before. Rome hasn't had this much snow in 27 years.

Forecasters expect the bitter cold to continue through this week.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2012/February/Europe-Gripped-by-Deadly-Deep-Freeze/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Kilika on February 07, 2012, 03:34:16 pm
It might get chilly for a spell, but the heat is coming! And it's far worse than "global warming".


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on February 08, 2012, 02:45:00 pm
Drudge Headlines all in order.  :D

POLAR ICE CAPS MELTING LESS THAN THOUGHT...
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/02/08/earths-polar-ice-melting-less-than-thought

STUDY: Himalayas, nearby peaks lost no ice in past 10 years...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?intcmp=122

Scientists 'stunned'...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?intcmp=122

Fed workers take leave -- with inch of snow expected!
http://wtop.com/?nid=41&sid=2738814


Title: Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled LOL
Post by: Mark on January 07, 2013, 08:08:06 am
'No global warming for 16 years'
Christopher Monckton explains truth of scandal over climate change


The attendees at the recent global “climate” conference in Doha, Qatar, most of them highly influential and powerful in their home countries, were treated to a special address recently.

“There has been no global warming for 16 years (actually 18 or 19 years, on closer examination),” the speaker said. “Even if warming were to occur at the predicted rate this century, it would be many times cheaper to adapt … than to attempt, futilely, to mitigate it today. An independent scientific enquiry would be a good idea, to make sure that the conferences on the climate were still heading in the right direction.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/no-global-warming-for-16-years/#zhmTLeyUTB7i7qyS.99


Title: Re: 'No global warming for 16 years' Christopher Monckton explains truth
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 07, 2013, 08:31:27 am
Why does Monckton call himself 'Lord'?


Title: Re: 'No global warming for 16 years' Christopher Monckton explains truth
Post by: Mark on January 07, 2013, 09:52:41 am
Why does Monckton call himself 'Lord'?

Dont know, Why?


Title: Re: 'No global warming for 16 years' Christopher Monckton explains truth
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 07, 2013, 09:58:16 am
Dont know, Why?

Well, it's a blasphemous title either way.

Mat_23:9  And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.



Title: Re: 'No global warming for 16 years' Christopher Monckton explains truth
Post by: Mark on January 07, 2013, 10:19:56 am
oh... I thought were going to tell a joke  :D


Title: Re: 'No global warming for 16 years' Christopher Monckton explains truth
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 07, 2013, 10:21:39 am
oh... I thought were going to tell a joke  :D

I don't know if Monckton was knighted or anything, but that's his title for some reason.


Title: Re: 'No global warming for 16 years' Christopher Monckton explains truth
Post by: Kilika on January 07, 2013, 05:26:29 pm
To be addressed in Britain as a lord, I think one must have been knighted, or bought the title somehow, from the British crown.

In the world, titles is what they do. I don't expect them to abide by scripture.


Title: Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled LOL
Post by: Mark on March 30, 2013, 10:36:18 am
Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

DEBATE about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the sceptical fringe to the mainstream.

In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity - the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels - would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.

Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.

For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it's good news that probably won't last.

International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years "at least" to break the long-term warming trend.

 But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.

Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.

Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750. This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says.

"But it does not mean global warming is a delusion."

The fact is temperatures between 2000 and 2010 are still almost 1C above their level in the first decade of the 20th century.

"The mismatch might mean that for some unexplained reason there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-2010.

"Or it might mean that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period."

The magazine explores a range of possible explanations including higher emissions of sulphur dioxide, the little understood impact of clouds and the circulation of heat into the deep ocean.

But it also points to an increasing body of research that suggests it may be that climate is responding to higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before.

"This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy," the article says.

There are now a number of studies that predict future temperature rises as a result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions at well below the IPCC best estimate of about 3C over the century.

The upcoming IPCC report is expected to lift the maximum possible temperature increase to 6C.

The Research Council of Norway says in a non-peer-reviewed paper that the best estimate concludes there is a 90 per cent probability that doubling CO2 emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2C to 2.9C, the most likely figure being 1.9C.

Another study based on the way the climate behaved about 20,000 years ago has given a best guess of 2.3C.

Other forecasts, accepted for publication, have reanalysed work cited by the IPCC but taken account of more recent temperature data and given a figure of between 1C and 3C.

The Economist says understanding which estimate is true is vital to getting the best response.

"If as conventional wisdom has it, global temperatures could rise by 3C or more in response to a doubling of emissions, then the correct response would be the one to which most of the world pays lip service; rein in the warming and the greenhouse gases causing it," the article says.

"If, however, temperatures are likely to rise by only 2 degrees Celsius in response to a doubling of carbon emissions (and if the likelihood of a 6 degrees Celsius is trivial) the calculation might change," it says.

"Perhaps the world should seek to adjust to (rather than stop) the greenhouse-gas splurge.

"There is no point buying earthquake insurance if you don't live in an earthquake zone."

According to The Economist, "given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified." On face value, Hansen agrees the slowdown in global temperature rises can be seen as "good news".

But he is not ready to recalculate the Faustian bargain that weighs the future cost to humanity of continued carbon dioxide emissions.

Hansen argues that the impact of human carbon dioxide emissions has been masked by the sharp increase in coal use, primarily in China and India.

Increased particulate and nitrogen pollution has worked in the opposite direction of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Another paper published in Geophysical Research Letters on research from the University of Colorado Boulder found small volcanoes, not more coal power stations in China, were responsible for the slowdown in global warming.

But this did not mean that climate change was not a problem.

"Emissions from volcanic gases go up and down, helping to cool or heat the planet, while greenhouse gases from human activity just continue to go up," author Ryan Neely says.

Hansen's bottom line is that increased short-term masking of greenhouse gas warming by fossil fuel particulate and nitrogen pollution represents a "doubling down" of the Faustian bargain, an increase in the stakes.

"The more we allow the Faustian debt to build, the more unmanageable the eventual consequences will be," he says.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/twenty-year-hiatus-in-rising-temperatures-has-climate-scientists-puzzled/story-e6frg6z6-1226609140980


Title: Re: Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled LOL
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on March 30, 2013, 10:44:21 am
By the time they "discover" a "rising" in temperatures, it's gonna be too late...

Rev 16:8  And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
Rev 16:9  And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.



Title: Re: Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled LOL
Post by: Kilika on March 30, 2013, 03:35:28 pm
"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." 2 Peter 3:10 (KJB)


Title: Re: Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled LOL
Post by: Mark on April 16, 2013, 08:26:45 am
Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown

 Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.

Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon.

Getting this right is essential for the short and long-term planning of governments and businesses ranging from energy to construction, from agriculture to insurance. Many scientists say they expect a revival of warming in coming years.

Theories for the pause include that deep oceans have taken up more heat with the result that the surface is cooler than expected, that industrial pollution in Asia or clouds are blocking the sun, or that greenhouse gases trap less heat than previously believed.

The change may be a result of an observed decline in heat-trapping water vapor in the high atmosphere, for unknown reasons. It could be a combination of factors or some as yet unknown natural variations, scientists say.

Weak economic growth and the pause in warming is undermining governments' willingness to make a rapid billion-dollar shift from fossil fuels. Almost 200 governments have agreed to work out a plan by the end of 2015 to combat global warming.

"The climate system is not quite so simple as people thought," said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician and author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" who estimates that moderate warming will be beneficial for crop growth and human health.

Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years," said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.

Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius first showed in the 1890s how man-made carbon dioxide, from coal for instance, traps heat in the atmosphere. Many of the exact effects are still unknown.

Greenhouse gas emissions have hit repeated record highs with annual growth of about 3 percent in most of the decade to 2010, partly powered by rises in China and India. World emissions were 75 percent higher in 2010 than in 1970, UN data show.

UN PANEL SEEKS EXPLANATION

A rapid rise in global temperatures in the 1980s and 1990s - when clean air laws in developed nations cut pollution and made sunshine stronger at the earth's surface - made for a compelling argument that human emissions were to blame.

The IPCC will seek to explain the current pause in a report to be released in three parts from late 2013 as the main scientific roadmap for governments in shifting from fossil fuels towards renewable energies such as solar or wind power, the panel's chairman Rajendra Pachauri said.

According to Pachauri, temperature records since 1850 "show there are fluctuations. They are 10, 15 years in duration. But the trend is unmistakable."

The IPCC has consistently said that fluctuations in the weather, perhaps caused by variations in sunspots or a La Nina cooling of the Pacific, can mask any warming trend and the panel has never predicted a year-by-year rise in temperatures.

Experts say short-term climate forecasts are vital to help governments, insurers and energy companies to plan.

Governments will find little point in reinforcing road bridges over rivers, for instance, if a prediction of more floods by 2100 doesn't apply to the 2020s.

A section of a draft IPCC report, looking at short-term trends, says temperatures are likely to be 0.4 to 1.0 degree Celsius (0.7-1.8F) warmer from 2016-35 than in the two decades to 2005. Rain and snow may increase in areas that already have high precipitation and decline in areas with scarcity, it says.

EXCEPTIONS AND CHALLENGES

Pachauri said climate change can have counter-intuitive effects, like more snowfall in winter that some people find hard to accept as side-effects of a warming trend. An IPCC report last year said warmer air can absorb more moisture, leading to heavier snowfall in some areas.

A study by Dutch experts this month sought to explain why there is now more sea ice in winter. It concluded melted ice from Antarctica was refreezing on the ocean surface - this fresh water freezes more easily than dense salt water.

Some experts challenged the findings.

"The hypothesis is plausible I just don't believe the study proves it to be true," said Paul Holland, an ice expert at the British Antarctic Survey.

Concern about climate change is rising in some nations, however, opinion polls show. Extreme events, such as Superstorm Sandy that hit the U.S. east coast last year, may be the cause. A record heatwave in Australia this summer forced weather forecasters to add a new dark magenta color to the map for temperatures up to 54 degrees Celsius (129F).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416


Title: Re: Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled LOL
Post by: Mark on April 16, 2013, 08:03:11 pm
Antarctic ice sheet melt 'not that unusual', latest ice core shows
   
Warm slushy spells like the 1990s have happened before


The latest ice-core analysis from the Antarctic shows that nothing unusual in terms of melting is occurring.

In research published yesterday, a large team of scientists used a deep ice core from the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet Divide to produce records going back some 2,000 years. Their analysis shown that recent melting in that area, which has caused a good deal of hysteria* in climate alarmist circles, is in fact normal.

“If we could look back at this region of Antarctica in the 1940s and 1830s, we would find that the regional climate would look a lot like it does today, and I think we also would find the glaciers retreating much as they are today,” comments Eric Steig, a senior earth-sciences boffin at the University of Washington and the lead author on the new research.

Ice loss in recent times from the Western Antarctic - considered to be one of the main places to worry about, if you worry about sea-level rises - may just "not be all that unusual", according to Steig.

The problem, as with many climate change issues, is that conditions in the Western Antarctic vary so much over short time scales that it's hard to work out if any long-term change is actually happening.

“The magnitude of unforced natural variability is very big in this area,” Steig comments.

Another major ice study recently came to similar conclusions regarding the likewise much-discussed Antarctic Peninsula: that recent melting there is not unprecedented, and indeed that various large bits of ice in that area - which today are still intact - probably broke off or melted at times in the pre-industrial past.

Stieg and his colleagues' paper is published in Nature Geoscience. ®

Bootnote
* For instance the hippies at Greenpeace (it is compulsory to be a hippie at Greenpeace) have this to say:

"... melting of ... the Western Antarctic ice sheet could ultimately raise sea levels by anything up to 13 metres or so (43 foot) if we do not drastically curb our greenhouse gas emissions, even the small fraction of this predicted by 2100 would be an economic and humanitarian disaster ...

"... London, Bangkok and New York, Shanghai and Mumbai will be among a number of cities which will eventually end up below sea level ..."

Actually though, that small fraction by 2100 is really tiny even under the standard alarmist case - which is itself looking very unlikely.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/15/western_antarctic_melting_nothing_unusual/


Title: Re: Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled LOL
Post by: Mark on April 22, 2013, 10:49:05 am
Climate change conclusion goes against scientific method

The last few years have seen much controversy over the question of whether the Earth’s climate is getting warmer and, if so, whether man is causing it. The issue has never been stated as a scientific question. The arguments for such man-made global warming have invariably been political in nature.

When you hear statements such as “the debate is over’ or “the science is settled” or “a consensus of scientists agrees,” you can be assured that the speaker knows virtually nothing about science, what the scientific method is or how science is conducted. This I attribute to our faulty educational systems.

There are several questions involved with the subject of man-made global warming (after this, I will simply call it global warming). Is the average temperature of the Earth increasing? What definition of global warming is being used? What is the method being used to measure it? These important questions have never been answered. One would think that temperature data would be paramount in the discussion, but it has come to light that gross data manipulation, data editing, and selective data omission have taken place. I refer to the infamous “Climate Gate.” What data we have indicates that the Earth’s temperature has held steady or decreased a fraction of a degree Celsius over about the last ten years or more. Since the temperature data do not support global warming, the proponents have taken to calling their alleged effect “climate change” and we see exploitation of those poor polar bears (whose estimated population has increased five-fold since the ‘70s) and are shown videos of calving glaciers (that’s how ice bergs form) and are told, disingenuously, that it is because of global warming.

The choice of carbon dioxide (CO2) as the culprit in global warming was especially inept. It is a trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere. Even if the burning of fossil fuels doubled or trebled the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, it would still be a trace gas and not capable of the large effects ascribed to it. The laws of chemistry say that the effect of a particular compound must be a function of its concentration.

The so-called greenhouse effect has been falsified and concluded to be fictional. Greenhouses are made of glass with well-known physics. No greenhouse effect has been demonstrated in any planetary atmosphere. In fact, such an alleged effect has been thoroughly falsified and shown to be in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In science, falsifying does not mean disproving but, rather, showing that the subject effect is in violation of one or more of the fundamental laws of science.

The Earth, in the past, has been both colder and warmer than it is now. Even in historic times the Earth has seen extremes in climate. There was a warm period known as the Medieval Optimum where records show that Roman soldiers in England grew grapes and made wine. Greenland was named such by Viking explorers because it was green and the original name the Vikings gave to Nova Scotia was “Vineland” because they found grapes growing wild there. Not too long after the Medieval Optimum, the Earth went through a period known as the “Little Ice Age” in which there were several hundred years of colder than normal winters. In London, the Thames froze completely over. Both of these periods were ignored in generating the fictional “hockey stick” graph used to support the idea of global warming in a now infamous so-called documentary film.

In science, the burden of proof is on those who make an assertion. Those that say the Earth is undergoing man-made global warming have the obligation to provide the scientific proof. They have not done so. Instead, they have reacted in not only unscientific ways but in antiscientific ones as well. There is no place in science for personal attacks and character assassinations.

Al Miller is a chemist retired after a 40-plus-year career in research. He lives in Indio with his wife and their dog. Email him at alm7651@verizon.net


http://www.mydesert.com/article/20130420/OPINION04/304200041/Climate-change-conclusion-goes-against-scientific-method?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1


Title: Re: Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled LOL
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on April 22, 2013, 11:03:13 am
^^ Honestly, the public's attitude toward this seems to be apathy - even despite Climategate where tons of emails got leaked over how scientists lied about their "research", it still really didn't sway public perception one way or another.

2Peter 3:3  Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4  And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.


Title: Re: 'No global warming for 16 years' Christopher Monckton explains truth
Post by: Mark on July 24, 2013, 06:33:51 am
Why has global warming stalled?

With Britain's heatwave reaching a peak, there could be no better moment to talk about why global warming has slowed to a standstill.

It reminds me of reporting on a drought a few years ago: while filming interviews with people about the impact, the heavens opened and rainwater was soon flowing down my neck.

So as journalists were invited to the Science Media Centre in London to hear how the worldwide rise in temperatures has stalled, the mercury shot up as if on cue to record the hottest day of the year so far.

In many ways, this event was long overdue: climate sceptics have for years pointed out that the world is not warming as rapidly as once forecast.

A lot depends on how you do the measurements, of course.


Start Quote
There are plenty of possible explanations but none of them adds up to a definitive smoking gun.”
End Quote
Each of the last few decades has been warmer than the last. But start your graph in 1998 - which happened to be an exceptionally warm year - and there hasn't been much global warming at all.

Gradually the words 'pause' and 'hiatus' which first featured in the blogs have crossed to the media and then to the scientists professionally engaged in researching the global climate.

The headline - which the scientists will not thank me for - is that no one is really sure why the rate of warming has stumbled.

No smoking gun
 
There are plenty of possible explanations but none of them adds up to a definitive smoking gun.

 Industrialisation may lead to a drop in global temperatures in the 1940s
Professor Piers Forster of Leeds University has tried to quantify the different factors involved - what's known as their "radiative forcing".

Between 1998-2012, he reckons, manmade greenhouse gases were still the biggest influence, causing warming of 0.48 of a Watt per square metre (a key measure of energy flows to and from the planet).

At the same, he estimates, two other natural influences might have led to some cooling: a relatively quiet Sun might have been responsible for a reduction of 0.16 of a Watt/sq m and volcanic eruptions another 0.06 Watt/sq m.

A big unknown is the effect of aerosols - tiny particles released by industrial pollution which could cause a further cooling effect.

It is thought that the world's massive industrialisation after World War Two contributed to a slight drop in global temperatures in the late 1940s.

But the key factor - according to all the speakers at the briefing - is that whatever solar energy is making it through to the surface, much is being absorbed by the hidden depths of the oceans.

The Argo network of automated monitors has been deployed since 2005 to measure the waters as deep as 1,800m. This isn't a very long period but the data are apparently showing some warming - even in this short time frame.

And readings from satellites since 2000 show how much energy is arriving at the planet, and how much is leaving, so if the energy left behind is not manifesting itself in rising surface temperatures, then it must be going somewhere - and the deep ocean is the most plausible explanation.

Pauses expected
 
On top of that, the scientists say, pauses in warming were always to be expected. This is new - at least to me.

It is common sense that climate change would not happen in a neat, linear away but instead in fits and starts.

But I've never heard leading researchers mention the possibility before.

 Arctic sea ice levels have fallen
Professor Rowan Sutton, of Reading University, said computer simulations or models of possible future climate scenarios often show periods of ten years with no warming trend - some even show pauses of 20-25 years.

And Professor Stephen Belcher, head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, said observations and models showed that on average there were - or would be - two pauses in warming every century.

I asked why this had not come up in earlier presentations. No one really had an answer, except to say that this "message" about pauses had not been communicated widely.

So where does this leave us, as greenhouse gases emissions keep rising but the temperature does not?

Dr Peter Stott, of the Met Office, pointed out that 12 of the 14 warmest years have occurred since the year 2000 and says that other indicators - like the decline in Arctic sea ice of 12.9% per decade and losses of snow cover and glaciers - still point to a process of manmade warming.

Bad maths
 
But what about another possibility - that the calculations are wrong?

What if the climate models - which are the very basis for all discussions of what to do about global warming - exaggerate the sensitivity of the climate to rising carbon dioxide?

Dr Stott conceded that the projections showing the most rapid warming now look less likely, given recent observations, but that others remain largely unchanged.

A Met Office briefing document, released at the briefing, says that, even allowing for the temperatures of the last decade, the most likely warming scenario is only reduced by 10% - so "the warming that we might have expected by 2050 would be delayed by only a few years".

Overall, it concludes, the pause "does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century."

In other words, global warming is still on.

But until the pause can be properly explained, many people will take a lot of convincing - especially if the pause lasts longer than expected.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on August 07, 2013, 02:09:16 pm
Russian scientists: Earth can expect a new ice age

There is no escaping another ice age on Earth; this is the conclusion that has been reached by researchers at the Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, institute director Vladimir Bogdanov told ITAR-TASS. However, the “global cooling” will not occur for another few thousand years.
 
“To predict the distant future, we are researching ecological issues and trying to understand what life was like hundreds of thousands of years ago,” said Bogdanov.

“Everything on Earth is cyclical — a warm period is followed by a cold one, and vice versa. We are currently in a warm period. However, unlike past periods, it is advancing too quickly. Over the last 100 years, we have seen a drastic migration of animals and plants to the North.” Thus every year, trees are rising by about 1.5 feet toward the peaks of the northern mountains, and they are encroaching on the tundra.
 
“Our observations suggest that Earth’s climate warming will occur for at least another 50 years. This is most noticeable in high latitudes — in the Artic and the mountains,” said Valery Mazepa, a biologist and head of the institute’s dendrochronology laboratory.
 
According to scientists, a global cooling on the planet is inevitable, and humans will not be able to affect this cycle. “People’s actions may only influence how cool it will be during the next ice age on Earth. It will depend on how much greenhouse gases threaten the atmosphere,” said Pavel Kosnitsev, head of the institute’s paleoecology laboratory.


http://rbth.ru/news/2013/08/06/russian_scientists_earth_can_expect_a_new_ice_age_28715.html


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Kilika on August 07, 2013, 04:24:52 pm
Quote
“To predict the distant future..."

Scientists.  ::)

"Boast not thyself of to morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth." Proverbs 27:1 (KJB)


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on August 12, 2013, 11:43:49 am
Interior Secretary: I don't want any climate-change deniers in my department

Buried in a lengthy Washington Post article about President Obama’s environmental policy is an illuminating anecdote about just how debatable the administration views climate change — namely, not at all:
 
In an agency-wide address to employees Aug. 1, (Interior Secretary Sally) Jewell took the unusual step of suggesting that no one working for her should challenge the idea that human activity is driving recent warming. “I hope there are no climate-change deniers in the Department of Interior,” she said.
 
The address does not appear to be posted on the department’s website, so the Washington Examiner can only go by the Post’s presumably third-hand version. Still, it raises some interesting questions: What would happen to somebody at the department who raised some skepticism regarding Jewell’s take on climate change? Would they be in danger of losing their job?
 
For example, what if that person posted a news article pointing out that the global temperatures have been flat for the last two decades?
 
Presumably somebody at the Interior Department knows the answers to these questions. Whether they’re willing to talk openly about them is another question.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/interior-secretary-i-dont-want-any-climate-change-deniers-in-my-department/article/2534142


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on August 14, 2013, 05:31:40 am
What Global Warming? 2012 Data Confirms Earth In Cooling Trend

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently released its “State of the Climate in 2012” report, which states that “worldwide, 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record.”

But the report “fails to mention [2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend,” according to an analysis by climate blogger Pierre Gosselin.

“To no one’s surprise, the report gives the reader the impression that warming is galloping ahead out of control,” writes Gosselin. “But their data shows just the opposite.”

Although the NOAA report noted that in 2012, “the Arctic continues to warm” with “sea ice reaching record lows,” it also stated that the Antarctica sea ice “reached a record high of 7.51 million square miles” on Sept. 26, 2012.

And the latest figures for this year show that there’s been a slowdown of melting in the Arctic this summer as well, with temperatures at the North Pole well below normal for this time of year. Meteorologist Joe Bastardi calls it “the coldest ever recorded.”

The Associated Press had to retract a photo it released on July 27 with the caption, “The shallow meltwater lake is occurring due to an unusually warm period.”

“In fact, the water accumulates in this way every summer,” AP admitted in a note to editors, adding that the photo was doubly misleading because “the camera used by the North Pole Environment Observatory has drifted hundreds of miles from its original position, which was a few dozen miles from the pole.”

NOAA also reported that the “average lower strastospheric temperature, about six to ten miles above the Earth’s surface, for 2012 was record or near-record cold, depending on the dataset” even while the concentrations of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, continued to increase.

"Even with all this data manipulation, the trend is down as shown by this Hadley global plot," writes Joseph D'Aleo, former director of meteorology at The Weather Channel. (See D'Aleo - Real Story About Temps.pdf)

"Last year was the 8th warmest but 7th coldest since 1998. They explain it away with the predominance of La Ninas or a solar blip, but say it was the warmest decade nonetheless, so stop questioning us," he said.

On August 7th, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten quoted Irish solar expert Ian Elliott predicting that lower levels of sunspot activity over the next few years “indicates that we may be on the path to a new little ice age.”

“If you think scientists just couldn’t get any more incompetent, then think again. NOAA scientists even appear to believe that cold events are now signs of warming,” Gosselin points out.

“When one carefully reads the report, we find that the NOAA findings actually do confirm precisely what the skeptics have been claiming all along:

1. The Earth has stopped warming.

2. The climate models exaggerated future warming [caused by] CO2 climate sensitivity is much lower than we first thought.

“That’s the real issue at hand,” he added.

- See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/what-global-warming-2012-data-confirms-earth-cooling-trend#sthash.1ROV38Os.dpuf


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 14, 2013, 11:07:53 am
No matter how much this gets debunked, no matter how much their lies get exposed, somehow this debate ends up getting chugged on.

Ultimately, their Hegelian Dialectic game is going on as planned.

1Cor_3:18  Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on August 24, 2013, 08:22:48 am
We need a global geoengineering watchdog, researchers say

A new international organisation will be needed to help nations manage geoengineering efforts, new research predicts, because trying to deliberately alter the planet's climate raises a raft of tricky issues.

Climate engineering (or geoengineering) technologies aim to manipulate the earth's climate, generally either by taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere or reflecting sunlight away from the earth.

Most of the technologies work in theory and some have been tested on a small scale. But at the moment, issues of cost, unforeseen consequences and politics mean geoengineering remains a largely untried area.

Nonetheless, the new study's authors from the Berlin Social Science Research Centre are convinced such climate engineering will play an important role in future efforts to address climate change. With that in mind, they're thinking about not just which technologies could work, but what systems of governance will be needed to make geoengineering happen.

Climate engineering paradox

The researchers concentrate on two technologies which they say could have a big impact on global temperatures, and which could be cheap enough for a single or small group of countries to implement: 'stratospheric particle injection' and 'marine cloud brightening'.

Stratospheric particle injection requires spraying tiny airborne particles into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from the earth, and reduce warming. The system works by attaching a pipe to a balloon that is tethered to a boat, as the picture below shows. Not totally sci-fi, then, (although it would be the largest man-made structure in the world).

(http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/218788/atmospheric_particle_balloon_cropped_499x330.jpg)

The second option is also relatively low-tech. Cloud brightening involves spraying sea water into clouds to scatter micro-droplets which reflect more sunlight, and reduce warming. The main piece of kit is a ship that can spray water high into the sky.

Both of these methods are relatively cheap - certainly within the range of governments to carry out. That makes them worth thinking about, the authors say. They also argue - perhaps because they would be relatively easy to implement - that these are the technologies most likely to meet political opposition.

Both techniques raise some tricky legal and political questions. The technologies need to be sited in international waters, which no one country has control over. That makes it harder for any nation take the leap to fund the research and construction and deploy the technologies, the researchers say. And the potential side-effects of the technologies are also still uncertain, meaning environmental campaigners and governments not involved in building the technologies may object to their use.

So even if the technologies work in a technical sense, there could be political obstacles to rolling them out on a large-scale.

International climate engineering agency

The researchers suggest the answer to these issues is to create a new international climate engineering agency. The agency's job would be to coordinate countries' efforts and manage research funding.

The researchers suggest the agency could put climate engineering regulations in place through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which currently oversees the Kyoto protocol and other international climate treaties. It also suggests the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - which is currently tasked with amalgamating climate science research - could help bring the best climate engineering research together, and the papers authors point out to us that the IPCC is expected to include a chapter on climate engineering in its upcoming Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).

Some climate policy wonks may shudder at the thought of giving responsibility for geoengineering to either of these bodies. But creating a new institutional structure isn't easy. The UNFCCC has been criticised for being ineffective, and the IPCC has a narrow remit to synthesise climate science research.

But one of the paper's authors, Stefan Schäfer, argues that in the absence of any concrete guidance on climate engineering practices, this institutional setup is the most likely to work. He says:

"The triangular set up between UNFCCC, IPCC and climate engineering agency is intended to address the expected resistance to climate engineering by providing a governance structure that can deal with the many worrisome issues associated with this topic. Setting up such an agency from scratch would be difficult, but this would not necessarily have to be the case; it could also evolve from existing structures".

Thinking ahead

Setting up rules and regulations to guide government actions is always a tricky business. So when a new issue comes along, it's worth looking ahead.

This study considers future political obstacles now in the hope it will prevent climate engineering solutions being shot down before they've even got off the ground. Creating a new international agency could be one way to keep the plans alive.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/08/we-need-a-global-geoengineering-watchdog,-researchers-say


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on September 02, 2013, 06:54:07 am
MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

Throughout history, governments have twisted science to suit a political agenda. Global warming is no different, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions,” writes Lindzen in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

According to Lindzen, scientists make essentially “meaningless” claims about certain phenomenon. Activists for certain causes take up claims made by scientists and politicians respond to the alarmism spread by activists by doling out more research funding. — creating an “Iron Triangle” of poor incentives.

rest: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/mit-professor-global-warming-is-a-religion/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 02, 2013, 09:46:24 am
MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

Throughout history, governments have twisted science to suit a political agenda. Global warming is no different, according to Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions,” writes Lindzen in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

According to Lindzen, scientists make essentially “meaningless” claims about certain phenomenon. Activists for certain causes take up claims made by scientists and politicians respond to the alarmism spread by activists by doling out more research funding. — creating an “Iron Triangle” of poor incentives.

rest: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/mit-professor-global-warming-is-a-religion/

It sure is - b/c if you believe in "global warming", then you're seeking treasures on this earth, and NOT in heaven.

Mat_6:19  Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
Mat_6:20  But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:


Mat_6:33  But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on September 08, 2013, 06:35:53 pm
Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in year...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html


Top scientists warning of global COOLING...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 11, 2013, 11:41:51 am
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/humberto-may-defend-hurricane-record/17586208
Humberto Becomes First Atlantic Hurricane of 2013
9/11/13

Very early Wednesday morning, Humberto strengthened to become the first hurricane of the 2013 Atlantic Hurricane season.

Maximum sustained winds reached 75 mph, classifying Humberto as a Category 1 hurricane during the overnight hours. As of the midday hours Wednesday, Humberto had strengthened slightly with maximum sustained winds of 80 mph.

There was a chance this hurricane season might set a new record for having the latest first Atlantic hurricane since the satellite era began in the early 1960s. The challenge went down to the wire with a difference of approximately three hours.

The latest the first hurricane of the season formed was 2002's Gustav on Sept. 11. Gustav was upgraded from a tropical storm to a minimal hurricane that Wednesday midday, shortly after 8:00 a.m. EDT.

As of Tuesday evening, Sept. 10, there had been no hurricanes thus far during the 2013 season in the Atlantic. However, Humberto brought an end to this by strengthening into a Category 1 hurricane near the Cape Verde Islands early Wednesday morning.

Since Humberto was upgraded to a hurricane prior to the time Gustav became a hurricane on the 11th, the late-forming hurricane record has remained intact.

According to Hurricane Expert Dan Kottlowski, "Humberto has entered an area of the atmosphere with low disruptive winds at midweek."

These diminishing winds helped Humberto strengthen to become a Category 1 hurricane.

"Late this week, Humberto is likely to weaken while moving into a zone with drier air and more disruptive winds," Kottlowski said.

A curve to the northwest and then the north is forecast this week, which will take Humberto over the open waters of the central Atlantic with no serious direct impact to mainland areas.

Locally gusty winds, rough seas and a few squalls will continue to affect the Cape Verde Islands into Thursday, prior to the system moving to the weset and north.

According to Senior Meteorologist Kristina Pydynowski, "the greatest impact from Humberto will be on the Cape Verde Islands this week." Locally gusty thunderstorms, downpours and rough surf and seas will affect the islands.

Prior to the satellite era, the 1941 season did not deliver an Atlantic hurricane until Sept. 16.

Farther back, there were two years that had no reports of hurricanes in the Atlantic. These were in 1907 and 1914. While it is possible there were no hurricanes during both seasons, there were only five reported tropical storms in 1907 and only one in 1914. Especially, during the latter season, a number of storms may have gone undetected without the aid of weather satellite photos.

Beyond Humberto, there are no strong candidates for hurricanes through the middle of September. However, there may be another tropical depression or storm over the next week to 10 days. Possible tropical depression/storm breeding areas include the western Caribbean, the southwestern Gulf of Mexico and the continued train of disturbances moving westward off of Africa.

The season thus far has treated most populated areas of North America kindly. Sadly, it has claimed lives in Mexico, due to flooding from Tropical Storm Fernand in August.

Late-season storms in some years have been very destructive.

According to Meteorologist Mark Mancuso, "While 2005's Wilma occurred during the most active Atlantic hurricane season on record, it did not come about until the middle of October."

Quote
Wilma became the most intense hurricane on record in the Atlantic basin, in terms of low atmospheric pressure. Maximum sustained winds reached 185 mph. Wilma killed dozens of people and caused nearly $30 billion in damage from the Caribbean to the eastern United States, Canada and later Europe.

While the season thus far has been tame compared to some years, many meteorologists concur that the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season is not over yet and will not sound the "all-clear" until the weather pattern suggests that.

There will be more systems to monitor over the next two months. Alerts to such systems will be sounded, when appropriate.

There is a chance there are three active tropical systems spinning over the Atlantic basin simultaneously later this week. These include Humberto, Gabrielle and perhaps a system over the southwestern Gulf of Mexico.

People should consider hurricanes as being just as much of an autumn weather phenomena as well as a summer phenomena. Hurricane season runs from June 1 to Nov. 30.

(http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/newsstory/2013/590x435_09091418_screen-shot-2013-09-09-at-10.17.51-am.png)

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, since 1851, there have been 645 hurricanes during the months of September, October and November, compared to 321 hurricanes during June, July and August.

"Even if the large high pressure area and its dry air over the central Atlantic was to hold through the remainder of the season, occasional weaknesses in that system can still allow hurricane formation over the next two months," Kottlowski said.


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on September 14, 2013, 02:47:46 pm
Earth Gains Record Amount of Sea Ice In 2013...
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/14/earth-gains-a-record-amount-of-sea-ice-in-2013-earth-has-gained-19000-manhattans-of-sea-ice-since-this-date-last-year-the-largest-increase-on-record/

...Al Gore Predicted Arctic Ice Could Disappear...
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/wrong-al-gore-predicted-arctic-summer-ice-could-disappear-2013

New UN report lowers estimates on global warming...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 14, 2013, 03:39:24 pm
...Al Gore Predicted Arctic Ice Could Disappear...
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/wrong-al-gore-predicted-arctic-summer-ice-could-disappear-2013

Al Gore is one of many false prophets talked about in 1 John 5.


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 15, 2013, 12:06:38 pm
Al Gore is one of many false prophets talked about in 1 John 5.

Sorry about that, that should say 1 John 4, and NOT chapter 5!

1John 4:1  Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1Jn 4:2  Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jn 4:3  And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1Jn 4:4  Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.



Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on September 20, 2013, 12:49:47 pm
World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years

 Leaked United Nations report reveals the world's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years

 Politicians have raised concerns about the final draft

 Fears that the findings will encourage deniers of man-made climate change


Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.
 
A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.
 
Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain.
 
The report is the result of six years’ work by UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is seen as the world authority on the extent of climate change and what is causing it – on which governments including Britain’s base their green policies.

But leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.
 
Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.
 
Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.
 
Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat - and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.

The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter.
 
The last IPCC ‘assessment report’ was published in 2007 and has been the subject of huge controversy after it had to correct the embarrassing claim that the Himalayas would melt by 2035.
 
It was then engulfed in the ‘Climategate’ scandal surrounding leaked emails allegedly showing scientists involved in it trying to manipulate their data to make it look more convincing – although several inquiries found no wrongdoing.
 
The latest report, which runs to 2,000 pages, will be shown to representatives from all 195 governments next week at a meeting in Stockholm, who can discuss alterations they want to make.
 
But since it was issued to governments in June, they have raised hundreds of objections about the 20-page summary for policymakers, which sums up the findings of the scientists.
 
What it says will inform renewable energy policies and how much consumers and businesses will pay for them.
 
The report is expected to say the rate of warming between 1998 and 2012 was about half of the average rate since 1951 – and put this down to natural variations such as the El Nino and La Nina ocean cycles and the cooling effects of volcanoes.

A German climate scientist - Stefan Rahmstorf, who reviewed the chapter on sea levels - yesterday admitted it was possible the report’s authors were feeling under pressure to address the slowdown in warming due to the ‘public debate’ around the issue.
 
The draft report, which is not new research but a synthesis of all the work being done by scientists around the world, is likely to be highly disputed at the three-day meeting.
 
It will make the case that humans are causing global warming with carbon emissions even more strongly upgrading it from ‘very likely’ in 2007 to ‘extremely likely’ it is manmade.
 
But scientists are under pressure to explain why the warming has not exceeded 1998 levels although the decade 2000-2010 was the hottest on record.
 
Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists based in Washington, said yesterday: ‘I think to not address it would be a problem because then you basically have the denialists saying: ‘Look the IPCC is silent on this issue.’
 
Jonathan Lynn, a spokesman for the IPCC said yesterday: ‘This is the culmination of four years’ work by hundreds of scientists, where governments get a chance to ensure the summary for policymakers is clear and concise in a dialogue with the scientists who wrote it, and have the opportunity to raise any topics they think should be highlighted.’



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html#ixzz2fSMRYke8


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 20, 2013, 12:55:32 pm
All of this back and forth Hegelian Dialectic talk is only keeping everyone in the dark about the Illuminati's draconian agendas, one of them being HAARP/weather control modification.

No, temps haven't been "rising" per se like these climate change "activists" have been claiming - but nonetheless HAARP/weather control modification have caused the weather, especially in recent years, to act really bizarre and unpredictable(to the point of confusing everyone).


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on September 21, 2013, 08:06:25 am
UN climate report will not sway US deniers

http://news.yahoo.com/un-climate-report-not-sway-us-deniers-020716658.html

This article is filled with SO MANY LIES it is simply amazing, and seriously goes to show how the media can influence and result.

Quote
The upcoming UN report on climate change is not likely to rattle US deniers of global warming who hold sway in the halls of power, experts say.A hefty analysis of the latest science on global climate change, the report is packed with recommendations for policymakers.It will be released at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) next week, though most Republicans in the US government are expected to dismiss it outright."The IPCC report will help for the observers and the public to understand where the majority of the scientists' opinion stands," said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists."But I don't think it will change the mind of the hard core deniers."Meyer added: "We don't call them skeptics, because they are not putting forward alternatives ideas and having them tested in a peer review journals. They basically deny this problem."Climate skeptics and deniers dominate the House of Representatives, but Meyer said some legislators admit privately that the science is correct and that global warming is being exacerbated by fossil fuel use."But they cannot say it because they will be challenged in the primary (elections in 2014) by the Tea Party," the ultraconservative wing of the Republican party.They "say what they have to say to get reelected," Meyer told AFP.Public opinion polls have shown that an increasing number of Americans believe climate change is real.According to a Pew research poll this spring, 69 percent of Americans, a 12 point hike over 2009, believe there are strong indications the planet is getting warmer.However, these surveys have also shown that a just a third of the US public thinks climate change is a serious problem..Surveys also show a stark partisan divide, with 50-58 percent of Republicans saying they do not believe that climate change is happening.Americans' views on climate change are closely linked to their political orientations; those who doubt the theory of evolution and believe in creationism are often climate skeptics or deniers, according to Joe Casola, an expert at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions in Washington."With the IPCC report, the older arguments -- that climate change does not exist or CO2 is not responsible for warming or the humans are not responsible -- are harder and harder to make," he said."I think there was a subtle shift in the last few months to focusing more on this kind of future tense that warming will not be that bad," he added."It will be interesting to see if the old arguments come back, or if they shift to the new ones."According to Meyer, the Republican thinking on climate science has made it harder for the US political system to enact alternative policies to slow the pollution from cheap fossil fuels.The movement to deny climate change is bolstered by influence groups that oppose regulations that would limit CO2 emissions, the main greenhouse gas, which the United States emits more of than any other country but China.According to Greenpeace, these lobbies have funnelled nearly $150 million to more than 80 conservative groups from 2002 to 2011. Among the largest donors are billionaires Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, as well as oil giant ExxonMobil."Their intent is to intimidate scientists and, indeed, to get them to second guess themselves," said Michael Mann, professor at Penn State University and author of "The Hockey Stick and the Climate War.""In that sense, the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by industry front groups and individuals like the Koch Brothers to attack and intimidate the scientists have partly achieved their goal," Mann told AFP.


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on September 24, 2013, 08:04:05 am
Human role in warming 'more certain' - UN climate chief

 :D

Scientists are more certain than ever that greenhouse gases from human activities are heating the planet, the head of the UN's climate panel says.

Rajendra Pachauri made the comments in an interview with BBC News.

The panel is due to deliver its latest report on the state of the climate later this week in Stockholm, Sweden.

Its last report was criticised after an error on glaciers unveiled other flaws, but Prof Pachauri said procedures had been reformed and strengthened.

He also dismissed suggestions of a slowdown in global warming.

"There’s definitely an increase in our belief that climate change is taking place and that human beings are responsible,” he told me.

"I don't think there is a slowdown (in the rate of temperature increase). I would like to draw your attention to the World Meteorological Organization which clearly stated on the basis of observations that the first decade of this century has been the warmest in recorded history.

"And I think the rest will be brought out by the report itself when it’s released."

Prof Pachauri’s insistence that warming has not slowed hints at a focus of debate this week in Stockholm: Global temperatures have not been increasing as fast as scientists predicted, and several governments insist that this puzzle is properly addressed in the final summary.

Have computer climate models overestimated the sensitivity of the planet to increasing CO2? Or has excess heat been stored up in oceans whence it will emerge to super-heat the planet in decades to come? Or both?

Or just perhaps it could be something else.

rest of this fairy tale: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24204323


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on September 26, 2013, 05:01:12 am
Global warming believers are feeling the heat

On Friday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change delivers its latest verdict on the state of man-made global warming. Though the details are a secret, one thing is clear: the version of events you will see and hear in much of the media, especially from partis pris organisations like the BBC, will be the opposite of what the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report actually says.

Already we have had a taste of the nonsense to come: a pre-announcement to the effect that “climate scientists” are now “95 per cent certain” that humans are to blame for climate change; an evidence-free declaration by the economist who wrote the discredited Stern Report that the computer models cited by the IPCC “substantially underestimate” the scale of the problem; a statement by the panel’s chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, that “the scientific evidence of… climate change has strengthened year after year”.

As an exercise in bravura spin, these claims are up there with Churchill’s attempts to reinvent the British Expeditionary Force’s humiliating retreat from Dunkirk as a victory. In truth, though, the new report offers scant consolation to those many alarmists whose careers depend on talking up the threat. It says not that they are winning the war to persuade the world of the case for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change – but that the battle is all but lost.

At the heart of the problem lie the computer models which, for 25 years, have formed the basis for the IPCC’s scaremongering: they predicted runaway global warming, when the real rise in temperatures has been much more modest. So modest, indeed, that it has fallen outside the lowest parameters of the IPCC’s prediction range. The computer models, in short, are bunk.

To a few distinguished scientists, this will hardly come as news. For years they have insisted that “sensitivity” – the degree to which the climate responds to increases in atmospheric CO₂ – is far lower than the computer models imagined. In the past, their voices have been suppressed by the bluster and skulduggery we saw exposed in the Climategate emails. From grant-hungry science institutions and environmentalist pressure groups to carbon traders, EU commissars, and big businesses with their snouts in the subsidies trough, many vested interests have much to lose should the global warming gravy train be derailed.

This is why the latest Assessment Report is proving such a headache to the IPCC. It’s the first in its history to admit what its critics have said for years: global warming did “pause” unexpectedly in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming. And, other than an ad hoc new theory about the missing heat having been absorbed by the deep ocean, it cannot come up with a convincing explanation why. Coming from a sceptical blog none of this would be surprising. But from the IPCC, it’s dynamite: the equivalent of the Soviet politburo announcing that command economies may not after all be the most efficient way of allocating resources.

Which leaves the IPCC in a dilemma: does it ’fess up and effectively put itself out of business? Or does it brazen it out for a few more years, in the hope that a compliant media and an eco-brainwashed populace will be too stupid to notice? So far, it looks as if it prefers the second option – a high-risk strategy. Gone are the days when all anybody read of its Assessment Reports were the sexed-up “Summary for Policymakers”. Today, thanks to the internet, sceptical inquirers such as Donna Laframboise (who revealed that some 40 per cent of the IPCC’s papers came not from peer-reviewed journals but from Greenpeace and WWF propaganda) will be going through every chapter with a fine toothcomb.

Al Gore’s “consensus” is about to be holed below the water-line – and those still aboard the SS Global Warming are adjusting their positions. Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”. Others, such as the EU’s Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, steam on oblivious. Interviewed last week by the Telegraph’s Bruno Waterfield, she said: “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said: 'We were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?” If she means needlessly driving up energy prices, carpeting the countryside with wind turbines and terrifying children about a problem that turns out to have been imaginary, then most of us would probably answer “No”.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100238047/global-warming-believers-are-feeling-the-heat/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on September 28, 2013, 10:31:05 am
'No children, happy to go extinct', tweets weatherman after grim climate-change report made him cry (now he's considering a vasectomy)

•Eric Holthaus, who used to do weather for Wall Street Journal, was reacting to Friday's findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
•Scientists found in the report that it was 'extremely likely' that humans are causing warming trends
•Holthaus said he has decided not to have children in order to leave a lighter carbon footprint, and has considered having a vasectomy
•He tweeted on Friday 'no children, happy to go extinct'

•The weatherman also said he is committed to stop flying as 'it's not worth the climate'
•US Secretary of State, John Kerry, calls the report 'an alarm bell'
•It means scientists have moved from being 90 per cent sure to 95 per cent sure regarding global warming


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436551/A-weatherman-breaks-tears-vows-NEVER-fly-grim-climate-change-report.html

I hope he goes through with it, less Liberals in the world is always an improvement


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on September 28, 2013, 03:34:57 pm
The New Inquisition: Climate Change Deniers Must Be Punished


Speaking at the Brookings Institute, former vice president Al Gore called for the punishment of climate change deniers because of their historical potential alliance with radical revolutionaries that could send our nation into turmoil and chaos.
 
Gore said: “I did actually study the work of the founding fathers in some detail during those days and I confirmed in my worry that actually in our system, there is no intermediate step between a final Supreme Court decision and violent revolution. And given those options, I basically did only what the American people are credited for doing famously by Winston Churchill, they generally do the right thing after first exhausting every available alternative.”
 
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released their report entitled the “5th Assessment on Climate Change” and admit that they are 95% sure that climate change is the solely caused by anthropomorphic means.
 
However, the IPCC does not draw attention to the fact that they are more uncertain about what is actually causing climate change than they are letting on.
 
President Obama spoke at Georgetown University (GU) earlier this year to unveil his administration’s plans to combat climate change which include regulation of coal plants, building sea walls for defense against rising sea levels, energy efficiency for residences and commercial buildings and governmental permits for energy efficiency on governmentally owned lands.
 
Obama exclaimed: “The question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it is too late.”
 
Responding to those who do not believe that human activity is the sole cause of climate change, Obama said he “doesn’t have much patience.”
 
Obama said: “As a president, as a father and as an American, I am here to say we need to act. I don’t have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real. We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.”
 
The president continued: “While we may not live to see the full realization of our ambition, we will have the satisfaction of knowing that the world we leave to our children will be better off for what we did.”
 
A study published states that the scientific community is in accord that man-made climate change is real and this revelation should be championed by the citizens to their governments so that policies can be altered in favor of saving the planet.
 
Stated in the paper: “We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. There are almost 12,000 scientific papers in the permanent scientific record published in peer-reviewed science journals on the subject of “global climate change” or “global warming” in the twenty years between 1991 and 2011. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.”
 
The researchers of this paper say: “Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people’s acceptance that climate change is happening.”
 
A frightening 97% of scientists allegedly agree that human activity is responsible for global warming. The researchers state: “Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus… is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.”
 
Last year, Kari Norgaard, professor of sociological and environmental studies at Oregon State University (OSU) wrote a paper calling for the treatment of climate denial as a psychiatric disorder.
 
At the Planet Under Pressure conference in London, Norgaard said that climate change deniers are racists, and that overcoming their viewpoints challenges the climate change purveyor’s agenda.

http://www.occupycorporatism.com/new-inquisition-climate-change-deniers-must-punished/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Kilika on September 29, 2013, 04:37:43 am
Quote
Al Gore called for the punishment of climate change deniers because of their historical potential alliance with radical revolutionaries that could send our nation into turmoil and chaos.

This coming from the same guy who just sold Current TV to Al-Jazerra, the media arm of Arabic terrorists. ::)


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on September 29, 2013, 11:51:59 am
UN Climate Change Report Ignores 15-Year 'Pause' in Warming

An exhaustive United Nations report that claimed with 95% certainty that humans are responsible for global warming left out data that found the planet has stopped warming over the last 15 years, because it did not fit with the climate change agenda it wanted to advance.
 
The report, produced by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),  could not explain "why the planet has largely stopped warming over the past 15 years." So it just ignored it. According to the climate data from the U.K.'s weather-watching Met Office, "global surface temperatures rose rapidly during the 70s," but they have "have been relatively flat over the past decade and a half, rising only 0.05 degrees Celsius (0.09 degrees Fahrenheit)."
 
In September, a draft of the U.N. report simply could not explain why the surface temperatures have not warmed.
 
“Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends,” the report now reads. "There may also be ... an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing."
 
Judith Curry, professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said if the "if the pause continues beyond 15 years (well it already has), they are toast.”
 
There have been many reports that have shown how climate models have vastly overestimated "warming." For instance, a study in the journal Nature Climate Change "compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990's to the actual amount of warming" and 114 of those predictions overestimated the amount of warming. Other studies have found that various climate models used by the United Nations have "forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred."
 
As Breitbart News reported, a group of 50 international scientists released a comprehensive new report, which cited thousands of peer-reviewed articles the United Nations-sponsored panel on climate change ignored, "concluded that evidence now leans against global warming resulting from human-related greenhouse gas emissions."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/28/UN-Climate-Change-Report-Ignores-15-Year-Pause-in-Warming


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on October 12, 2013, 06:28:06 pm
http://www.harmonicminer.com/wordpress/2008/08/16/rick-warren-obama-and-mccain-to-talk/
8/16/2008

Excerpt:

(Rick) Warren is a strong evangelical pastor and author who is known for adding more traditionally “liberal” concerns to his list of issues, including the environment and poverty, without releasing his traditional commitments. He is, I suppose, a moderate, politically. He signed the Evangelical Climate Initiative, (The entire statement is here.) If Warren has endorsed a candidate, I don’t know about it.
http://christiansandclimate.org/signatories/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on November 05, 2013, 06:34:12 am
Global warming 'pause' may last for 20 more years and Arctic sea ice has already started to recover

 Study says warmer temperatures are largely due to natural 300-year cycles
 Actual increase in last 17 years lower than almost every prediction

 Scientists likened continuing pause to a Mexican wave in a stadium


The 17-year pause in global warming is likely to last into the 2030s and the Arctic sea ice has already started to recover, according to new research.

A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt –amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy.

Not only does it explain the unexpected pause, it suggests that the scientific majority – whose views are represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – have underestimated the role of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/02/article-2485612-1927936900000578-580_634x534.jpg)

 :D

The research comes amid mounting evidence that the computer models on which the IPCC based the gloomy forecasts of a rapidly warming planet in its latest report, published in September, are diverging widely from reality.

The graph shown above, based on a version published by Dr Ed Hawkins of Reading University on his blog, Climate Lab Book, reveals that actual temperatures are now below the predictions made by almost all the 138 models on which the IPCC relies.

The pause means there has been no statistically significant increase in world average surface temperatures since the beginning of 1997, despite the models’ projection of a steeply rising trend.

According to Dr Hawkins, the divergence is now so great that the world’s climate is cooler than what the models collectively predicted with ‘five to 95 per cent certainty’.

Curry and Wyatt say they have identified a climatic ‘stadium wave’ – the phenomenon known in Britain as a Mexican wave,  in which the crowd at a stadium stand and sit so that a wave seems to circle the audience.

In similar fashion, a number of cycles in the temperature of air and oceans, and the level of Arctic ice, take place across the Northern hemisphere over decades. Curry and Wyatt say there is evidence of this going back at least 300 years.

According to Curry and Wyatt, the theory may explain both the warming pause and why the computer models did not forecast it.
 
It also means that a large proportion of the warming that did occur in the years before the pause was due not to greenhouse gas emissions, but to the same cyclical wave.

‘The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,’ said Wyatt. This is in sharp contrast with the IPCC’s report, which predicts warming of between 0.3 and 0.7C by 2035.

Wyatt added: ‘The stadium wave forecasts that sea ice will recover from its recent minimum.’ The record low seen in 2012, followed by the large increase in 2013, is consistent with the theory, she said.
 
Even IPCC report co-authors such as Dr Hawkins admit some of the models are ‘too hot’.

He said: ‘The upper end of the latest climate model projections is inconsistent’ with observed temperatures, though he added even the lower predictions could have ‘negative impacts’ if true.
 
But if the pause lasted another ten years, and there were no large volcanic eruptions, ‘then global surface temperatures would be outside the IPCC’s indicative likely range’.

Professor Curry went much further. ‘The growing divergence between climate model simulations and observations raises the  prospect that climate models are inadequate in fundamental ways,’ she said.

If the pause continued, this would suggest that the models were not ‘fit for purpose’. Well DUH



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html#ixzz2jm33Gnpr



Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on November 05, 2013, 06:35:05 am
Global warming skeptic: Obama sounds alarm as extreme weather shows dip

A skeptic of man-made global warming says President Obama's new executive order on climate change is based on debunked science and is dangerous to the economy.

President Obama issued the executive order last Friday, November 1, telling federal agencies to work with states and communities to prepare for the effects of climate change. According to the order, the impacts include an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, severe droughts and sea-level rise.
 
Marc Morano of Climate Depot says Obama's executive order comes as weather problems show a decrease.
 
"First of all, this year is probably the least extreme weather year we've had in 100 years!" says Morano. "Globally we're looking at no trends in floods. We're looking at declining trends in droughts. We're looking at declining trends in big tornadoes. We're looking at significant drought of hurricanes, even heat waves."
 
Meanwhile, Morano thinks the executive order is going to open up a can of worms which could end up being a regulatory nightmare for developers.
 
Morano tells OneNewsNow: "Initially it sounds harmless enough when you're talking about, Let's have an executive order, let's prepare for storms, because you can argue, and many skeptical scientists argue that,Yes, you need to prepare for climate change, be it natural or man-made, because you always should be prepared for extreme storms. But having an executive order, tying it to global warming, is going to eventually morph into some very damaging economic policies."
 
President Obama's order comes just another a new climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which stated that climate change is real and man is responsible.
 
A climate conference is also planned for later this month in Poland. Morano plans to attend.

 - See more at: http://www.onenewsnow.com/politics-govt/2013/11/05/global-warming-skeptic-obama-sounds-alarm-as-extreme-weather-shows-dip#sthash.YAOGqSla.dpuf


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on December 06, 2013, 04:05:14 am
Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating

The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960. But don’t expect anyone who pointed to last year’s hurricanes as “proof” of the need to act against global warming to apologize; the warmists don’t work that way.

Warmist claims of a severe increase in hurricane activity go back to 2005 and Hurricane Katrina. The cover of Al Gore’s 2009 book, “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis,” even features a satellite image of the globe with four major hurricanes superimposed.

Yet the evidence to the contrary was there all along. Back in 2005 I and others reviewed the entire hurricane record, which goes back over a century, and found no increase of any kind. Yes, we sometimes get bad storms — but no more frequently now than in the past. The advocates simply ignored that evidence — then repeated their false claims after Hurricane Sandy last year.

And the media play along. For example, it somehow wasn’t front-page news that committed believers in man-made global warming recently admitted there’s been no surface global warming for well over a decade and maybe none for decades more. Nor did we see warmists conceding that their explanation is essentially a confession that the previous warming may not have been man-made at all.

That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this “pause” could extend into the 2030s.

Mind you, the term “pause” is misleading in the extreme: Unless and until it resumes again, it’s just a “stop.” You don’t say a bullet-ridden body “paused” breathing.

Remarkably, that stoppage has practically been a state secret. Just five years ago, the head of the International Panel on Climate Change, the group most associated with “proving” that global warming is man-made and has horrific potential consequences, told Congress that Earth is running a “fever” that’s “apt to get much worse.” Yet he and IPCC knew the warming had stopped a decade earlier.

Those who pointed this out, including yours truly, were labeled “denialists.” Yet the IPCC itself finally admitted the “pause” in its latest report.

The single most damning aspect of the “pause” is that, because it has occurred when “greenhouse gases” have been pouring into the atmosphere at record levels, it shows at the very least that something natural is at play here. The warmists suggest that natural factors have “suppressed” the warming temporarily, but that’s just a guess: The fact is, they have nothing like the understanding of the climate that they claimed (and their many models that all showed future warming mean nothing, since they all used essentially the same false information).

If Ma Nature caused the “pause,” can’t this same lady be responsible for the warming observed earlier? You bet! Fact is, the earth was cooling and warming long before so-called GHGs could have been a factor. A warm spell ushered in the Viking Age, and many scientists believe recent warming was merely a recovery from what’s called “the Little Ice Age” that began around 1300.

Yet none of this unsettles the rush to kill debate. The Los Angeles Times has even announced that it will no longer print letters to the editor questioning man-made global warming. Had the Times been printing before Columbus, perhaps it would have banned letters saying the Earth was round.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to push to reduce supposed global-warming emissions. Last month, the president even signed an executive order establishing a Council on Climate Preparedness and Resilience that could dramatically expand government bureaucrats’ ability to restrict Americans’ use of their property, water and energy to reduce so-called “greenhouse gas emissions.”

Such attempted reductions in other countries have proved incredibly expensive, while barely reducing emissions. But damn the stubbornly weak economy, says President Obama, full speed ahead!

This, even as new data show that last year the US median wage hit its lowest level since 1998 and long-term unemployment is almost the highest ever.

People have a right to religious and cult beliefs within reason. But the warmists have been proved wrong time and again, each time reacting with little more than pictures of forlorn polar bears on ice floes and trying to shut down the opposition. (More bad timing: Arctic ice increased by almost a third this past year, while that at the South Pole was thicker and wider than it’s been in 35 years.)

In war and in science, the bloodiest conflicts always seem to be the religious ones. Time for the American public to say it’s no longer going to play the victim in this one.

http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on December 06, 2013, 11:17:32 am
Report: Scientists predict a century of global cooling

Better start investing in some warm clothes because German scientists are predicting that the Earth will cool over the next century. German scientists found that two naturally occurring cycles will combine to lower global temperatures during the 21st century, eventually dropping to levels corresponding with the “little ice age” of 1870.   

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/05/report-scientists-predict-a-century-of-global-cooling/#!

(http://www.freesmfhosting.com/gallery/endtimesandcurrentevents/1_20_08_12_7_47_52.gif)


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Kilika on December 06, 2013, 12:07:26 pm
Now wait, do I need board shorts and flipflops, or a parka?  ::)


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on December 08, 2013, 06:43:06 am
Climate change warning: Killer winter storms for next THIRTY years

KILLER freezes, floods and heatwaves will devastate Britain during the next 30 years, climate ­experts have warned.


Many people could die as extreme weather becomes common.

There will be more freak winds like the October storm, which killed four people.

Heatwaves will be lethal and the sea level will rise, leaving coastal towns at risk of being swamped by storm surges.

Sir Brian Heap, president of the European Academies Science Advisory Council, said he felt “obliged” to issue the warning after a new study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It comes on the back of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, which has killed more than 5,000 people.

Sir Brian said: “Given the tragic events this year in the rest of the world and the recent IPCC report, EASAC feels obliged to draw attention to the growing impact of extreme weather in Europe.”

The continent’s leading experts had made a detailed study of likely extreme weather, he said.

Sir Brian warned: “From the major loss of lives in heatwaves to the economic and human costs of floods and storms, the implications are worrying.

“They present the European Union and Member States with significant challenges in preparing Europe for a future with greater frequency of extreme weather.”

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/354006/Climate-change-warning-Killer-winter-storms-for-next-THIRTY-years


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on December 16, 2013, 08:20:24 am
'Global warming' iced by 'coldest days ever'

It’s been a bad week for global warming. Cairo saw its first snow in 100 years. Oregon, like several other states, reached its coldest temperature in 40 years. Chicago saw its coldest days ever, and – as if to add finality to the trend – Antarctica reached the coldest temperature ever recorded anywhere on earth. But no matter how cold it gets, global-warming adherents insist it’s all part and parcel of what they believe to be abnormal and soon-to-be-catastrophic warming of the planet’s surface due to man’s reckless introduction of “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere.   

(READ MORE) http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/global-warming-iced-by-coldest-days-ever/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on December 17, 2013, 05:59:15 am
16 Signs That “Global Warming” Was A Lie And That We Have Now Entered A Period Of Global Cooling

Back in 2009, Al Gore boldly declared that “the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”  Well, it turns out that was a lie along with almost everything else that Al Gore has been peddling.  The truth is that the polar ice cap is actually growing.  It is about 50 percent larger than it was at this time last year.  And as you will read about below, a shocking UN report that was recently leaked shows that the planet has actually not been warming for the past 15 years.  So if you are breathlessly anticipating that “global warming” will soon bring on the apocalypse, you can stop waiting.  On the other hand, there is rising concern about what “global cooling” will soon do to the planet as we suffer through the beginning of the coldest winter in decades.  Thanks to an unusually quiet solar cycle and an unusually high number of volcano eruptions, global temperatures have been falling.  And if this cold weather persists, that could lead to massive global problems.  Periods of very low temperatures throughout history have resulted in mass crop failures and widespread famines.  Could that soon happen to us?  The following are 16 signs that “global warming” was a lie and that we have now entered a period of global cooling…
 
1. According to a leaked UN report that absolutely rocked the “global warming” believers, the earth has not gotten any warmer for the past 15 years.
 
2. The amount of ice covering the Arctic is up by 50 percent compared to this time in 2012.
 
3. In just one week in late November, a combined total of more than 1000 new cold temperature and snowfall records were set in the United States.
 
4. In just one week in December, a combined total of more than 2000 new cold temperature and snowfall records were set in the United States.
 
5. On December 15th, 53 percent of the United States was covered in snow.  That was the highest level on this date in 11 years.
 
6. A snowstorm that spanned more than 1,000 miles slammed into New England on Sunday.
 
7. Some areas of upstate New York were hit with about six feet of snow a few days ago.
 
8. Chicago just experienced that coldest temperatures that it has seen in December in nearly 20 years.
 
9. On December 7th, Eugene, Oregon recorded the lowest temperature that it has seen since December 11th, 1972.
 
10. A few days ago, three feet of snow closed roads in Jerusalem.  It was the worst snow storm in Israel since 1953.
 
11. Heavy snow also fell on parts of Saudi Arabia.  That was considered to be extremely unusual.
 
12. The recent snowfall in Turkey was so bad that it closed 900 roads.
 
13. Temperatures have dropped so low that some Syrian war refugees are actually dying from the cold.
 
14. Cairo, Egypt just had the first snowfall that it has experienced in 100 years.
 
15. It was so cold in Canada recently that the Arctic Winter Games biathlon trials were forced indoors.
 
16. According to NASA satellite data, a temperature of minus 135 degrees Fahrenheit was recorded in Antarctica back in July.
 
So why is all of this happening?
 
Well, the number one factor affecting our climate is the giant ball of fire called the Sun that our planet revolves around.  As I detailed in a previous article, solar activity has dropped to a 100 year low.  The following is how a Space.com article recently described what we are currently experiencing…
 

The sun’s current space-weather cycle is the most anemic in 100 years, scientists say.
 
Our star is now at “solar maximum,” the peak phase of its 11-year activity cycle. But this solar max is weak, and the overall current cycle, known as Solar Cycle 24, conjures up comparisons to the famously feeble Solar Cycle 14 in the early 1900s, researchers said.
 
“None of us alive have ever seen such a weak cycle. So we will learn something,” Leif Svalgaard of Stanford University told reporters here today (Dec. 11) at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.
 
Another factor that is causing all of this cold weather is a dramatic rise in volcanic activity.  Throughout human history, volcanic eruptions have produced some of the coldest winters ever recorded, and in 2013 we have witnessed a record number of volcanic eruptions.  Something appears to be happening to the crust of the earth, and that is one of the reasons why I included the future eruption of Mt. Rainier in my new novel.  The mainstream media does not talk about this much, but right now we are seeing a stunning rise in volcanic activity all over the planet.
 
The truth is that volcanoes can influence our climate far more than normal human activity ever possibly could.  When a tremendous amount of volcanic debris gets ejected into the atmosphere, it can have a huge impact on global temperatures and the consequences can be quite dramatic.  The following historic examples come from Wikipedia…
 

The effects of volcanic eruptions on recent winters are modest in scale, but historically have been significant.
 
Most recently, the 1991 explosion of Mount Pinatubo, a stratovolcano in the Philippines, cooled global temperatures for about 2–3 years.
 
In 1883, the explosion of Krakatoa (Krakatau) created volcanic winter-like conditions. The four years following the explosion were unusually cold, and the winter of 1887-1888 included powerful blizzards.  Record snowfalls were recorded worldwide.
 
The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, a stratovolcano in Indonesia, occasioned mid-summer frosts in New York State and June snowfalls in New England and Newfoundland and Labrador in what came to be known as the “Year Without a Summer” of 1816.
 
A paper written by Benjamin Franklin in 1783 blamed the unusually cool summer of 1783 on volcanic dust coming from Iceland, where the eruption of Laki volcano had released enormous amounts of sulfur dioxide, resulting in the death of much of the island’s livestock and a catastrophic famine which killed a quarter of the Icelandic population. Northern hemisphere temperatures dropped by about 1 °C in the year following the Laki eruption.
 
In 1600, the Huaynaputina in Peru erupted. Tree ring studies show that 1601 was cold. Russia had its worst famine in 1601-1603. From 1600 to 1602, Switzerland, Latvia and Estonia had exceptionally cold winters. The wine harvest was late in 1601 in France, and in Peru and Germany, wine production collapsed. Peach trees bloomed late in China, and Lake Suwa in Japan froze early.
 
So are we now heading for a similar period of time?
 
Will lower temperatures lead to mass crop failures and widespread global famine?

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/16-signs-that-global-warming-was-a-lie-and-that-we-have-now-entered-a-period-of-global-cooling


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on December 20, 2013, 04:31:59 pm
The top seven global warming alarmist setbacks in 2013

Hold your champagne glasses high this holiday season, because the end of 2013 marks the 17th year without global warming.
 
This year has been trying for climate scientists and environmentalists who have been trying hard to explain away the 17-year hiatus in global warming and link “extreme weather” to rising greenhouse gas emissions — despite strong evidence to the contrary. There has been a breakdown in the manmade global warming consensus, and some even argue we are headed for an ice age.
 
In honor of the 17th year without global warming, The Daily Caller News Foundation has put together seven setbacks for global warming alarmism.

1) Studies show that the world was warmer than it is today during the Roman Empire and when the Vikings were plundering Europe and North America. In fact, even in the 19th Century, there were discussions surrounding the fact that the Vikings could settle the northernmost reaches of Greenland and North America because there was less ice coverage.
 
2) During the second week in December, the U.S. saw more than 2000 record low temperatures and record snowfalls, according to the National Weather Service and HamWeather records center. There were 606 record low temperatures, 1,234 low maximum temperatures and 285 record snowfalls across the country. In the meantime there were only 98 high temperature records and 141 high minimum temperature records.
 
3) Satellite data shows that the polar bears have at least one reason to be happy this year – Arctic sea ice coverage was up 50 percent over last year’s record low coverage. Contrary to Al Gore’s prediction that there would be no polar ice cap by this year, sea ice coverage spanned nearly 2,100 cubic miles by the end of this year’s melting season, up from about 1,400 cubic last year.
 
4) Global cooling is on the way, according to an increasing number of scientists. German scientists have predicted that based on declining sunspot activity and natural climate oscillation the world will cool over the next century. Temperatures will eventually drop to levels corresponding with the “little ice age” of 1870.
 
5) Other scientists have also been coming around to the global cooling side of things. The BBC reported that Professor Mike Lockwood of the Reading University predicts that at the current rate of decline in solar activity, another “Little Ice Age” could envelope Northern Europe.

6) The United Nations climate bureaucracy’s latest global warming report was called “hilarious” by a leading scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Richard Lindzen said the UN’s report “has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence” because they continue to proclaim with ever greater certainty that mankind is causing global warming, despite their models continually being wrong.
 
“Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen said. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.”
 
7) The Senate testimony of Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado completely undercut environmentalists and Democrats trying to claim that global warming was causing “extreme weather.”
 
“It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,” Pielke said. “It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.”
 
The other witnesses on the panel did not refute Pielke’s data.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/20/the-top-seven-global-warming-alarmist-setbacks-in-2013/#ixzz2o3bHxT5z


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on January 08, 2014, 06:22:08 am
Global Cooling: Is an Ice Age Coming?

It wasn't supposed to happen: a ship full of scientists and environmentalists sent to the Antarctic to find melting ice from global warming got stuck in frozen ice from fearsome cold.
 
Then, the rescue ship got stuck in the ice, too. 

Critics liken the incident to the climate change movement itself: stuck in denial over the fact that the climate is not getting warmer but seems to be getting much colder.

The climate is changing, but it's not changing the way climate change crowd predicted it would. Nature has made a mockery of global warming, so who are the real climate deniers?
 
Ice is not only growing in the South Pole, but in parts of the North Pole, too. And the coldest arctic temperatures in decades have descended upon North America.

But that didn't stop Greenpeace from trying to scare children last month with a video of a sweaty, beleaguered Santa Claus threatening to call off Christmas because the North Pole is melting.

Global Cooling
 
The fact that Arctic ice is growing may not be the good news that it seems to be. There are signs that the Earth is entering a very unpleasant cooling period. Sunspot activity remains very low.
 
"The sun has been very unusual for almost 15 years now," Jens Pedersen, senior scientist at the Denmark's Technical University, said.
 
Pedersen said the sun recently reached solar maximum and that there should be a lot of sunspot activity, but there isn't.

"We have to go back 100 years to find a solar maximum that was as weak as the one we are in right now," he told CBN News. "And the recent solar minimum…one has to go back 200 years to find one that was as weak."
 
The last time the sun was this quiet, North America and Europe suffered through a weather event from the 1600s to the 1800s known as "Little Ice Age," when the Thames River in London regularly froze solid, and North America saw terrible winters. Crops failed and people starved.

Hiding the Evidence
 
Pedersen said climate scientists know the Earth stopped warming 15 years ago. But the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, of which Pedersen is an expert reviewer, suppressed a recent report from its own scientists that the U.N.'s climate model has been proven wrong.
 
"In particular one of the issues has been why global warming has stopped during the last 15 years, and climate scientists were very frank that the climate models do not match the climate we observe," Pedersen said.
 
But politicians removed that embarrassing finding from the final draft.  It's as if the alleged danger from climate change can't be wrong because it is now too important.
 
It has become a political movement, a cash cow for climate scientists and environmental groups, and a way for world leaders to control economies and people.
 
"It's a political agenda," Dan Gainor, vice president of business and culture at the Media Research Center, said. "When you look at what the government will be able to do with climate change, it gives them (access) into every aspect of our lives."
 
A Case of Climatism
 
Steve Goreham, author of The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism, calls it "climatism."   

"It's an ideology and it's a belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth's climate," Goreham explained. "But it has become a path for global change across the world for adopting green economies and electric cars and putting wind turbines everywhere and changing light bulbs."
 
And it doesn't matter how much the climate change prophets of doom get it wrong. Global warming advocate Al Gore claimed all the ice in the Arctic would be melted by now - but it's growing.
 
Others predicted a shrinking food supply and flooded coastlines. Hurricane Sandy and Typhoon Haiyan are said to be the result of climate change. But that ignores the fact that worse tropical cyclones occurred in the 1960s.

Nevertheless, the climate change agenda is moving forward. The world is already spending at least $250 billion a year on it, and environmentalists want more. Activists are demanding what they call "climate justice" from developed nations.
 
"What they really want to do is dump trillions into it, somewhere between one and three percent of global GDP," Gainor said.
 
Throwing the Poor Under the Bus?
 
Climate change skeptics have been censored and compared to Holocaust deniers and even child molesters. But forgotten in all the effort to save the world from warming is the effect on the world's poor.
 
Goreham said more than a billion people do not have access to electricity, and almost as many struggle with unreliable power. Cheap electricity from coal could be a savior for the world's poor.
 
But the world's wealthy nations don't want them to have it, all in the name of saving the planet from a crisis that mounting evidence suggests is non-existent.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscience/2014/January/Cover-Up-Mounting-Evidence-Belies-Global-Warming/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on January 08, 2014, 06:39:54 am
On The Coldest Day In America In 20 Years, Here Are Al Gore’s Stupidest Global Warming Quotes

America could actually use some global warming right about now.  It is being projected that low temperatures across the Midwest could be 30 to 50 degrees below average on Monday morning.  On Sunday, fans that attempted to tailgate before the playoff game between the 49ers and the Packers at Lambeau Field in Green Bay, Wisconsin were discovering that their beers were actually turning to ice before they could drink them.  That is cold.  But things are going to get really chilly when nightfall arrives.  In fact, it is being projected that much of the nation will experience wind chill temperatures of more than 40 degrees below zero, and wind chill temperatures of more than 50 degrees below zero are expected in parts of North Dakota and Minnesota.  The weather is expected to be so cold that the governor of Minnesota has actually decided to close public schools statewide on Monday.  The last time that happened was back in 1997.  The reason why the governor of Minnesota did this is because when temperatures get this low they can literally be life threatening.  When wind chill temperatures get down to about 50 below zero, if your skin is exposed you can literally develop frostbite in about five minutes.  This is being called the coldest day in America in 20 years, and these cold temperatures have many Americans wondering what ever happened to all of that “global warming” that Al Gore and other “climate scientists” have been warning us about for so many years.
 
If the planet really is getting significantly warmer, our winters should not be like this.  Back in the year 2000, one prominent “climate scientist” boldly declared that future generations of children “just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
 
Oh really?
 
The truth is that you don’t have to be a “climate scientist” to understand what is happening to the weather.  All you need is a little common sense.
 
Back in September, I warned that this was going to be “an extremely bitterly cold winter“.  I wrote another article that warned about how cold this winter would be in early December.
 
Right now we are witnessing cold temperatures that we have not seen in decades.  The following is the way that one meteorologist put it…
 

“If you’re under 40 (years old), you’ve not seen this stuff before.”
 
Another meteorologist wanted people to understand just how dangerous this kind of cold weather can be…
 

“A person not properly dressed could die easily in those conditions.”
 
To get an idea of just how cold it is up in Minnesota today, just check out the following anecdote that was reported by the BBC…
 

Firemen tackling a blaze in Minneapolis, where temperatures have been below -20C, saw the spray from their hoses turn to ice as it hit the building.
 
And it is even colder up in Canada.  Things are so cold up in Ontario that “frost quakes” have become very common…
 

While America collectively freaks out over their impending ‘polar vortex’, Canada is changing the game when it comes to cold weather phenomenon as reports of ‘frost quakes’ emerge from around Toronto and Ontario.
 
Indeed, as temperatures drop overnight to around -4f around the city hundreds of people are being startled by hearing large booms – causing them to think their homes are being broken into or gunshots are being fired.
 
In fact, they are merely hearing the after-effects of the frost quakes – or cryoseism – which are more commonly found on a glacier in the polar regions.
 
So are we really experiencing “global warming”?
 
Of course not.
 
If anything, things are actually getting colder.
 
What the United States and Canada are experiencing right now is making global warming alarmists such as Al Gore look quite foolish.  The following are 10 of Al Gore’s stupidest global warming quotes…
 
#1 In 2008, Al Gore boldly declared to a German audience that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.” (Needless to say, that did not happen.  In fact, the ice cap in the Arctic actually got larger this year.)
 
#2 “CO2 is the exhaling breath of our civilization, literally. … Changing that pattern requires a scope, a scale, a speed of change that is beyond what we have done in the past.” (Actually, without carbon dioxide life on earth would not exist.)
 
#3 “The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say, ‘Well, I read a science fiction novel that told me it’s not a problem.’ If the crib’s on fire, you don’t speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action.” (It sounds like what Al Gore really needs is more cowbell.)
 
#4 During a speech at NYU Law School in 2006, Al Gore made the following statement: “Many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could — within as little as 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization.”
 
#5 “Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real.”
 
#6 “The interior of the earth is extremely hot – several million degrees.” (It actually peaks out at about 11,000 degrees.)
 
#7 “There is an air of unreality in debating these arcane points when the world is changing in such dramatic ways right in front of our eyes because of global warming.”
 
#8 “It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.”
 
#9 “The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more — if more should be required — the future of human civilization is at stake.”
 
#10 “We ought to approach this challenge [of global warming] with a sense of profound joy and gratitude: that we are the generation about which, a thousand years from now, philharmonic orchestras and poets and singers will celebrate by saying, they were the ones that found it within themselves to solve this crisis and lay the basis for a bright and optimistic human future.”
 
As time goes by, the scientific evidence continues to mount.  It is becoming painfully evident that the theory of man-made global warming simply is not true.  The following is from a recent New American article…
 

Well, 2013 is almost over, and contrary to the alarmist “predictions” by Gore and what critics refer to as his “doomsday cult,” the latest satellite data show that Arctic ice cover has actually expanded 50 percent over 2012 levels. In fact, during October, sea-ice levels grew at the fastest pace since records began in 1979. Experts predict the expansion to continue in the years to come, leaving global-warming alarmists scrambling fiendishly for explanations to save face — and to revive the rapidly melting climate hysteria.
 
In September, meanwhile, data also showed that sea ice levels in Antarctica had expanded to record levels for the second year in a row. Of course, by now, virtually everyone who has been following news about “global warming” — now more often referred to as “climate change” owing to public-relations concerns — also knows that global temperatures have not risen for some 17 years. The spectacular lack of warming demolished all 73 of the “climate models” used by the United Nations to push its controversial theories.
 
Sadly, most of the governments of the planet still consider “man-made global warming” to be one of the greatest threats facing us, and the U.S. government is leading the charge.  In fact, the U.S. government has been giving other nations billions of dollars to help them cope with “climate change”…
 

American taxpayers spent $7.45 billion to help developing countries cope with climate change in fiscal years 2010 through 2012, according to a federal government report submitted to the United Nations on a subject that Secretary of State John Kerry described as “a truly life-and-death challenge.”
 
And it appears that Barack Obama plans to make the fight against global warming a major point of emphasis for the rest of his time in office…
 

When President Obama leaves office three years from now, the major policy story of his second term — barring some kind of unforeseen invasion — is likely to be climate change. I made this argument at feature length last year, and the evidence continues to mount. Coral Davenport reports today about Secretary of State John Kerry’s “systematic, top-down push to create an agencywide focus on global warming.”
 
Considering the host of other major problems that this country is facing, it truly is ironic that the federal government is spending so much time and energy fighting a problem that doesn’t even exist.
 
Speaking of ironic, a team of “climate change scientists” that had recently gone down to the Antarctic to study “global warming” had to be rescued by helicopter when their ship got stranded in the ice…
 

A group of climate change scientists were rescued by helicopter Jan. 2, after being stranded in the ice since Christmas morning. But the majority of the broadcast networks’ reports about the ice-locked climate researchers never mentioned climate change.
 
The Russian ship, Akademic Shokalskiy, was stranded in the ice while on a climate change research expedition, yet nearly 98 percent of network news reports about the stranded researchers failed to mention their mission at all. Forty out of 41 stories (97.5 percent) on the network morning and evening news shows since Dec. 25 failed to mention climate change had anything to do with the expedition.
 
In fact, rather than point out the mission was to find evidence of climate change, the networks often referred to the stranded people as “passengers,” “trackers” and even “tourists,” without a word about climate change or global warming.
 
Yes, the climate of the earth is changing. Throughout history it has always been changing. Most of that change is due to fluctuations in the gigantic ball of fire that our planet is revolving around.
 
But the idea that carbon dioxide is going to “destroy the planet” is ludicrous.  Without carbon dioxide we would all die.
 
And the notion that “man-made global warming” is the “greatest threat” that humanity is facing is absolutely laughable.
 
Sadly, nothing seems to dissuade the true believers.  Not even days like today.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/on-the-coldest-day-in-america-in-20-years-here-are-al-gores-stupidest-global-warming-quotes


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on January 17, 2014, 07:17:59 am
UN climate chief: Communism is best to fight global warming

United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.
 
China may be the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres.
 
“They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”

Figueres added that the deep partisan divide in the U.S. Congress is “very detrimental” to passing any sort of legislation to fight global warming. The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, can push key policies and reforms all on its own. The country’s national legislature largely enforces the decisions made by the party’s Central Committee and other executive offices.
 
Communism was responsible for the deaths of about 94 million people in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Afghanistan and Eastern Europe in the 20th Century. China alone was responsible for 65 million of those deaths under communist rule.
 
Environmentalists often hail China as a model for fighting global warming, since they are a “leader” in renewable energy. The country set a goal of getting 15 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020. In 2012, China got 9 percent of its power from renewables — the U.S. by contrast got 11 percent in 2012.
 
However, the country still gets 90 percent of its power from fossil fuels, mostly from coal. In fact, Chinese coal demand is expected to explode as the country continues to develop. China has approved 100 million metric tons of new coal production capacity in 2013 as part of the government’s plan to bring 860 million metric tons of coal production online by 2015.
 
China has publicly made big efforts to clean up its environment. The country’s booming industrial apparatus has caused so much pollution that the skies have been darkened over major cities and the air quality has heavily deteriorated.

The Wall Street Journal notes that China’s air quality was so bad that about “1.2 million people died prematurely in China in 2010 as a result of air pollution” and Chinese government figures show that “lung cancer is now the leading cause of death from malignant tumors. Many of those dying are nonsmokers.”
 
The Soviet bloc’s environmental track record was similarly dismal.
 
The Communist Party’s National Action Plan spent $275 billion to combat rampant pollution through 2017, including reducing particulate matter 2.5 levels in the Beijing region by 25 percent.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/15/un-climate-chief-communism-is-best-to-fight-global-warming/#ixzz2qf4T72Mn


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Kilika on January 17, 2014, 01:44:30 pm
Quote
China may be the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres.
 
They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”

You got that right, unfortunately, that's not the case...

(http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2013/01/29/1226564/620430-china-environment-pollution.jpg)

Quote
Smog blankets China in 'toxic twilight'

AFP
January 29, 2013 11:42PM

RESIDENTS across northern China battled through choking pollution as Beijing was plunged into toxic twilight for the fourth time this season.

Visibility was reduced to around 200 metres in parts of the capital, where mask-wearing pedestrians made their way through a murky haze, despite warnings from authorities to stay indoors unless absolutely necessary.

In a Beijing city office, up to 20 workers worried that the pollutants could penetrate indoors took extra precautions, wearing gas-mask style protective headgear at their desks.

State broadcaster China Central Television (CCTV) gave the smog's second day huge airplay, showing vehicles using full headlights in mid-morning to light their way through the noxious cloud over huge swathes of northern China. (cont.)


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on January 19, 2014, 05:11:12 am
Number of Americans Who Think Global Warming Is a Myth Increases

The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication has grudgingly acknowledged that a November 2013 poll found that the number of Americans who think global warming is a myth has climbed to 23%, up seven percentage points since April 2013.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/16/More-Americans-Think-Global-Warming-is-a-Myth



Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on January 22, 2014, 05:52:01 am
Is a mini ice age on the way? Scientists warn the Sun has 'gone to sleep' and say it could cause temperatures to plunge

    2013 was due to be year of the 'solar maximum'
    Researchers say solar activity is at a fraction of what they expect
    Conditions 'very similar' a time in 1645 when a mini ice age hit 


The Sun's activity is at its lowest for 100 years, scientists have warned.

They say the conditions are eerily similar to those before the Maunder Minimum, a time in 1645 when a mini ice age hit, Freezing London's River Thames.

Researcher believe the solar lull could cause major changes, and say there is a 20% chance it could lead to 'major changes' in temperatures.

Scroll down for video
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2541599/Is-mini-ice-age-way-Scientists-warn-Sun-gone-sleep-say-cause-temperatures-plunge.html#ixzz2r7xIDsfc

'Whatever measure you use, solar peaks are coming down,' Richard Harrison of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire told the BBC.

'I've been a solar physicist for 30 years, and I've never seen anything like this.'

He says the phenomenon could lead to colder winters similar to those during the Maunder Minimum.

'There were cold winters, almost a mini ice age.

'You had a period when the River Thames froze.'

Lucie Green of UCL believes that things could be different this time due to human activity.

'We have 400 years of observations, and it is in a very similar to phase as it was in the runup to the Maunder Minimum.

'The world we live in today is very different, human activity may counteract this - it is difficult to say what the consequences are.'

Mike Lockwood University of Reading says that the lower temperatures could affect the global jetstream, causing weather systems to collapse.

'We estimate within 40 years there a 10-20% probability we will be back in Maunder Minimum territory,' he said.

Last year Nasa warned 'something unexpected' is happening on the Sun'

This year was supposed to be the year of 'solar maximum,' the peak of the 11-year sunspot cycle.

But as this image reveals, solar activity is relatively low.

Sunspot numbers are well below their values from 2011, and strong solar flares have been infrequent,' the space agency says.

The image above shows the Earth-facing surface of the Sun on February 28, 2013, as observed by the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) on NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory.

It observed just a few small sunspots on an otherwise clean face, which is usually riddled with many spots during peak solar activity.

Experts have been baffled by the apparent lack of activity - with many wondering if NASA simply got it wrong.

However, Solar physicist Dean Pesnell of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center believes he has a different explanation.

'This is solar maximum,' he says.

'But it looks different from what we expected because it is double-peaked.'

'The last two solar maxima, around 1989 and 2001, had not one but two peaks.'

Solar activity went up, dipped, then rose again, performing a mini-cycle that lasted about two years, he said.

The same thing could be happening now, as sunspot counts jumped in 2011 and dipped in 2012, he believes.

Pesnell expects them to rebound in 2013: 'I am comfortable in saying that another peak will happen in 2013 and possibly last into 2014.'

He spotted a similarity between Solar Cycle 24 and Solar Cycle 14, which had a double-peak during the first decade of the 20th century.

If the two cycles are twins, 'it would mean one peak in late 2013 and another in 2015'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2541599/Is-mini-ice-age-way-Scientists-warn-Sun-gone-sleep-say-cause-temperatures-plunge.html#ixzz2r7xXTQTV



Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on February 10, 2014, 11:52:10 am
Global-Warming Slowdown Due to Pacific Winds, Study Shows

Now they are just getting desperate...  ;D

Stronger Pacific Ocean winds may help explain the slowdown in the rate of global warming since the turn of the century, scientists said.

More powerful winds in the past 20 years may be forcing warmer seas deeper and bringing cooler water to the surface, 10 researchers from the U.S. and Australia said today in the journal Nature. That has cooled the average global temperature by as much as 0.2 degree Celsius (0.36 Fahrenheit) since 2001.

Scientists have been trying to find out why the rate of global warming has eased in the past 20 years while greenhouse-gas emissions have surged to a record. Today’s paper elaborates on a theory that deep seas are absorbing more warmth by explaining how that heat could be getting there.

rest of the lie: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-09/global-warming-slowdown-due-to-pacific-winds-study-shows.html


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on April 03, 2014, 10:02:11 pm
Green Guru James Lovelock on Climate Change: ‘

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/03/green-guru-james-lovelock-on-climate-change-i-dont-think-anybody-really-knows-whats-happening-they-just-guess-lovelock-reverses-himself-on-global-warming/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on April 26, 2014, 06:37:48 am
Why It's a Big Deal That Half of the Great Lakes Are Still Covered in Ice

 Over the winter, as polar vortices plunged the U.S. Midwest into weeks of unceasing cold, the icy covers of the Great Lakes started to make headlines. With almost 96 percent of Lake Superior's 32,000 miles encased in ice at the season's peak, tens of thousands of tourists flocked to the ice caves along the Wisconsin shoreline, suddenly accessible after four years of relatively warmer wintery conditions.

The thing is, all of that ice takes a long time to melt. As of April 10, 48 percent of the five lakes' 90,000-plus square miles were still covered in ice, down from a high of 92.2 percent on March 6 (note that constituted the highest levels recorded since 1979, when ice covered 94.7 percent of the lakes). Last year, only 38.4 percent of the lakes froze over, while in 2012 just 12.9 percent did – part of a four-year stint of below-average iciness.

And as the Great Lakes slowly lose their historically large ice covers over the next few months, the domino effects could include lingering cold water, delayed seasonal shifts, and huge jumps in water levels.

Already, the impact of this icy blockade can be felt. On March 25, five days after the official beginning of spring, the Soo Locks separating Lake Superior from the lower Great Lakes opened for the season. But after a long and harsh winter, Lake Superior's nearly 32,000 square miles were still nearly entirely covered in ice. It would be another eleven days before the first commercial vessel fought its way across Lake Superior – with the aid of several dedicated ice breakers – and down through the locks.

 More than 200 million tons of cargo, mostly iron ore, coal, and grain, travel across the Great Lakes throughout the year. Even a little ice can make a big dent on this total. Only three shipments of coal were loaded up during March – 69 percent less, by volume, than last year. Shipments of iron ore from the northern reaches of Minnesota were so low that the U.S. Steel plant in Gary, Indiana, had to scale back production significantly in early April.

A sluggish start to the shipping season is just one of the cascading effects of the Midwest's cold and icy winter. Some are good, and will allow the region to recover from years of historically low water levels. Others, like this delayed shipping season, less so.

Like the shipping troubles, some of the more unexpected things the lakes and their ecosystems could face in the next few months are the direct result of the lingering ice and cold:

    Throughout the winter, huge numbers of ducks that feed by diving below the water for fish ended up starving to death. Connie Adams, a biologist in New York's Department of Environmental Conservation, told the AP that the die-off was "unprecedented."
    Next in line for concern are a huge number of the Lakes' fish species. Warming water temperature often biologically triggers migration to traditional spawning grounds, and experts expect that Northern Pike, lake sturgeon, steelhead, and rainbow trout could make moves far later this year. As Shedd Aquarium research scientist Solomon David told Michigan Radio, later egg laying could mean younger and far weaker fish come next winter, leading to an even longer impact.

Other changes will come about long after the ice melts, as water levels are predicted to rebound to levels not seen in the last few years. Seasonal shifts in water levels, with winter lows and summer highs, are normal. "If things stayed in sort of a balance, we would see all the lakes water levels going up and then going down. Every year: up, down; up, down," says Drew Gronewold, a scientist with NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory. But, "when water levels change a lot over time, something is happening in one of those two parts of the season."

Over the last few years, the summer highs and winter lows have both been well below their long-term average, as climate change produced far more rapid rates of evaporation. In December 2012, the Michigan-Huron system set a new low, breaking a record that had stood since the 1960s, according to Keith Kompoltowicz, the chief of watershed hydrology for the Army Corps of Engineers' Detroit District.

 Though Kompoltowicz says the usual March and April rise in water levels is occurring later than usual this year, already the lakes are seeing water levels that they haven't had for several years. This past March marked the first time since April of 1998 that Lake Superior had reached its long-term average. And over the next few months, melting snow will feed the lakes and colder water could lower the rates of summer and fall evaporation. The amount of rain could either add to or subtract from this total. The Army Corps of Engineers and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration generally forecast water levels six months out, and predicted levels for this September, Kompoltowicz says, range from 10 to 13 inches higher than lake levels were a year ago.

Here's what higher lake levels could mean:

    Shippers may be hurting now, but higher lake levels will allow them to load more cargo per boat later this year, according to the Chicago Tribune. These higher water lines also mean that those who manage the Great Lakes' harbors won't have to invest huge sums of money in dredging out the bottom. Ships will carry more, at less of a cost, once the ice melts.
    Fluctuations in water levels could also help maintain the diversity of plant and animal species along many coastal wetlands, according to Kurt Kowalski, a wetland ecologist at the U.S. Geological Survey's Great Lakes Science Center. Too many years of consistently low water allows certain species, often non-native plants, to take over.
    And even far less large-scale ripple effects will matter. Scott Stevenson, the executive vice president of the company that manages Chicago's harbors, told the Tribune that higher water levels will allow them to rent out 100 expensive slips along the lakefront that shallow water took out of commission last year.

Though water level changes even over a several year period are normal, the rebound from record-low water levels is going to be a relief from the hand-wringing of the last few years. But it will likely be a temporary one. A hot summer with little precipitation could mute the effects of the icy winter. And, even if the lakes have more water this year, 2014 could be nothing more than a blip as climate change continues to wreak havoc. "We don’t know, as this winter really exemplified, what’s going to happen," Gronewold says. "If we’re going to have three more severe winters, or flip back to three more winters like we’ve had the past few years."

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2014/04/why-its-big-deal-half-great-lakes-are-still-covered-ice/8854/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on May 27, 2014, 06:39:02 am
After Years of Threats, Prominent Climate Alarmists Still Seek to Jail Climate ‘Deniers’

Journalists and scientists called for ‘Nuremberg’ style trials, imprisonment, even death penalty.

Those who say climate change is a threat to the planet continue to call for actions against climate skeptics.

On May 19, PBS’ “Moyers & Company” played a clip of scientist, David Suzuki, calling for politicians skeptical of man-made climate change to “be thrown in the slammer.” On day later, a tweet by well-known alarmist Michael Mann suggested that skepticism could be a “crime against humanity.” As least far back as 2006, and as recently as March 2014, liberal journalists and radical scientists have advocated punishing people who doubt catastrophic, man-made climate change.

A writer at Grist.org once called for a kind of “climate Nuremberg” and had to apologize and amend his remarks, while scientists have publicly demanded imprisonment or even “the death penalty.”

On May 20, Michael Mann, a climatologist who is often interviewed by media outlets to warn about the threat of global warming, tweeted a 2010 article from The Guardian (UK) that asked “Is climate science disinformation a crime against humanity?” He called that question “more relevant today than in 2010.”

This article, written by Donald Brown decried climate skeptics as “extraordinarily morally reprehensible.” Brown even called on “the international community” to “find a way of classifying extraordinarily irresponsible scientific claims that could lead to mass suffering as some type of crime against humanity.”

Ironically, Mann is currently embroiled in a lawsuit attempting to conceal email correspondence from his time at the University of Virginia from Freedom of Information Act requests. This lawsuit has been joined by 17 major news groups, though conspicuously not the broadcast networks, CNN or The New York Times.

Even before his recent PBS appearance, Suzuki called for the jailing of skeptics in two major 2008 speeches. Suzuki, who regularly gives media interviews and writes for The Huffington Post, asked a Montreal business conference to “see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail” and called skepticism “a criminal act.”

But although several of these arguments are recent, this kind of rhetoric goes back years.

On March 28, 2014, the popular website Gawker’s Adam Weinstein declared “Arrest Climate-Change Deniers.” Weinstein explained there was “clear precedent” to “punish the climate-change liars.” He was very specific on who should be jailed, as well. Weinstein clarified that the “man on the street” is innocent but just “too stupid.” Instead, he focused on “Rush and his multi-million dollar ilk” and “Americans for Prosperity.”

James Hansen, a former NASA scientist and prominent climate alarmist, made a speech in 2008 calling for the imprisonment of oil and coal executives. He said “these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature” before fearmongering over “continually shifting shorelines” and a “more desolate planet.”

In 2006, David Roberts of the alarmist website Grist.org called for extreme punishment. Grist, which has featured major interviews with both former Vice President Al Gore and PBS’ Bill Moyers, called for “war crimes trials for [climate denying] bastards.” He escalated that threat, calling specifically for “some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

This call for a “climate Nuremberg” was a clear reference to the post World War II Nuremberg trials where former Nazis were tried for war crimes, and 11 were sentenced to death. While Roberts later apologized for the Nuremberg comparison, he didn’t back off of his desire to jail skeptics.

Others have also suggested skeptics were complicit in genocide. Dr. Robert Nadeau, founder of the George Mason University Global Environmental Network Center, wrote “Crimes against Humanity: The Genocidal Campaign of the Climate Change Contrarians” on April 5, 2014. In this article, he declared “There Ought to Be a Law” against climate skepticism and explored two different international laws that ought to be used against climate skeptics. Nadeau embraced this accusation of genocide, dubbing climate skepticism a “genocidal campaign.”

This sort of language is prevalent amongst liberal academics who’ve called for the imprisonment of dissenters.

Just recently, on March 13, 2014, philosophy professor Lawrence Torcello called for charges of “criminal and moral negligence” for climate skeptics. Torcello wasn’t alone, with ScienceBlogs anthropologist Greg Laden jumping to his defense in a March 16 post. Laden expressed his desire to call skepticism a “criminal act,” though he admitted that was just “wishful thinking.”

Other academics preceded Torcello. In a meeting of Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs on Feb. 13, 2014, history professor Dr. Naomi Oreskes suggested that skeptics could be arrested under international law, without any outrage from her audience. Only two years earlier, in 2012, University of Graz, Austria musicology professor Richard Parncutt said that “the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential G[lobal] W[arming] deniers,” according to WND.

http://www.mrc.org/articles/after-years-threats-prominent-climate-alarmists-still-seek-jail-climate-deniers


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on June 14, 2014, 03:43:53 am
Climate McCarthyism has claimed another victim. Dr Caleb Rossiter - an adjunct professor at American University, Washington DC - has been fired by a progressive think tank after publicly expressing doubt about man-made global warming.

Rossiter, a former Democratic congressional candidate, has impeccably liberal credentials. As the founder of Demilitarization for Democracy he has campaigned against US backed wars in Central America and Southern Africa, against US military support for dictators and against anti-personnel landmines. But none of this was enough to spare him the wrath of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) when he wrote an OpEd in the Wall Street Journal describing man-made global warming as an "unproved science."

Two days later, he was sacked by email. The IPS said: "We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies...Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of US policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours."

In the WSJ OpEd entitled Sacrificing Africa for Climate Change, Rossiter argued that Africans should benefit from the same mixed energy policy as Americans rather than being denied access to fossil fuels on spurious environmental grounds by green activists. He wrote: "The left wants to stop industrialization - even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false."

But the Institute for Policy Studies ("Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice, and the Environment") is ideologically committed to ensuring that Africans only enjoy the benefits of expensive, intermittent, inefficient renewable energy such as wind and solar.

Rossiter told Climate Depot:

    "If people ever say that fears of censorship for 'climate change' views are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the 'all of the above' energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship with them…because my analysis and theirs 'diverge.'"

His sacking follows the persecution last month of Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish meteorologist and climatologist who decided to resign his position at the Global Warming Policy Foundation after being harassed by climate alarmists for his "incorrect" views on man-made climate change.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/13/Climate-McCarthyism-claims-yet-another-victim


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on June 23, 2014, 09:07:29 am
The scandal of fiddled global warming data
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record


 When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on August 08, 2014, 04:47:31 am
NASA Climate Scientist Explains 15-Year ‘Global Warming Hiatus’

 :D

A NASA scientist described a recent “global warming hiatus” that shows Earth’s surface temperatures warming at a slower rate than previous decades – but it is still warming.

Norman Loeb delivered a lecture entitled, “The Recent Pause in Global Warming: A Temporary Blip or Something More Permanent?” at the NASA Langley Research Center auditorium on Tuesday. The talk addressed challenges to scientists and increased skepticism among climate change skeptics due to the recent “hiatus” of global warming.

The federal space agency climate scientist explored research into a slow-down in surface warming over the last 15 years referred to as the “Global Warming Hiatus.” In recent years, the global mean surface temperature on Earth has increased at a rate that is about one-third of that from the past 60 years.

The global warming hiatus occurred despite record-breaking temperatures in the 2000s, retreating Arctic sea ice, rising sea levels and a record high global concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, according to a statement released by NASA.

“Opinions vary about the hiatus, as some view it as evidence that man-made global warming is a myth,” NASA said in a press release. “Others explain that it is simply due to climate variability that is temporarily masking a longer-term temperature trend.”

“The question is what’s driving it?” said Loeb, according to the Virginian-Pilot. But his answer reflected the complexity of climate science and did not rule out either scenario based upon the last 15 years of the “global warming hiatus.”

Loeb said that changes in solar radiation, water vapor and aerosol particles in the air have likely played a role, but a major factor may be an El Nino-like pattern of climate variability that has historically coincided with a slowing in global warming. Loeb noted that a rise in global temperatures slowed in the 1940s as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation climate pattern was active – a pattern that similarly lasted 20-30 years.

“For average climate records, 30 years is like one data point,” said Loeb, reiterating that while the Earth is warming more slowly, it is still warming. “It’s really forcing us to look at our models and observations and ask questions.”

In the global warming slowdown of the past 15 years, Loeb points out that the temperature is rising at nearly one-third the rate as before. The average temperature in the U.S. has risen about 1.5 degrees since the beginning of the 1900s.

Loeb holds a doctorate in in atmospheric sciences from McGill University in Montreal, Canada, and is an atmospheric scientist in the Science Directorate at NASA Langley. Loeb is also the principal investigator of a satellite project called Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES).

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/08/06/nasa-climate-scientist-explains-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on August 22, 2014, 11:41:00 am
Cause of global warming hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean

 ::)

Following rapid warming in the late 20th century, this century has so far seen surprisingly little increase in the average temperature at the Earth’s surface. At first this was a blip, then a trend, then a puzzle for the climate science community.

 :D

More than a dozen theories have now been proposed for the so-called global warming hiatus, ranging from air pollution to volcanoes to sunspots. New research from the University of Washington shows that the heat absent from the surface is plunging deep in the north and south Atlantic Ocean, and is part of a naturally occurring cycle. The study is published Aug. 22 in Science.

Subsurface ocean warming explains why global average air temperatures have flatlined since 1999, despite greenhouse gases trapping more solar heat at the Earth’s surface.

“Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus,” said corresponding author Ka-Kit Tung, a UW professor of applied mathematics and adjunct faculty member in atmospheric sciences. “Many of the earlier papers had necessarily focused on symptoms at the surface of the Earth, where we see many different and related phenomena. We looked at observations in the ocean to try to find the underlying cause.”

The results show that a slow-moving current in the Atlantic, which carries heat between the two poles, sped up earlier this century to draw heat down almost a mile (1,500 meters). Most of the previous studies focused on shorter-term variability or particles that could block incoming sunlight, but they could not explain the massive amount of heat missing for more than a decade.

“The finding is a surprise, since the current theories had pointed to the Pacific Ocean as the culprit for hiding heat,” Tung said. “But the data are quite convincing and they show otherwise.”

Tung and co-author Xianyao Chen of the Ocean University of China, who was a UW visiting professor last year, used recent observations of deep-sea temperatures from Argo floats that sample the water down to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) depth. The data show an increase in heat sinking around 1999, when the rapid warming of the 20th century stopped.

“There are recurrent cycles that are salinity-driven that can store heat deep in the Atlantic and Southern oceans,” Tung said. “After 30 years of rapid warming in the warm phase, now it’s time for the cool phase.”

Rapid warming in the last two and a half decades of the 20th century, they proposed in an earlier study, was roughly half due to global warming and half to the natural Atlantic Ocean cycle that kept more heat near the surface. When observations show the ocean cycle flipped, in about 2000, the current began to draw heat deeper into the ocean, working to counteract human-driven warming.

The cycle starts when saltier, denser water at the surface northern part of the Atlantic, near Iceland, causes the water to sink. This changes the speed of the huge current in the Atlantic Ocean that circulates heat throughout the planet.

“When it’s heavy water on top of light water, it just plunges very fast and takes heat with it,” Tung said. Recent observations at the surface in the North Atlantic show record-high saltiness, Tung said, while at the same time, deeper water in the North Atlantic shows increasing amounts of heat.

The oscillations have a natural switch. During the warm period, faster currents cause more tropical water to travel to the North Atlantic, warming both the surface and the deep water. At the surface this warming melts ice. This slowly makes the surface water there less dense and after a few decades puts the brakes on the circulation, setting off a 30-year cooling phase.

The authors dug up historical data to show that the cooling in the three decades between 1945 to 1975 – which caused people to worry about the start of an Ice Age – was during a cooling phase. (It was thought to have been caused by air pollution.) Earlier records in Central England show the 40- to 70-year cycle goes back centuries, and other records show it has existed for millennia.

Changes in Atlantic Ocean circulation historically meant roughly 30 warmer years followed by 30 cooler years. Now that it is happening on top of global warming, however, the trend looks more like a staircase.

This explanation implies that the current slowdown in global warming could last for another decade, or longer, and then rapid warming will return. But Tung emphasizes it’s hard to predict what will happen next.

A pool of freshwater from melting ice now sitting in the Arctic Ocean, for example, could overflow into the North Atlantic to upset the cycle.

“We are not talking about a normal situation because there are so many other things happening due to climate change,” Tung said.

The research was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/08/21/cause-of-global-warming-hiatus-found-deep-in-the-atlantic-ocean/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on August 31, 2014, 07:34:51 am
Myth of arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now

    Seven years after former US Vice-President Al Gore's warning, Arctic ice cap has expanded for second year in row
    An area twice the size of Alaska - America's biggest state - was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice
    These satellite images taken from University of Illinois's Cryosphere project show ice has become more concentrated


The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’

Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change.

But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.

Scroll down for video

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html#ixzz3ByM2GJ00

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/30/1409435267461_Image_galleryImage_polar1_JPG.JPG)

o put it another way, an area the size of Alaska, America’s biggest state, was open water two years ago, but is again now covered by ice.

The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline – last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.

This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent.

Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres.

The satellite images published here are taken from a further authoritative source, the University of Illinois’s Cryosphere project.

They show that as well as becoming more extensive, the ice has grown more concentrated, with the purple areas – denoting regions where the ice pack is most dense – increasing markedly.

Crucially, the ice is also thicker, and therefore more resilient to future melting. Professor Andrew Shepherd, of Leeds University, an expert in climate satellite monitoring, said yesterday: ‘It is clear from the measurements we have collected that the Arctic sea ice has experienced a significant recovery in thickness over the past year.

‘It seems that an unusually cool summer in 2013 allowed more ice to survive through to last winter. This means that the Arctic sea ice pack is thicker and stronger than usual, and this should be taken into account when making predictions of its future extent.’

et for years, many have been claiming that the Arctic is in an ‘irrevocable death spiral’, with imminent ice-free summers bound to trigger further disasters. These include gigantic releases of methane into the atmosphere from frozen Arctic deposits, and accelerated global warming caused by the fact that heat from the sun will no longer be reflected back by the ice into space.

Judith Curry, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said last night: ‘The Arctic sea ice spiral of death seems to have reversed.’

Those who just a few years ago were warning of ice-free summers by 2014 included US Secretary of State John Kerry, who made the same bogus prediction in 2009, while Mr Gore has repeated it numerous times – notably in a speech to world leaders at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009, in an effort to persuade them to agree a new emissions treaty.
The ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as 7 years from now

Mr Gore – whose office yesterday failed to respond to a request for comment – insisted then: ‘There is a 75 per cent chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.’

Misleading as such forecasts are, some people continue to make them. Only last month, while giving evidence to a House of Lords Select Committee inquiry on the Arctic, Cambridge University’s Professor Peter Wadhams claimed that although the Arctic is not ice-free this year, it will be by September 2015.

Asked about this yesterday, he said: ‘I still think that it is very likely that by mid-September 2015, the ice area will be less than one million square kilometres – the official designation of ice-free, implying only a fringe of floes around the coastlines. That is where the trend is taking us.’

For that prediction to come true it would require by far the fastest loss of ice in history. It would also fly in the face of a report last year by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which stated with ‘medium confidence’ that ice levels would ‘likely’ fall below one million square kilometres by 2050.

Politicians such as Al Gore have often insisted that climate science is ‘settled’ and have accused those who question their forecasts of being climate change ‘deniers’.

However, while few scientists doubt that carbon-dioxide emissions cause global warming, and that this has caused Arctic ice to decline, there remains much uncertainty about the speed of melting and how much of it is due to human activity. But outside the scientific community, the more pessimistic views have attracted most attention. For example, Prof Wadhams’s forecasts have been cited widely by newspapers and the BBC. But many reject them.

Yesterday Dr Ed Hawkins, who leads an Arctic ice research team at Reading University, said: ‘Peter Wadhams’s views are quite extreme compared to the views of many other climate scientists, and also compared to what the IPCC report says.’

Dr Hawkins warned against reading too much into ice increase over the past two years on the grounds that 2012 was an ‘extreme low’, triggered by freak weather.

‘I’m uncomfortable with the idea of people saying the ice has bounced back,’ he said.

However, Dr Hawkins added that the decline seen in recent years was not caused only by global warming. It was, he said, intensified by ‘natural variability’ – shifts in factors such as the temperature of the oceans. This, he said, has happened before, such as in the 1920s and 1930s, when ‘there was likely some sea ice retreat’.

Dr Hawkins said: ‘There is undoubtedly some natural variability on top of the long-term downwards trend caused by the overall warming. This variability has probably contributed somewhat to the post-2000 steep declining trend, although the human-caused component still dominates.’

Like many scientists, Dr Hawkins said these natural processes may be cyclical. If and when they go into reverse, they will cool, not warm, the Arctic, in which case, he said, ‘a decade with no declining trend’ in ice cover would be ‘entirely plausible’.

Peer-reviewed research suggests that at least until 2005, natural variability was responsible for half the ice decline. But exactly how big its influence is remains an open question – and as both Dr Hawkins and Prof Curry agreed, establishing this is critical to making predictions about the Arctic’s future.

Prof Curry said: ‘I suspect that the portion of the decline in the sea ice attributable to natural variability could be even larger than half.

‘I think the natural variability component of Arctic sea ice extent is in the process of bottoming out, with a reversal to start within the next decade. And when it does, the reversal period could last for several decades.’

This led her to believe that the IPCC forecast, like Al Gore’s, was too pessimistic.

‘Ice-free in 2050 is a possible scenario, but I don’t think it is a likely scenario,’ she concluded.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 01, 2014, 02:49:08 pm
This has been by far the coolest summer in my lifetime(in North Texas now, but spent all my lifetime in Alabama, North Texas, and New Orleans). No, it wasn't Fall-weather like, per se - but nonetheless didn't feel much heat, and couldn't tell you how many times I had to tell my mom and others in the car, "Could we turn off the AC?".

Looks like this winter is shaping up to be THE most freezing ever!


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 19, 2014, 06:50:54 pm
http://observer.com/2014/09/climate-change-might-be-replacing-gay-marriage-as-the-next-big-social-issue/
Climate Change Might Be Replacing Gay Marriage As the Next Big Social Issue
By Lincoln Mitchell | 09/19/14 8:14am   

Only ten years or so ago, the easiest way to drive up conservative turnout in most states was to place an initiative on the ballot seeking to either legalize or ban marriage equality. That initiative would draw conservatives to the polls to vote, one way or the other, against marriage equality, and while there, pull the lever or check the box for the rest of the Republican ticket. As recently as 2008, California a state that Barack Obama carried in that election by a margin of 24 percent, passed Proposition 8, an initiative that outlawed marriage between two men or two women by 52 percent  to 48 percent.

By 2014, things have changed, as marriage equality is disappearing from center stage of the political debate. It is not only no longer an issue that helps swing voters move Republican, but these days it is rarely used even to mobilize the conservative base. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll that was full of bad news for Democrats and President Obama, held good news for supporters of marriage equality. Fully 56 percent of respondents said they thought it should be legal for same sex couples to marry, while only 37 percent opposed the idea. Marriage equality may not be settled law, but it is close to settled opinion. Age replacement in the electorate over the next few years will expand support for marriage equality, as older voters oppose it more than younger voters do.

As marriage equality fades away as the signature issue of social conservatives, it is not yet clear what issue will replace it, but it is very possible that climate change will fill that role. Climate change is not, on its face, a social issue, but it is highly partisan and reinforces rifts between secular liberals and religious conservatives. It is in this context that both New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s refusal to have New Jersey participate in the Regional Gas Initiative, a cap and trade program in which nine states are participating, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s use of the term “science deniers” to describe the Obama administration this week should be seen. These possible 2012 candidates for the Republican nomination, particularly Mr. Christie, need to establish their conservative bona fides; and climate change provided the best way to do that. It is very likely that between now and November of 2016 other Republicans presidential candidates will do the same as Climate Change transitions from being a scientific and economic issue to being the next front in the culture wars.



Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 24, 2014, 08:59:50 pm
U.N. climate change summit: Now we're getting serious, says World Bank President
By Bernice Napach September 23, 2014 1:53 PM Yahoo Finance
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/today-s-u-n--summit-on-climate-change--a-reason-for-hope-150022838.html

The largest gathering of world leaders ever to combat climate change is taking place today in New York at the U.N.—two days after thousands marched in cities around the world demanding action.

The leaders of China and India, which are among the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, are not attending the summit, but China did sign a statement supporting policies that would put a price tag on carbon emissions, along with 73 countries and more than 1,000 businesses.

The U.S., home to the U.N., is represented at today’s summit, but it did not support the carbon pricing statement. President Obama, however, addressed the summit, saying that climate change will define this century more than any other issue and that the U.S. was ready to lead a new set of global climate change negotiations. He also called on “all major economies” to curb emissions.

World Bank President Jim Yong Kim is optimistic about the latest global response to climate change. “There’s a seriousness around this issue… we’ve never seen before,” Kim tells Yahoo Finance's Bianna Golodryga, in an exclusive interview.

“We had no idea when we started this statement whether anyone would sign on, so we’ve been really encouraged.” The countries, regions — including seven U.S. states — and companies that signed onto the statement account for 52% of global GDP, 54% of the global greenhouse gas emissions and almost half the world’s population, says Kim.

Could this be the turning point in the fight against climate change that environmentalists and others have been waiting for or just more talk?

Kim is hopeful and says the World Bank, is “going to do everything we can to make it happen.”

For starters, Kim wants countries to end carbon fuel subsidies, which he says is “the exact wrong thing to do." Instead, Kim says, "We need to get rid of them and begin investing in those things that will reduce the carbon that’s we’re putting in the air and will spur forward things like renewable agency."

According to the latest data from the International Energy Agency, global fuel subsidies reached $544 billion in 2012 – more than five times the total subsidies for renewable energy.

Kim's hope is that today’s U.N. summit will help build momentum for the 2015 International Climate Change Conference in Paris, where world leaders could decide whether to sign a new legally-binding agreement for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on September 24, 2014, 09:13:50 pm
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/09/23/Obama-Announces-New-Executive-Actions-To-Fight-Climate-Change
9/23/14
Obama Announces Executive Actions to Fight Climate Change at UN

President Obama announced a series of executive actions to fight climate change on Tuesday, during a speech to the United Nations Climate Summit in New York City.

Obama ordered all federal agencies to begin factoring “climate resilience” into all of their international development programs and investments.

The action is expected to complement efforts by the federal government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to the White House.

Obama is also expected to release climate monitoring data used by the federal government to developing nations.

The NOAA will also begin developing “extreme-weather risk outlooks” for as long as 30 days in advance to help local communities to prepare for damaging weather and prevent "loss of life and property," partnering with private companies to monitor and predict climate change.

“This effort includes a new partnership that will draw on the resources and expertise of our leading private sector companies and philanthropies to help vulnerable nations better prepare for weather-related disasters, and better plan for long-term threats like steadily rising seas,” Obama said during his speech at the United Nations Summit.


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on October 15, 2014, 10:49:20 pm
Frigid Winter Alarm Triggered Early as Snow Piles Up in Siberia...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-14/new-york-gets-frigid-winter-warning-from-siberia-snowfall.html

Great Lakes water temps 6 degrees colder than normal...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/14/water-temperature-of-the-great-lakes-is-over-6-degrees-colder-than-normal/

GALLUP: 'Global Warming' least important issue surveyed...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/178268/voters-give-gop-edge-handling-top-issues.aspx


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on October 24, 2014, 06:07:55 am
Climate change PROVED to be 'nothing but a lie', claims top meteorologist

THE debate about climate change is finished - because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world's leading meteorologists has claimed. John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible. Instead, what 'little evidence' there is for rising global temperatures points to a 'natural phenomenon' within a developing eco-system.   

http://community.runnersworld.com/topic/climate-change-proved-to-be-nothing-but-a-lie-claims-top-meteorologist


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on November 24, 2014, 04:42:19 pm
Great Lakes ice cover developing; Earliest in over 40 years

Ice is already starting to develop on Michigan's Great Lakes. This is the earliest ice on some of the Great Lakes in at least 40 years.

According to the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, on November 20, 2014, Three of Michigan's Great Lakes had ice starting to form. Lake Superior and Lake Michigan were one-half percent ice covered, while Lake Huron had one percent ice. Lake Erie was not reporting any ice as of Nov. 20, 2014.

Decent early season ice coverage records date back to 1973. Last Friday was the earliest date that all three Great Lakes already had ice since the better reporting of early season ice began.

Lake Superior actually had ice forming on November 15th of this year. That is the earliest ice on Lake Superior in the good data set.

Lakes Superior, Michigan and Huron had ice 10 days earlier this year than last year.

Lake Superior only had five and a half months without any ice on the lake.

Here's what Lake Michigan looked like in February 2014.

rest: http://www.mlive.com/weather/index.ssf/2014/11/great_lakes_ice_cover_developi.html


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on November 24, 2014, 05:16:42 pm
I was thinking about this lately - this whole "overpopulation" propaganda that's part of global warming - this is JMHO, but they could very well be conditioning the masses for the rapture, why? B/c over and over and over again, they're repeating this "overpopulation" lie - so what will happen when the rapture of the church happens? The Antichrist/False Prophet will use THIS(or at least in part) to "explain away" these why these "mass disappearances" happened(and even "conservative Republicans", that are lost, that is, will buy into this lie).


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on December 11, 2014, 09:40:33 am
A Year Without a Summer will happen again and Western Civilisation is not prepared!

http://www.thebigwobble.org/2014/12/a-year-without-summer-will-happen-again.html?utm_source=BP_recent



How Icelandic volcano Bardarbunga will plunge Europe into the dark ages:The eruption of Icelandic volcano Bardarbunga will have sweeping repercussions for the whole of Europe, and has been pencilled in as an 'outrageous' risk for 2015 by Saxo Bank

http://www.thebigwobble.org/2014/12/how-icelandic-volcano-bardarbunga-will.html?utm_source=BP_recent

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/index.html


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on February 09, 2015, 08:55:17 am
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming


 When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

 Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.

One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.

 Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.

Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.

 >:( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on February 21, 2015, 05:17:28 am
Republicans To Investigate Climate Data Tampering By NASA

re government climate agencies tampering with climate data to show warming? Some Republicans think so. California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says to expect congressional hearings on climate data tampering.

    @caerbannog666 expect there to be congressional hearings into NASA altering weather station data to falsely indicate warming & sea rise

    — Dana Rohrabacher (@DanaRohrabacher) February 20, 2015

 

Rohrabacher serves as the vice chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction over NASA and other agencies that monitor the Earth’s climate.

Rohrabacher has long been critical of the theory of man-made global warming. Lately, the California Republican has criticizing NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for allegedly tampering with temperature data to create an artificial warming trend. Such data is then used to justify regulations aimed at curbing fossil fuel use and other industrial activities.

    @grngamine journalist investigation shows records of various weather stations altered by AGW advocates to make it appear to be warming.

    — Dana Rohrabacher (@DanaRohrabacher) February 19, 2015

    @caerbannog666 U seem unaware of latest revelation of data manipulation. NASA reported higher temp than what was record at weather stations

    — Dana Rohrabacher (@DanaRohrabacher) February 19, 2015

 

Rohrabacher isn’t the only one to call for hearings on the science behind global warming. Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe has also promised to hold hearings on global warming data.

“We’re going to have a committee hearing on the science,” said Inhofe, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “People are going to hear the other side of the story.”

For years, those skeptical of man-made global warming have argued that government agencies are altering raw temperature data to create a warming trend. Allegations of tampering have increased as satellite temperature readings show much less warming than land and ocean-based weather stations show.

Science blogger Steven Goddard (a pseudonym) has been a major critic of NASA’s and NOAA’s temperature measurements. Goddard points out that NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center makes the present look warmer by artificially cooling past temperatures to show a warming trend.

“NCDC pulls every trick in the book to turn the US cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” Goddard told The Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview last month.

“NCDC does a hockey stick of adjustments to reverse the trend,” Goddard said. “This includes cooling the past for ‘time of observation bias’ infilling missing rural data with urban temperatures, and doing almost nothing to compensate for urban heat island effects.”

NOAA does make temperature adjustments, but it argues such adjustments are necessary to remove “artificial biases” in surface temperature data. The biggest adjustment made by NCDC scientists is cooling past data to take into account the fact that there was a big shift from taking temperature readings in the afternoon to the morning.

“We get a lot of people questioning our data adjustments,” Thomas Peterson, NCDC’s principal scientist, told TheDCNF. There was an “artificial cool bias in the data,” Peterson said.

Switching the time of the day temperatures were taken from the afternoon, when temperatures are warmer, to the morning, when temperatures are cooler, caused a cooling bias in the data. Temperature data from nearby weather stations was used to help create a baseline temperature for different regions.

But there are some drawbacks in surface temperature readings from a few thousand weather stations, boats and buoys spread out across the world. Peterson said the weather station system is “only really good for the U.S.”

“The main problem is where there are a few stations in the middle of nowhere.” Peterson said, specifically referring to weather station data problems on St. Helena Island.

UK Telegraph writer Christopher Booker joined the fray recently, using work by Goddard and other bloggers to criticize climate agencies for data tampering.

“Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record… has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known,” Booker wrote. “This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.”

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/20/republicans-to-investigate-climate-data-tampering-by-nasa/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on April 07, 2015, 07:09:41 am
Video: UN Climate Change Official Says “We Should Make Every Effort” To Depopulate The Planet
"There is pressure in the system to go toward that; we should do everything possible"


Officials within the UN are pushing the notion that the human population should be reduced in order to effectively combat climate change.

The long standing notion has been continually pushed by Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). In 2013, Figueres had a conversation with Climate One founder Greg Dalton regarding “fertility rates in population,” as a contributor to climate change.

The comments are made at 4.20 into the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xFGksEgSwk8

“A related issue is fertility rates in population.” Dalton opined. “A lot of people in energy and environmental circles don’t wanna go near that because it’s politically charged. It’s not their issue.” he added.

“But isn’t it true that stopping the rise of the population would be one of the biggest levers and driving the rise of green house gases?” Dalton asked.

“Obviously less people would exert less pressure on the natural resources,” Figueres answered, also noting that estimates suggest the Earth’s population will rise to nine billion by 2050.

Dalton then questioned whether that figure could in some way be stalled or halted.

“So is nine billion a forgone conclusion? That’s like baked in, done, no way to change that?” he asked Figueres.

“There is pressure in the system to go toward that; we can definitely change those, right? We can definitely change those numbers,” Figueres said in response.

“Really, we should make every effort to change those numbers because we are already, today, already exceeding the planet’s planetary carrying capacity.” she also claimed.

“So yes we should do everything possible. But we cannot fall into the very simplistic opinion of saying just by curtailing population then we’ve solved the problem. It is not either/or, it is an and/also.” the UN official also said.

Climate One is a self described public affairs forum which advocates extreme action to combat climate change. It is a branch of The Commonwealth Club of California based in San Francisco, essentially a talking shop visited regularly by heads of government and corporate business.

Figueres is no stranger to controversial statements when it comes to climate change. The UN official previously described the goal of the UNFCC as “a complete transformation of the economic structure of the world.”

She has also repeatedly said that a Chinese style communist dictatorship is better suited than the U.S. constitutional system to fight “global warming.”

Figueres told Bloomberg News last year that the Chinese government (which continues to enforce forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilization) is “doing it right” when it comes to climate change, even though China is by far the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses.

Figueres noted that a partisan divide in the U.S. Congress is “very detrimental” to passing climate related legislation, while the Chinese Communist Party, sets policies by decree. President Obama clearly agrees given that he continues to bypass Congress by issuing executive orders on climate change.

As InfoWars has continually noted, there is a fundamental flaw in associating climate change with overpopulation.

Populations in developed countries are declining and only in third world countries are they expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth’s population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. “The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050,” states a United Nations report. The UN’s support for depopulation policies is in direct contradiction to their own findings.

Once a country industrializes there is an average of a 1.6 child rate per household, so the western world population is actually in decline. That trend has also been witnessed in areas of Asia like Japan and South Korea. The UN has stated that the population will peak at 9 billion and then begin declining.

In addition, as highlighted by the Economist, global fertility rates are falling.

Since radical environmentalists are pushing to de-industrialize the world in the face of the so called carbon threat, this will reverse the trend that naturally lowers the amount of children people have. If climate change fanatics are allowed to implement their policies, global population will continue to increase and overpopulation may become a real problem – another example of how the global warming hysterics are actually harming the long term environment of the Earth by preventing overpopulated countries from developing and naturally lowering their birth levels.

Even if you play devils advocate and accept that humans do cause catastrophic warming and there are too many of us, and if you can skip past the eugenics connotations of population control and depopulation policies, those methods are fundamentally still not a valid solution to the perceived climate change threat.

The real solution would be to help increase the standard of living of the cripplingly poor third world, allowing those countries to industrialize, and seeing the population figures naturally level out.

Instead, the third world has seen a doubling in food prices owing to climate change policies such as turning over huge areas of agricultural land to the growth of biofuels.

In addition, Climate legislation continually pushed  by the developed world has those nations taking on less of a burden than anticipated demanding more of poorer countries, despite the fact that any further cuts in CO2 emissions will further cripple their flimsy economies and poverty-stricken people.

Previous legislation, such as the Copenhagen agreement, allowed people in developed countries to emit twice as much carbon per head than those in poorer countries, who have not caused the rise in emissions said to be threatening our existence on the planet. The revelations have led third world leaders to accuse the developed world of “climate colonialism”.

Linking environmental policy to depopulation agendas opens the door to eugenics and it is no surprise that through that door have come pouring hordes of elitist filth just begging to be on the front line of the extermination policy.

One example is UK-based public policy group The Optimum Population Trust (OPT), which has previously launched initiatives urging wealthy members of the developed world to participate in carbon offsets that fund programs for curbing the population of developing nations.

In 2007, the group also published a report announcing that children are ‘bad for planet and ‘having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags.

The same talking point has been re-iterated again and again by public policy groups and environmentalists, as well as the most influential scientists in the US government.

While you may think ideas of sterilization and depopulation could never be accepted by the public, those very concepts are now being embraced and popularized by some as the way forward for humanity.

The head of the UN’s leading climate change panel is providing a platform, and in some cases actively pushing for a policy enforced by a dictatorship that hunts down mothers who become pregnant with their second child, abducts them off the street and takes them to government controlled hospitals where they are drugged and their baby is killed – all in the name of saving the planet.

http://www.infowars.com/video-un-climate-change-official-says-we-should-make-every-effort-to-depopulate-the-planet/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on April 26, 2015, 06:14:14 am
Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry


 Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).

But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.

An adjusted graph from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies

(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03175/Booker-puerto_3175673a.jpg)

 Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.

My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.

So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.

 The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama; Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.

Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming.

Below, the raw data in graph form

(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03175/Booker-graph-2_3175679a.jpg)

 For this the GWPF panel is initially inviting input from all those analysts across the world who have already shown their expertise in comparing the originally recorded data with that finally published. In particular, they will be wanting to establish a full and accurate picture of just how much of the published record has been adjusted in a way which gives the impression that temperatures have been rising faster and further than was indicated by the raw measured data.

Already studies based on the US, Australia, New Zealand, the Arctic and South America have suggested that this is far too often the case.

But only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated.

More details of the Global Warming Policy Foundation's International Temperature Data Review Project are available on the inquiry panel's website www.tempdatareview.org

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11561629/Top-scientists-start-to-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on May 21, 2015, 10:36:34 am
Obama: Climate change deniers endangering national security

Ever notice how they changed it from Global Warming to Climate Change?  ::)

President Obama in a speech on Wednesday cast climate change as a growing national security threat, accusing Republican skeptics of harming military readiness by denying its effects.

Obama argued in his address to graduates at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy that rising sea levels and higher global temperatures endanger military bases and could force personnel to respond to conflicts around the world that are fueled by their effects.

“Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country,” Obama told new Coast Guard officers at the academy’s New London, Conn., campus. “And so we need to act — and we need to act now.”

Obama has highlighted security implications of climate change in recent months to drum up more support for his efforts to invest in climate adaptation and reduce greenhouse gases, including a landmark regulation to limit carbon emissions from power plants.

Republicans in Congress, however, have stymied legislative action on climate change. The president took aim at GOP critics, saying temperatures are rising even though “some folks back in Washington” refuse to admit it.

“Denying it, or refusing to deal with it, endangers our national security and undermines the readiness of our forces,” Obama added.

He also questioned how Republicans could claim to support the military while downplaying the effects of global warming.

“Politicians who say they care about military readiness ought to care about this as well," he said.

Obama claimed the rise of Boko Haram in Nigeria and the civil war in Syria were both fueled by instability caused by severe drought and crop losses connected to rising temperatures.

In addition to the international problems that global warming can cause, Obama argued the effects threaten military facilities and readiness.

He pointed to street flooding in Miami and Charleston, S.C., as evidence that American infrastructure, such as roads and power plants, in coastal areas is vulnerable. The same is true for military bases in places like Norfolk, Va., where flooding has also occurred, he added.

"It’s estimated that a further increase in sea level of one foot by the end of this century could cost our nation $200 billion,” Obama said.

The president touted his efforts to reduce carbon emissions through more-stringent vehicle fuel standards, new Environmental Protection Agency regulations and his pursuit of an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gases.

Refusing to act would be a “dereliction of duty,” he said.

“It will not be easy. It will require sacrifice, and the politics will be tough, but there is no other way," he said. “This will be tough, but so often is the case, our men and women in uniform will show us the way."

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) criticized Obama for calling climate change a national security threat, saying it shows the president lacks a coherent strategy to deal with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, the Syrian civil war and North Korea.

“It’s no wonder that our military personnel's trust in their commander-in-chief is at an all time low,” the senator said in a statement. “The president’s speech at the Coast Guard Academy stating his belief that climate change poses the greatest threat to future generations is a severe disconnect from reality.”

Inhofe famously threw a snowball on the Senate floor in February to protest the administration’s climate agenda.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/242672-obama-climate-deniers-endangering-national-security


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on May 25, 2015, 05:17:35 am
Three nations altered temperature data, and you can probably guess why

Let’s review the logic we are asked to accept from the we-must-act-now-on-global-warming crowd. They tell us that the science is undeniable in showing global warming is both man-made and running wild, and that only liberal policy ideas like carbon taxes and controls on industry can solve the problem.

And they must happen now!

Question this in any way and you are anti-science, because no one can possibly question the data culled from the science.

There is one problem with this, of course, and that is that the data culled from science only has value if we can actually trust it was compiled and presented to us honestly. We already know from the East Anglia e-mail controversy that some climate scientists have a motive to jack up these numbers to make global warming look more serious than it really is. What we don’t always know is how they employ clever tricks to do that.

But we do now, at least in one case. Thanks to the excellent work of the Heartland Institute’s H. Sterling Burnett, we know that at least three countries – Australia, Paraguay and Switzerland – appear to have altered some of their meteorological data to exaggerate the rate at which their temperatures are rising. Burnett writes:

    In previous editions of Climate Change Weekly (CCW), I reported weather bureaus in Australia (CCW #139) and Paraguay (CCW #158) were caught adjusting datasets from their temperature gauges. After the adjustment, the temperatures reported were consistently higher than those actually recorded. Science journalist Markus Schär of the Swiss news weekly Weltwoche discovered the Swiss Meteorological Service (SMS) tampered with its datasets as well.

  For example, in Sion and Zurich, SMS adjustments resulted in a doubling of the temperature trend. Schär notes there has been an 18-year-pause in rising temperatures, even with data- tampering. As a result, Schär calls the adjustments a “propaganda trick, and not a valid trend.”

  In light of significant urbanization resulting in an expanded heat island effect near many temperature gauges, Schär argues the adjustment of raw data to report higher temperatures than are actually measured is unjustifiable. “The corrections ... appear so massive that they represent half of the entire temperature increase,” said Schär.

  Even with fudged data, governments have been unable to hide the fact winters in Switzerland and in Central Europe have become colder over the past 20 years, defying predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists.

What this really shows is that the politics of climate change trumps the science. The IPCC and its supporters are so invested in the global warming narrative, they can’t afford to have the data contradict their claims. If global warming isn’t real, isn’t urgent, isn’t beyond all dispute, then everything they’ve built up to support their agenda is called into question – not to mention their attacks on global warming skeptics as “deniers” akin to the Holocaust deniers of World War II.

So when the numbers don’t turn out to be convenient, the numbers are fudged, and this is justified as necessary to prevent the dreaded “deniers” from having something to talk about.

Never forget, folks, what this is all about. It’s about government control. The left never considers the possibility that, if man-made global warming is real, the answer might lie in the innovative work of the private sector to give us cleaner technologies. No. The answer always lies with government. We must tax carbon. We must impose new regulations on manufacturing. We must enforce this through international bodies.

And we must do it now! We’re running out of time!

It’s the same thing they said 20 years ago. The fake urgency is designed to stop all debate so they can just go forward and do what they want to do, just as the fake numbers are designed to stop their critics from questioning their larger premise.

Once again, the global warmists are busted. Eventually, frauds always are.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/72251


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on July 16, 2015, 06:22:17 pm
bro Mark, are you familiar with this?

http://www.icr.org/article/7841/385/

Was There an Ice Age?
by Jake Hebert, Ph.D. *
Resources › Earth Sciences Resources › Ice Age

Secular scientists believe there have been at least five major ice ages during Earth's history, and the most recent is thought to have begun about 2.6 million years ago. Within this Pleistocene ice age, ice sheets are thought to have advanced and receded over many tens of thousands of years, growing in size during shorter ice ages called glacials and shrinking during the warmer interglacial periods.

Because secular discussions of ice ages involve millions of years, Bible-believing Christians may wonder: Was there really an ice age?

Yes, there is strong geological evidence of an ice age. Today, receding glaciers often leave behind recognizable geological features such as drumlins (elongated ridges) and moraines (rock debris carved and then deposited either along the side or at the end of a melting, moving glacier). Since these features are also found in lower latitudes than today’s ice sheets and glaciers, it is clear that both the northern and southern hemisphere ice sheets extended to lower latitudes than they do today and have since melted.

Secular scientists have dozens of theories to explain ice ages, but they all have serious problems. Even the most popular one, the astronomical or Milankovitch theory, offers far too weak a cause.1

The Bible, on the other hand, suggests a plausible mechanism for explaining a relatively recent ice age that began shortly after the Flood about 4,300 years ago and may have only lasted for several centuries. Surprisingly, the Ice Age actually required large amounts of heat, which this mechanism provides. One can use the acrostic HEAT to remember its key points.

Hot Oceans. During the Genesis Flood, hot, molten material from Earth’s interior, possibly including much warmer waters from the “fountains of the great deep” (Genesis 7:11), volcanism, and friction from plate tectonics, would have significantly warmed the world’s oceans, perhaps by tens of degrees Celsius.

Evaporation. Warmer oceans would have resulted in greatly elevated evaporation. This would have increased the amount of moisture in the atmosphere, ultimately resulting in much greater snowfall over the relatively cool continents in the mid- and high-latitude regions.

Aerosols. The enormous amounts of volcanic activity that occurred toward the end of the Flood and afterward would have ejected an enormous volume of tiny particles called aerosols into the atmosphere. These aerosols would have reflected significant amounts of sunlight away from Earth’s surface, resulting in cooler summers over the continents. Thus, winter snow and ice would not completely melt, even during the warmest months. Ice sheets would grow as more snow and ice accumulated during subsequent winters.

Time. Explosive volcanic eruptions can result in noticeable cooling over the continents, and both creation and evolution scientists agree that many enormous volcanic eruptions have occurred in the past. Creation scientists believe many of these eruptions occurred toward the end of the Flood and for many years afterward as Earth slowly returned to equilibrium after the Flood cataclysm. As noted above, aerosols from explosive volcanic eruptions are a potent cooling mechanism for keeping developing ice sheets from melting. However, because secular scientists hold that millions of years separated each volcanic eruption from the next, they cannot use this mechanism to account for an ice age. Thus, the Bible’s short timescale is critical in explaining the Ice Age!

Yes, extensive geological evidence demands that high-latitude ice sheets did once extend to much lower latitudes than they do today. The secular view holds that there were multiple ice ages, each lasting for millions of years. In truth, there was only one relatively short ice age, perhaps with several “surges,” and it was a result of the Genesis Flood.2,3


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on July 25, 2015, 05:20:29 am
“Global Warming” Expedition Foiled by Record Ice
Arctic ice the worst it's been in 20 years, according to Coast Guard


A scientific expedition to study “global warming” was delayed by record ice in the Arctic.

The icebreaker ship used for the 115-day expedition had to be rerouted Tuesday to break ice for commercial ships in the Hudson Bay because the ice conditions are the worst they’ve been in 20 years, according to the Canadian Coast Guard.

“Obviously it has a large impact on us,” said Martin Fortier, the executive director of the “global warming” research institute ArcticNet, which was spearheading the expedition.

The ice is so thick that ships are having to skirt around it.

“The same ice has also been blamed for bringing two polar bears into the community last week — a highly unusual event,” CBC News reported.

The volume of Arctic sea ice has increased by 33% since 2013, although scientists who are funded to promote the government-driven “global warming” agenda are claiming the record ice is a freak occurrence.

Their claim, however, runs contrary to satellite data showing there’s been no global warming for over 18 years.

“For 222 months, since December 1996, there has been no global warming at all,” weather researcher Lord Christopher Monckton reported. “[June’s] Remote Sensing System temperature – still unaffected by a slowly strengthening el Niño, which will eventually cause temporary warming – passes another six-month milestone, and establishes a new record length for the pause: 18 years 6 months.”

“What is more, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s centrally-predicted warming rate since its First Assessment Report in 1990 is now more than two and a half times the measured rate.”

“On any view, the predictions on which the entire climate scare was based were extreme exaggerations,” he added.

Another scientific ship carrying “global warming” researchers was similarly stopped by record ice in the Antarctic back in 2013 and the researchers were ultimately evacuated from the ship after several botched rescue attempts.

http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-expedition-foiled-by-record-ice/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on August 12, 2015, 08:07:24 am
Doubts over climate change link to Sun’s activity

Until recently, scientists believed solar activity had been trending upward in the past three hundred years after a period known as the “Maunder Minimum” or “the little ice age”. Furthermore they also reported that from 1885 to 1945, there was a marked increase in the number of sunspots, which is commonly known as the Modern Grand Maximum.



As it happens, the authors of the review say it was always problematic to use the sunspot number as a single authoritative source. After that period, scientists used two separate methods to measure sunspot activity: the Wolf Sunspot Number and the Group Sunspot Number.

But in 1994 scientists began to question whether the WSN was an accurate method to build a reliable index of historical sunspot records.

So, a new counting method called the Group Sunspot Number (GSN) was created by Douglas Hoyt and Ken Schatten in 1994 and introduced in 1998.

This recalibration is a major step forward in studying solar activity as the sunspot number is the only direct record of the evolution of the solar cycle over centuries and is the longest scientific experiment still ongoing. Uncertainty loomed after they did a re-analysis of past records. This has become a contentious issue among scientists for some time.

As SILSO explains, the sunspot data set (which, courtesy of Galileo (the man, not the spacecraft), stretches back 400 years) was first collected into an index by Rudolph Wolf in 1849. During the Maunder Minimum there were scarce sunspots and the winters harsh.

“In other cases, sky-watchers were focused on making other solar observations, so if their notes do not mention sunspots this does not necessarily mean that none were present”, said a report in the journal Nature. Now that the error has been corrected, the researchers believe the data indicates solar activity has remained stable since the 1700s.

A new study conducted by researchers in the United States, however, has found no evidence of such solar activity culmination that occurred during the 20th century.

Zharkova’s prediction has been met with criticism from fellow scientists who study solar activity and climate change.

Now, researchers say that flaw has been eliminated and the sunspot counting method has been re-calibrated. “There has been nothing exceptional about the level of solar activity”, Dr. Clette told a meeting of the worldwide Astronomical Union in Honolulu, Hawaii.

The resulting new sunspot index called the Sunspot Number Version 2.0, which also includes the older historical data of the GSN, shows that solar activity has been constant over the past few centuries without any noteworthy long-term upward trends in solar activity since 1700.

“This suggests that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed to increased solar activity”, it added.

http://sentinelrepublic.com/doubts-over-climate-change-link-to-sun-s-activity/69971/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on August 12, 2015, 12:15:41 pm
NOAA July 2015 – USA – Below Normal For 3rd Year in a Row
  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
— sunshinehours1 @ 8:08 AM

According to the NOAA , Maximum temperatures in the USA were -0.77F colder than the 1901-2000 average.

1936 was ranked 121 (121 is hottest) and was 4.93F hotter than 2015.

2015 was only ranked 34.

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/08/12/noaa-usa-july-temps-below-normal-for-3rd-year-in-a-row/#ixzz3iccwV5rV


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on September 18, 2015, 11:41:57 am
Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics

The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”

RICO was a law designed to take down organized crime syndicates, but scientists now want it to be used against scientists, activists and organizations that voice their disagreement with the so-called “consensus” on global warming. The scientists repeated claims made by environmentalists that groups, especially those with ties to fossil fuels, have engaged in a misinformation campaign to confuse the public on global warming.

“The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer-reviewed academic research and in recent books,” the scientists wrote.

But these riled up academics aren’t the first to suggest using RICO to go after global warming skeptics. The idea was first put forward by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who argued using RICO was effective at taking down the tobacco industry.

“In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the major tobacco companies… alleging that the companies ‘engaged in and executed — and continue to engage in and execute — a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO,’” Whitehouse wrote in the Washington Post in May.

“We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation,” the scientists wrote to Obama. “The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking.”

“If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done,” the scientists added.

This year has been a trying one for global warming skeptics. Earlier this year, Democratic lawmakers began an investigation into scientists who disagreed with the White House’s stance on global warming. Many of these skeptical scientists were often cited by those critical of regulations to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva went after universities employing these researchers, which resulted in one expert being forced to get out of the field of climate research altogether.

“I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject,” Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado wrote on his blog.

“Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, either ethical or legal, because there is none,” Pielke wrote. “He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony – which is based on peer-reviewed research funded by the US taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC (despite Holdren’s incorrect views).”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz3m6pvVzHC


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on September 18, 2015, 01:35:47 pm
Scientific ‘Consensus’ Can’t Agree On The Existence Of The Global Warming Hiatus

A rift is growing in the so-called consensus on global warming that’s as wide as the Atlantic Ocean. Scientists just can’t seem to agree on whether or not the 15-year hiatus in warming actually exists or not.

A recent study by Stanford University scientists reinforces the claim made by federal government researchers earlier this year that the hiatus in global warming was essentially a fluke in the surface temperature data and never actually existed.

The Stanford study comes just months after scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) made adjustments to surface temperature data that eliminated the 15-year hiatus in global warming. The data adjustments were highly controversial among climate scientists, but now Stanford researchers have put forward new data they say confirm there was no hiatus in warming.

“Our results clearly show that, in terms of the statistics of the long-term global temperature data, there never was a hiatus, a pause or a slowdown in global warming,” Stanford climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh said in a statement following the study’s release.

But scientists across the Atlantic aren’t buying American scientists’ claims the hiatus in warming never happened. Just a couple days before the release of the Stanford study, the UK’s Met Office — the premier climate research unit in the country — released findings that the hiatus in warming could last a few more years because of natural cooling cycles over the Atlantic Ocean.

“Observational and model estimates further suggest [Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation] shifts have an effect on global mean near-surface temperatures of about 0.1˚C,” the Met Office wrote in its September climate outlook. “A rapid AMO decline could therefore maintain the current slowdown in global warming longer than would otherwise be the case.”
Special: Doctor Recommended – Fix Eye Bags Without Surgery, Do This Daily

Though the Met Office did say this year’s El Nino is likely to make 2015 as warm or warmer than 2014 — which was declared the warmest year on record by government meteorologists. Met Office scientists also cautioned that “there are signs in the observations and near term climate predictions that are consistent with a resumption of warming.”

But even if warming resumes this next year, which is made more likely by El Nino, the Met Office still acknowledges there is in fact a slowdown or hiatus in global warming. The Met Office says “the rate of warming has slowed over the most recent 15 years or so.” This stands in stark contrast to Stanford and NOAA scientists that say the hiatus in warming never even existed.

The hiatus or pause in warming has been heavily researched in the past few years, and scientists have put forward dozens of explanations to why warming has dramatically slowed. The temperature record showed a lack of warming from the late 1990s the early 2010s, which meant that most climate models were over-predicting how much warming would be caused by man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

Now, more and more scientists are saying the pause was just an aberration in the data. NOAA scientists eliminated the hiatus from the temperature record by adjusting temperatures taken by ocean buoys upwards to match those taken from ships. The Stanford study analyzed old temperature data sets along with newly corrected records to bolster its findings that there was no pause in warming.

“By using both datasets, nobody can claim that we made up a new statistical technique in order to get a certain result,” Bala Rajaratnam, a Stanford statistician and scientist, said in a statement.

“We saw that there was a debate in the scientific community about the global warming hiatus, and we realized that the assumptions of the classical statistical tools being used were not appropriate and thus could not give reliable answers,” said Rajaratnam.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/18/scientific-consensus-cant-agree-on-the-existence-of-the-global-warming-hiatus/#ixzz3m7IV8hK5


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on September 19, 2015, 12:51:55 pm
NOAA Massively Ramps Up Their Temperature Fraud Ahead Of Paris

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/noaa-massively-ramps-up-their-temperature-fraud-ahead-of-paris/



Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on November 01, 2015, 06:06:09 pm
U.N. planning court to judge U.S. for 'climate justice'

At the upcoming United Nations Climate Summit in Paris, participating nations have prepared a treaty that would create an “International Tribunal of Climate Justice” giving Third World countries the power to haul the U.S. into a global court with enforcement powers.

Congress would be bypassed – left out in the cold – by this climate deal, critics say.

Policies once left to sovereign nations could be turned over to a U.N. body if the U.S. and its allies approve the proposed deal in Paris during the summit scheduled for Nov. 30-Dec. 11.

According to the proposed draft text of the climate treaty, the tribunal would take up issues such as “climate justice,” “climate finance,” “technology transfers,” and “climate debt.”

Buried on page 19 of the 34-page document is the critical text – still heavily bracketed with text that hasn’t been completely resolved and agreed upon – reads:

[An International Tribunal of Climate Justice as][A] [compliance mechanism] is hereby established to address cases of non-compliance of the commitments of developed country Parties on mitigation, adaptation, [provision of] finance, technology development and transfer [and][,] capacity-building[,] and transparency of action and support, including through the development of an indicative list of consequences, taking into account the cause, type, degree and frequency of non-compliance.

The U.N. held a preparatory conference in September in Bonn, Germany, that drafted language to be approved at the upcoming Paris climate summit. At the Bonn meeting the U.N. brought together more than 2,000 participants from governments, observer organizations and the media.

But none of those media chose to report on the proposed new global tribunal.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

The Paris Conference is mandated to adopt “a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all parties,” which is to come into force in 2020, according to IISD Reporting Services, which tracks the global sustainable development movement.

Like many initiatives that come out of the U.N., there has been a media blackout on coverage of the potential for a new world tribunal that would make binding decisions on a host of issues critical to the U.S. economy. The draft text has been available on the Internet since Oct. 20 for all to see.

“The only mentions one is likely to find with search engines are alarms being sounded by critics, the climate realists who reject the apocalyptic predictions (and discredited pseudo-science – see: here, here, and here) of the multi-billion dollar global warming lobby,” writes William F. Jasper for the New American magazine.

China, India behind the move

One such critic is the Craig Rucker, executive director and co-founder of CFACT.

Rucker points out that more than 130 developing nations – “led by South Africa and instigated by China and India” – are insisting they will not sign a climate deal in Paris unless it contains massive redistribution of wealth from developed to poor nations.

“Now they want the power to haul the U.S. and its allies before a U.N. Star Chamber to enforce compliance,” Rucker writes.

He also notes that this is not the first time the U.N. has tried to insert language creating a global climate court into a U.N. climate document. It happened in 2011 at a summit in Durban but was stripped at the last minute when CFACT blew the whistle and some media outlets picked up the story.

But this time around, the globalists writing the text have substituted the world “tribunal” for “court” and insist the body will be “non-judicial.”

What you don’t hear in the media! Get Global Warming or Global Governance? The Truth About Global Warming (DVD) from the WND Superstore!

“The slight edit to the terminology offers little comfort,” Rucker said, cautioning that the word “tribunal” could get watered down further if it attracts too much attention.

“If the climate tribunal becomes the focus of public scrutiny, watch for the negotiators to pull a switch behind closed doors and try and accomplish the same thing by re-branding it an enforcement ‘mechanism,’” he said.

Ceding sovereignty to U.N. bureaucracy

“Whatever they call it, countries who sign onto this agreement will be voting to expand the reach of the U.N. climate bureaucracy, cede national sovereignty, and create a one-way street along which billions will be redistributed from developed to poor nations,” Rucker says. “Developed nations would be expected to slash their emissions while the ‘poor’ countries expand theirs. China, which holds a trillion dollars in U.S. debt, would be counted among the poor.”

He said China and India are “delighted,” with the prospect.

“They would like nothing better than a world where the West cedes the competitive advantages their free market economies created,” Rucker writes. “They hope for a future where Asia does the manufacturing and the U.S. and Europe do the importing – until their wealth runs out, anyway.”

Obama, Kerry ‘desperate’ to claim treaty as success

Rucker said President Obama and John Kerry are desperate to claim the climate treaty as a foreign policy “success.”

“President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are mired in foreign policy failures,” Rucker notes. “They desperately want to get this agreement signed so they can claim a victory for their legacies.

“How far are they willing to sell out American interests to get this ill-begotten agreement signed?”

http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/u-n-tribunal-to-judge-u-s-for-climate-debt/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on November 01, 2015, 06:08:16 pm
Russian Media Take Climate Cue From Skeptical Putin

Wildfires crackled across Siberia this summer, turning skies ochre and sending up enough smoke from burning pines to blot out satellite views of the 400-mile-long Lake Baikal.

To many climate scientists, the worsening fires are a consequence of Siberia getting hotter, the carbon unleashed from its burning forests and tundra only adding to man-made fossil fuel emissions. Siberia's wildfire season has lengthened in recent years and the 2015 blazes were among the biggest yet, caking the lake, the "Pearl of Siberia", in ash and scorching the surrounding permafrost.

But the Russian public heard little mention of climate change, because media coverage across state-controlled television stations and print media all but ignored it. On national TV, the villains were locals who routinely but carelessly burn off tall grasses every year, and the sometimes incompetent crews struggling to put the fires out.

While Western media have examined the role of rising temperatures and drought in this year's record wildfires in North America, Russian media continue to pay little attention to an issue that animates so much of the world.

The indifference reflects widespread public doubt that human activities play a significant role in global warming, a tone set by President Vladimir Putin, who has offered only vague and modest pledges of emissions cuts ahead of December's U.N. climate summit in Paris.

Russia's official view appears to have changed little since 2003, when Putin told an international climate conference that warmer temperatures would mean Russians "spend less on fur coats" while "agricultural specialists say our grain production will increase, and thank God for that".

The president believes that "there is no global warming, that this is a fraud to restrain the industrial development of several countries including Russia," says Stanislav Belkovsky, a political analyst and critic of Putin. "That is why this subject is not topical for the majority of the Russian mass media and society in general."

And with Russian media focused on the economic squeeze at home and events in Ukraine and Syria abroad, the absence of a robust media conversation on climate change means his scepticism goes largely unchallenged.

"It is difficult to spend editorial resources on things that are now a low priority in the midst of the economic crisis," says Galina Timchenko, former editor-in-chief of the successful news site Lenta.ru. Timchenko now runs Meduza, a popular site that covers Russian news but devotes little space to climate issues.

"Unfortunately climate change is not very interesting to the public," she says.

"EXTENSIVE WORK"

Putin's scepticism dates from the early 2000s, when his staff "did very, very extensive work trying to understand all sides of the climate debate", said Andrey Illarionov, Putin's senior economic adviser at the time and now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington.

"We found that, while climate change does exist, it is cyclical, and the anthropogenic role is very limited," he said. "It became clear that the climate is a complicated system and that, so far, the evidence presented for the need to 'fight' global warming was rather unfounded."

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

That opinion endures. During a trip to the Arctic in 2010, Putin acknowledged that "the climate is changing", but restated his doubt that human activity was the cause.

His trip was to inspect the retreat of the polar ice cap, something that promises to make the Arctic ocean and northern Siberia more accessible to exploration and production of the oil that Russia, the world's leading producer, depends on for export earnings.

Marianna Poberezhskaya, author of the academic work "Communicating Climate Change in Russia", characterized media coverage in Russia as "climate silence", broken only by the airing of official doubts about any human impact on global temperatures.

"Russian mass media repeat the same mistake that Western journalists used to make: the false balance, where the idea of the human effect on climate change is presented along with skeptics' point of view," she said.

Russian school teaching also appears to lag behind the rapidly expanding science on climate change.

Randomly sampled geography textbooks make no mention of human impact on the climate, and one college-level text states that climate changes are caused mainly by solar activity, the movement of the planet's crust and volcanoes.

"I see what they have abroad on the problem of climate change," says Asya Korolkova, 15, who studies high school biology in Moscow. "People there talk about it a lot; you can feel it's a serious problem. We don't have that here."

DECREASE IS AN INCREASE

Environmentalists say that attitude is also reflected in Russia's pledge for December's global summit, one that received little media coverage at home.

In suggesting a reduction in its emissions to "70 to 75 percent" of 1990 levels by 2030, Moscow is actually proposing an increase from 2012 levels. Russian emissions are currently far below the levels produced by obsolescent ex-Soviet smokestack industries in 1990.

Even that offer is hedged. Russia has said reaching the target will require generous accounting for the role Russia's forests play in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Some observers do see signs of a slight softening in Moscow's position in the face of a series of weather disasters, from drought and searing summer fires in 2010 to raging floods in Sochi on the Black Sea last year.

Natural resources minister Sergei Donskoy has said extreme weather could cut Russia's economic output by 1-2 percent every year for the next 15 years, adding that "this has to be taken into account when determining the policy and measures in the field of adaptation to climate change".

The business newspaper Kommersant, owned by wealthy businessman Alisher Usmanov, is, like some other Russian media, taking some interest in those economic consequences, though it also did not discuss the possibility that climate change might have contributed to the Siberian fires.

"I write about what needs to be done to change production and consumption practices - the human effect on the climate is a given for us," said Kommersant journalist Alexey Shapovalov.

But for all that, there is no sign of public pressure on authorities to do more, let alone of Putin relaxing Russia's hard line ahead of the Paris talks.

"This subject has failed to become a priority," says Konstantin Simonov, the founder of a non-governmental oil and gas research fund who often appears on Russian media.

"Russia's attitude will most likely be something like this: Guys, you put economic pressure on us, introduced sanctions. Do you expect us to be holier than the Pope about the issue you're pushing through and take a load of responsibilities?"

The answer, he says, will be: "No."

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2015/10/29/world/europe/29reuters-climatechange-summit-russia-media.html?_r=0


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on November 05, 2015, 06:26:57 pm
MELTDOWN MYTH: Antarctic ice growing is just the first EVIDENCE global warming is NOT REAL

Antarctica is growing not shrinking, the latest satellite records show.

You might think this would be great news for all those scientists who have been warning us over the last few years about the impending horrors of “man-made global warming” but in fact they are not happy about it, not one bit.

Here for example is Dr Jay Zwally, the lead author of this week’s surprising Nasa study that confirms that the Antarctic is gaining far more ice than it is losing.

“I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out. It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.”

Does that sound to you like a neutral scientific opinion? Do you sense any relief at the good news that the climate apocalypse of melting ice caps and rising sea levels may not be quite so imminent after all? No, me neither.

Rather it reminds me of the disappointment of Harold Camping, the notorious American evangelist who solemnly warned his listeners that the world was going to end on September 6, 1994.

When that didn’t happen he decided Judgment Day had been postponed to May 21, 2011, and subsequently to October 21 of the same year. Still the world survived and Camping (and the poor fools who believed him) was left with egg all over his face.

Just like all those climate doomsayers who have been making such a big deal of our supposedly disappearing polar ice caps. If the climate alarmists weren’t such a devious bunch I would almost feel sorry for them.

But they are dishonest and they don’t play fair. Not so long ago some supposed climate expert reported me to Australia’s press complaints commission because I’d dared to suggest that the Antarctic ice mass was increasing not decreasing.

As it turns out I was right but this angry alarmist was not going to let a few facts get in the way of his doomsday narrative.

That is because along with the polar bears, the glaciers, the drowning Pacific islands, the rising sea levels and so on the Antarctic has become one of the main characters in the great global warming scare story.

The supposedly disappearing ice was part of the regular drip-drip-drip of bad news that the alarmists so desperately need in order to persuade the public that “climate change” is real and urgent and that only the most radical solutions can save us from its horrors.

But the Antarctic has always been a bit of a problem for the alarmists. Unlike with the floating ice caps around the North Pole, which really did look for a time like they were vanishing (though they have since staged a recovery), the evidence for Antarctic ice loss has never been strong.

That is because the area is so vast and inhospitable it is hard to be sure what is really going on there. Sure there is the odd lonely outpost like the British Antarctic Survey’s Halley VI Research Station on the Brunt Ice Shelf.

But that still leaves most of the continent’s 5,500,000 square miles (about a third bigger than the whole of Europe) unexplored – and with temperatures that can drop as low as -89.6C, with an average winter temperature of around -49C this is clearly not the kind of place where you could ever maintain a comprehensive network of weather stations.

All the scare stories you have ever read about the Antarctic concern one of the few relatively accessible parts: the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

This has indeed been breaking off in large chunks, which alarmist scientists and newspapers have claimed makes it a dread harbinger of man-made global warming.

Or at least they did until last year when the University of Texas discovered that the more likely cause of this melt, which has been going on for 20,000 years by the way, was the geothermal heat from all the volcanoes sitting underneath it.

That is by no means the only setback alarmist scientists have experienced there recently. In the Christmas of 2013 an Australian climate change expedition came unstuck when their research ship was trapped in ice they had not been expecting because they believed so faithfully in “global warming”. This latest research from Nasa is a bigger blow to their cause.

And we know it is accurate because it uses altimetry data from satellites to gauge changes in the size of the Antarctic land mass.

What this shows is that between 1992 and 2001 the ice sheet gained 112billion tons of ice per year. This rate slowed between 2003 and 2008 but still the ice sheet was gaining 82billion tons a year.

Not only that but according to the same study, it has led to a reduction in the sea level rise of about 0.23mm a year. Does that sound to you like a continent shrinking because of global warming? Of course not.

You don’t need to be a scientist to understand the bleeding obvious. In fact all you need to do is read this newspaper, which has been arguing as much for years.

Scientists such as Zwally may refer to us as “climate deniers” but who are the real deniers here: those who look at the hard evidence or those who want to go on scaremongering regardless of what the data shows?

REST + PHOTOS: http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/617144/Antarctica-not-shrinking-growing-ice-caps-melting


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on November 07, 2015, 05:41:05 am
Congressman demands climate study documents as scientists warn of ‘chilling effect’

A nasty fight between a senior House Republican and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration over a recent climate change study is getting nastier.

The country’s chief society of meteorologists weighed in this week with a letter to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), warning the prominent congressional skeptic on climate change that his demands for internal communications and documents from NOAA “can be viewed as a form of intimidation” that could thwart federally funded research.

Smith, chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, stepped up his pressure on agency Administrator Kathryn Sullivan to divulge its scientists’ internal deliberations, demanding in a letter that she turn over the documents requested in a House subpoena by Friday.

“Your failure to comply with a duly issued subpoena may expose you to civil and/or criminal enforcement mechanisms,” the congressman wrote.

[Congressional skeptic on global warming demands records from U.S. climate scientists]

What has exploded into a very public feud started in October, when Smith issued subpoenas demanding e-mails, correspondence and other records of internal deliberations from NOAA scientists who participated in a study refuting claims that global warming had “paused” or slowed over the last decade.

The study, released in the peer-reviewed journal Science in June, undercut a popular argument used by critics who reject the scientific consensus that man-made pollution is behind global warming.

The subpoenas ordered NOAA to turn over scientific data as well as internal “communications between or among employees” involved in the study. The demand was immediately denounced by the science committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Tex.) as an effort to discredit the study and its authors.

[NOAA says there’s no such thing as the global warming ‘pause.’ Now what?]

NOAA officials told the committee the study’s findings were already publicly available and met with the panel’s staff to brief them on the results. But they did not comply with the subpoenas, telling Smith that the internal discussions of their scientists are confidential.

REST: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/06/as-scientists-warn-of-chilling-effect-on-research-congressman-doubles-down-on-noaa-to-release-deliberations-on-climate-study/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on December 22, 2015, 07:05:21 pm
Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels 'COOLS planet', says NASA

BURNING fossil fuels and cutting down trees causes global COOLING, a shock new NASA study has found.


Major theories about what causes temperatures to rise have been thrown into doubt after NASA found the Earth has cooled in areas of heavy industrialisation where more trees have been lost and more fossil fuel burning takes place.

Environmentalists have long argued the burning of fossil fuels in power stations and for other uses is responsible for global warming and predicted temperature increases because of the high levels of carbon dioxide produced - which causes the global greenhouse effect.

While the findings did not dispute the effects of carbon dioxide on global warming, they found aerosols - also given off by burning fossil fuels - actually cool the local environment, at least temporarily.

The research was carried out to see if current climate change models for calculating future temperatures were taking into account all factors and were accurate.

A NASA spokesman said: "To quantify climate change, researchers need to know the Transient Climate Response (TCR) and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of Earth.

"Both values are projected global mean surface temperature changes in response to doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations but on different timescales.

"TCR is characteristic of short-term predictions, up to a century out, while ECS looks centuries further into the future, when the entire climate system has reached equilibrium and temperatures have stabilised."

The spokesman said it was "well known" that aerosols such as those emitted in volcanic eruptions and power stations, act to cool Earth, at least temporarily, by reflecting solar radiation away from the planet.

He added: "In a similar fashion, land use changes such as deforestation in northern latitudes result in bare land that increases reflected sunlight."

Kate Marvel, a climatologist at GISS and the paper’s lead author, said the results showed the "complexity" of estimating future global temperatures.

She said: “Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling.

“They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere, where most of us live and emit pollution.

rest: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on January 27, 2016, 09:11:31 pm
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_BjW1avGcuos/SxiDirkq-CI/AAAAAAAABIw/Y1lhIo588NA/s640/AlGoreMoney.jpg)

Al Gore 10 Years Ago: Earth Will Reach Point of No Return in 10 Years
According to our calculations… that's now!


Ten years ago in 2006, Al Gore was at the Sundance Film Festival premiering his global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth with a warning to everyone that unless something is done and fast, the Earth will be speeding toward its ruin.

In a more specific prediction at that time, Gore said if the world continues to ignore the issue and refuse to take steps to reduce greenhouse gases within the next 10 years, "the world will reach a point of no return."

But seeing as the 2016 Sundance Film Festival just occurred and no one was walking the red carpet in solar-safety suits, he was a little off.

Of course, being wrong has never stopped the former vice president from his environmental crusade. Why, Al Gore flies privately all over the world in fuel-guzzling jets to spread his message of reducing carbon emissions. When not painting the sky with vapor trails, Gore can be found in one of his many climate-controlled mansions writing speeches and books, or spotted riding in a cavalcade of SUVs to get coffee or to make an appearance.

Really, he should be glad he was wrong, because it just gives him that much more time to profit off of his apocalyptic fodder. Even now, he's gathering "experts" to hightail it over to the Philippines this year for yet another climate summit:

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/al-gore-10-years-ago-earth-will-reach-point-no-return-10-years


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on February 29, 2016, 10:45:51 pm
Seismic Faults Produce Deadly Levels Of Carbon Monoxide In California

Deadly and unprecedented levels of carbon monoxide are being released into the atmosphere across the west coast of America due to unusual activity on seismic faults. Scientists have yet to confirm the cause, but experts are suggesting that the Earth may be emitting the dangerous gas via seismic fault lines – cracks in the earth’s surface where tectonic plates rub against each other. 

http://yournewswire.com/seismic-faults-produce-deadly-levels-of-carbon-monoxide-in-california/

(http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/images/smilies/huh2.gif)
and here Al is only ever saying its all man made...  :D


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on March 09, 2016, 07:35:16 pm
AG Loretta Lynch Testifies: Justice Department Has ‘Discussed’ Civil Legal Action Against Climate Change Deniers

Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified Wednesday that the Justice Department has “discussed” taking civil legal action against the fossil fuel industry for “denying” the “threat of carbon emissions” when it comes to climate change.

During Lynch’s testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said that he believes there are similarities between the tobacco industry denying scientific studies showing the dangers of using tobacco and companies within the fossil fuel industry denying studies allegedly showing the threat of carbon emissions. He went on to point out that under President Bill Clinton, the Justice Department brought and won a civil case against the tobacco industry, while the Obama administration has “done nothing” so far with regard to the fossil fuel industry.

Whitehouse concluded his comments by posing a question to the country’s top law enforcement officer: “My question to you is, other than civil forfeitures and matters attendant to a criminal case, are there other circumstances in which a civil matter under the authority of the Department of Justice has been referred to the FBI?” Whitehouse asked.

“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch answered. “I’m not aware of a civil referral at this time.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/09/ag-loretta-lynch-testifies-justice-department-has-discussed-civil-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on April 22, 2016, 12:28:20 am
Get politics out of climate debate: Opposing view

On this Earth Day 2016, there is a great deal of frenzy about how our Earth is going to become uninhabitable, as the civilized activities of man allegedly trigger unstoppable global warming and climate change.

With the Obama administration set to commit the U.S. to the Paris climate agreement by signing our nation onto the document Friday, it is obvious that science has taken a back seat at the United Nations.

The environmentalists, bureaucrats and politicians who make up the U.N.’s climate panel recruit scientists to research the climate issue. And they place only those who will produce the desired results. Money, politics and ideology have replaced science.

U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres has called for a “centralized transformation” that is “going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different” to combat the alleged global warming threat. How many Americans are looking forward to the U.N. transforming their lives?

Another U.N. official has admitted that the U.N. seeks to “redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” The former head of the U.N. climate panel also recently declared that global warming “is my religion.”

When all the scare talk is pushed aside, it is the science that should be the basis for the debate. And the hard cold truth is that the basic theory has failed. Many notable scientists reject man-made global warming fears. And several of them, including a Nobel Prize winner, are in the new Climate Hustle movie. The film is an informative and even humorous new feature length movie that is the ultimate answer to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. It will be shown one day only in theaters nationwide on May 2.

As a skeptic of man-made global warming, I love our environment as much as anyone. I share the deepest commitment to protecting our planet for our children and grandchildren. However, I desperately want to get politics out of the climate debate. The Paris climate agreement is all about empowering the U.N. and has nothing to do with the climate.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/21/earth-day-paris-united-nations-weather-channel-editorials-debates/83349848/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on May 04, 2016, 06:13:00 pm
An Inconvenient Review: After 10 Years Al Gore’s Film Is Still Alarmingly Inaccurate

It’s been nearly one decade since former Vice President Al Gore released his film “An Inconvenient Truth.” It sent shockwaves through American politics and emboldened environmental activists to push for more regulations on American businesses.

Gore warned increasing carbon dioxide emissions would spur catastrophic global warming that would cause more extreme weather, wipe out cities and cause ecological collapse. To stop global warming, humans needed to ditch fossil fuels and basically change every aspect of their lives.

Watching “An Inconvenient Truth” is sort of like going back in time. Back to a world where flip phones were cool and “Futurama” was still putting out new episodes. A world where a bitter presidential candidate was trying to rebrand himself as an environmental crusader.

But have Gore’s warnings, which were alarming to many in 2006, come true?

In honor of the upcoming 10th anniversary, The Daily Caller News Foundation re-watched “An Inconvenient Truth” just to see how well Gore’s warnings of future climate disaster lined up with reality.

Gore’s been harping on global warming since at least the late 1980s, but it wasn’t until 2006 he discovered a way to become massively wealthy off making movies about it and investing in government-subsidized green energy.

Gore opens the film talking about nature, then jumping to a presentation he’s giving where he shows the first image ever taken of the Earth from space. From that image, he jumps right into making alarmist claims about global warming.

Kilimanjaro Still Has Snow


One of the first glaring claims Gore makes is about Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa. He claims Africa’s tallest peak will be snow-free “within the decade.” Gore shows slides of Kilimanjaro’s peak in the 1970s versus today to conclude the snow is disappearing.

Well, it’s been a decade and, yes, there’s still snow on Kilimanjaro year-round. It doesn’t take a scientist to figure this out. One can just look at recent photos posted on the travel website TripAdvisor.com.

In 2014, ecologists actually monitoring Kilimanjaro’s snowpack found it was not even close to being gone. It may have shrunk a little, but ecologists were confident it would be around for the foreseeable future.

“There are ongoing several studies, but preliminary findings show that the ice is nowhere near melting,” Imani Kikoti, an ecologist at Mount Kilimanjaro National Park, told eturbonews.com.

“Much as we agree that the snow has declined over centuries, but we are comfortable that its total melt will not happen in the near future,” he said.

Gore Left Out The 15-Year “Hiatus” In Warming

Gore also claims temperature rise from increases in man-made carbon dioxide emissions were “uninterrupted and intensifying.” He goes on to claim heatwaves will become more common, like the one that killed 35,000 people across Europe in 2003.

Sounds terrifying — until you actually look at what happened to global temperature after Gore’s film was released. Global temperatures showed little to no warming trend after Gore released his film. In fact, surface temperature data showed no significant global warming for a period of about 15 years, starting in the early 2000s.

Satellite-derived temperature data showed, until the recent El Niño, no statistically significant warming trend for more than 21 years.

Gore’s movie was released right in the middle of the so-called global warming “hiatus.”

The Weather Hasn’t Gotten Worse

Gore also famously predicted storms would become more frequent and intense as man-made emissions warmed the oceans.

“And of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms,” Gore said in his film. “That same year that we had that string of big hurricanes, we also set an all-time record for tornadoes.”

Gore’s film came out just after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast. Indeed, footage of the destruction from that storm featured prominently in Gore’s film. He mentions how the U.S. was hit with a rash of severe storms in the early 2000s and how Japan saw a record number of typhoons.

“The insurance industry has actually noticed this,” Gore said. “Their recovered losses are going up.”

But Gore’s claim is more hype than actual science, since storms aren’t more extreme since 2006. In fact, not even findings from the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) support Gore’s claim.

The IPCC found in 2103 there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.” The IPCC also found “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century” and “[n]o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”

Gore should probably take these findings seriously since he shared the Nobel Prize in 2007 with the IPCC for its work on global warming.

The North Pole Still Has Ice

Gore also claimed the Arctic could be ice-free in the coming decades. He said “within the next 50 to 70 years, it could be completely gone.”

With no Arctic sea ice, polar bears and all sorts of Arctic animals would be threatened, Gore warned, showing an animated scene of a polar bear drowning.

This is actually one of Gore’s more cautious predictions — he did incorrectly predict in 2008 there would be no Arctic by 2013. But even in this case, Gore is likely wrong because of the Arctic’s geographical setting.

The Arctic is almost completely surrounded by land, so the ice that forms there tends to stay there. Arctic ice coverage has shrunk in recent decades, but it’s not likely we will see even a summer where the North Pole is completely ice-free.

“I doubt the Arctic will be free of all ice in any summer, although the total area may well be greatly reduced in the future if it continues to warm there,” said Chip Knappenberger, a climate scientist at the libertarian Cato Institute.

“Such a situation should not be overly worrisome, as there is ample evidence that it has occurred in the past and clearly, polar bears, and everything else up there managed to survive,” Knappenberger said.

And before I forget, the latest data shows polar bears are actually thriving, despite shrinking ice coverage.

A “Day After Tomorrow”-Style Ice Age Is Still A Day Away

Remember the 2004 blockbuster film “The Day After Tomorrow”? In the movie, the Gulf Stream, which scientists say is essential for regulating the climate, shuts down and ends up causing another ice age.

Well, Gore hints this could happen if Greenland’s ice sheet melts and brings more cold water into the North Atlantic.

“At the end of the last ice age, as the last glacier was receding from North America, the ice melted and a giant pool of fresh water formed,” Gore said. “An ice dam on the eastern border formed and one day it broke.”

Gore said fresh, cold water bled out into the North Atlantic and caused the Gulf Stream to stall, which sent Europe into another ice age. Gore then suggests Greenland’s ice melt could pose a similar threat.
Australian scientists, however, totally debunked claims the Gulf Stream, or AMOC, was weakening.

“Claims of strengthening or reducing of the AMOC are therefore pure speculation,” Aussie scientists wrote in their paper published in March.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/an-inconvenient-review-after-10-years-al-gores-film-is-still-alarmingly-inaccurate/#ixzz47jQjiKgy


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on May 14, 2016, 05:36:51 pm
EPA Chief: ‘Climate Rule’ Is About ‘Reinventing A Global Economy’, No Effect On Climate

This is to help establish the one world economy

TN Note: EPA Administrator McCarthy speaks in line with United Nations’ rhetoric that climate change has nothing to do with changing the climate, but everything to do with transforming global economic system into Sustainable Development, or “Green Economy.” When will the public, leaders and administrators see the blatant disconnect and say “Stop!”

https://youtu.be/rVZD--zVNa4

Over a period of twenty months, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy repeatedly concedes that the Agency’s sweeping climate-regulation of America’s fossil fuel-fired power plants will have no impact on the Earth’s climate. McCarthy openly admits that the Clean Power Plan “is not about end of pipe controls.” Instead, she says the rule is about “driving investment in renewables…, [and] advancing our ongoing clean energy revolution”. McCarthy says, “That’s what… reinventing a global economy looks like.”

EPA ADMINISTRATOR GINA MCCARTHY:

“The value of this rule is not measured [by its climate impact]. It is measured by showing strong domestic action…”
-US House Science Committee
-July 9, 2015

“[T]here is absolutely no reason to” measure the climate impact of the Clean Power Plan “because we know it will take a lot of efforts to actually make those reductions”.
-Senate Appropriations Committee
-April 20, 2016

“We don’t have to prove that any reduction [in greenhouse gas emissions] will actually make a precipitous difference” in global warming.
-IHS Energy CERA Week
-February 24, 2016

The “benefit” of the Clean Power Plan is “in showing sort of domestic leadership as well as garnering support around the country for the agreement we reached in Paris.”
-House Energy and Commerce Committee
-March 22, 2016

“[The Clean Power Plan] is not about pollution control. […] This is an investment strategy…”
-Senate EPW Committee
-July 23, 2014

“[The Clean Power Plan] is about advancing our ongoing clean energy revolution […] That’s what… reinventing a global economy looks like.”
-Council on Foreign Relations
-March 11, 2015

“[The Clean Power Plan] is a fundamental way of relooking at where the United States is heading and how to maintain our competitive edge… That’s what this is all about.”
-Council on Foreign Relations
-March 11, 2015

Read full story here…
https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2016/05/13/epa-chief-climate-rule-reinventing-global-economy-no-effect-climate/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on June 02, 2016, 05:54:12 pm
Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics

The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”

RICO was a law designed to take down organized crime syndicates, but scientists now want it to be used against scientists, activists and organizations that voice their disagreement with the so-called “consensus” on global warming. The scientists repeated claims made by environmentalists that groups, especially those with ties to fossil fuels, have engaged in a misinformation campaign to confuse the public on global warming.

“The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer-reviewed academic research and in recent books,” the scientists wrote.

But these riled up academics aren’t the first to suggest using RICO to go after global warming skeptics. The idea was first put forward by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who argued using RICO was effective at taking down the tobacco industry.

“In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the major tobacco companies… alleging that the companies ‘engaged in and executed — and continue to engage in and execute — a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO,’” Whitehouse wrote in the Washington Post in May.

“We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation,” the scientists wrote to Obama. “The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking.”

“If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done,” the scientists added.

This year has been a trying one for global warming skeptics. Earlier this year, Democratic lawmakers began an investigation into scientists who disagreed with the White House’s stance on global warming. Many of these skeptical scientists were often cited by those critical of regulations to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva went after universities employing these researchers, which resulted in one expert being forced to get out of the field of climate research altogether.

“I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject,” Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado wrote on his blog.

“Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, either ethical or legal, because there is none,” Pielke wrote. “He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony – which is based on peer-reviewed research funded by the US taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC (despite Holdren’s incorrect views).”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz3m6pvVzHC


Withdrawal of Letter by climate change scientists urging prosecution of skeptics deemed a 'mistake'

You would think the group of 20 or so climate change scientists who sent a letter to President Obama urging him to prosecute climate skeptics under the RICO statute would have consulted a PR firm before they made asses of themselves to the whole country.

But now, the learned men of science have hired Climate Nexus, a PR firm specializing in spinning global warming news. The letter has been withdrawn - a move the PR firm called a "big mistake" - and a different strategy will be employed.

Washington Times:

In the days after 20 professors fired off a letter urging President Obama to investigate climate skeptics for suspected federal racketeering charges, the climate change movement went into full damage-control mode.

Philip Newell, creative media manager of the public relations firm Climate Nexus, described the Sept. 1 letter as “a big mistake,” advising activists and scientists to downplay the prosecution angle and spin the story away from individuals and toward fossil fuel companies, according to emails obtained Wednesday by The Washington Times.

He cited reports on the skeptics’ website, Climate Audit, saying that although it “isn’t a site to be worried about, it’s definitely looking like this issue isn’t going to go away, even if you remove the letter, which I hear has been done and I would say is a big mistake.”

The letter was first posted on the Institute for Global Environment and Security website and then reportedly removed, but was then posted on other websites.

“I’d recommend you keep it up and point to it as a call for investigating (not prosecuting) organizations and companies (not specific scientists) in an oped or simply a statement on the IGES website that clarifies that distinction,” Mr. Newell said in a Sept. 29 email.

Not everyone has taken that advice. Months later, Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude E. Walker issued subpoenas to ExxonMobil calling for its communications with more than 100 universities, scientists and think tanks, as well as the free market nonprofit Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The goal of the AG's pushing this witch hunt is not to prosecute fossil fuel companies, but to hold the threat of prosecution over their heads to extort tens of billions of dollars from them in a grand settlement a la the tobacco companies. The scientists actually believed the AG's were serious about stringing up individuals and think tanks who make their lives difficult by challenging their findings. But you can't get blood out of a turnip so it's hardly worth the effort of the AG's to go after the small fry.

The PR firm disabused the scientists of the notion that this investigation was about creating an inquisition for climate skeptics. Instead, gangster fashion, the full resources of government will be brought to bear on oil, coal, and natural gas companies to extract climate change tribute - a mutli-billion dollar slush fund that will be used to show favor to supporters and enrich political cronies.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/withdrawal_of_letter_by_climate_change_scientists_urging_prosecution_of_skeptics_deemed_a_mistake_pr_firm.html#ixzz4ASvDHDAo


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on July 08, 2016, 02:44:05 pm
'Rapid cooling' underway: Big Drop In Earth’s June Temperatures According To Satellites

Second largest 2-month drop in global average satellite temperatures.
Largest 2-month drop in tropical average satellite temperatures.

NOTE: This is the fifteenth monthly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old Version 5.6 dataset are discussed here. Note we are now at “beta5” for Version 6, and the paper describing the methodology is still in peer review.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2016 is +0.34 deg. C, down 0.21 deg. C from the May value of +0.55 deg. C (click for full size version):

(https://i1.wp.com/www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2016_v6-1-550x318.jpg)

This gives a 2-month temperature fall of -0.37 deg. C, which is the second largest in the 37+ year satellite record…the largest was -0.43 deg. C in Feb. 1988.

In the tropics, there was a record fast 2-month cooling of -0.56 deg. C, just edging out -0.55 deg. C in June 1998 (also an El Nino weakening year).

The rapid cooling is from the weakening El Nino and approaching La Nina conditions by mid-summer or early fall.



With most models predicting La Nina conditions by the autumn, we can expect temperatures to tumble a lot further by the end of the year.

(https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/image_thumb2.png?w=1504&h=1492)

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/

Full report here: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/07/02/big-drop-in-june-temperatures-according-to-uah/

#

Related Links:

2013 Report: ‘Growing number of scientists are predicting global cooling‘
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/15/forget-the-temperature-plateau-earth-undergoing-global-cooling-since-2002-climate-scientist-dr-judith-curry-attention-in-the-public-debate-seems-to-be-moving-away-from/

Flashback 1974: U.S. Government’s Top Climatologist Said ‘Global Cooling’ Threatened Us With ‘Severe Food Crisis’
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/06/12/flashback-1974-u-s-governments-top-climatologist-said-global-cooling-threatened-us-with-severe-food-crisis/

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/07/06/rapid-cooling-underway-big-drop-in-june-temperatures-according-to-satellites/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on August 05, 2016, 07:20:15 pm
Dr. Tim Ball: How The World Was Deceived About Global Warming & Climate Change

Authored by Tim Ball, originally posted at The Rebel,

Current weather is normal; that is, it is well within the range of all previous weather and climate variations. There are no dramatic increases in temperature, precipitation, hurricanes, tornadoes, or any other severe weather. The climate is changing just as it always has and always will and the rate of change is perfectly normal. Of course, that is not what the government, environmentalists, or the media promote and as a result most of the public believe. The misconception is deliberate and central to the exploitation of global warming and climate change as the vehicle for a political agenda.

One phenomenon that creates the illusion weather is abnormal is the attention given by the media. We all experience being introduced to a person then seeing them pop up every time we turn around. It’s the same thing with cars after you buy one you see them everywhere. In both cases they were always there, but not part of your awareness. Weather and climate events seem to occur everyday, but it is because they became a media story. They always occurred. Now the story appears and is amplified by the sensationalism of the media with their "Extreme Weather Reports."

(http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/therebel/pages/7798/attachments/original/1470077826/Picture1.jpg?1470077826)

The entire objective of those pursuing the political agenda was to create the illusion that current weather is abnormal and therefore unnatural. They wanted to show that all this occurred in the last 100 years as a result of human industrial activity. The objective was to create false science, which was easy because few people know about weather and climate, a fact confirmed by a Yale University study that created a High School exam. Figure 1 shows the raw results with 52 percent getting an F and 25 percent a D for a total failure of 77 percent.

rest: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-04/dr-tim-ball-how-world-was-deceived-about-global-warming-climate-change


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on August 09, 2016, 11:42:30 am
Solar physicist sees global cooling ahead
Anthony Watts / 40 mins ago August 9, 2016   

Via the GWPF: Recent research by Professor Valentina Zharkova (Northumbria University) and colleagues has shed new light on the inner workings of the Sun. If correct, this new discovery means that future solar cycles and variations in the Sun’s activity can be predicted more accurately.

The research suggests that the next three solar cycles will see solar activity reduce significantly into the middle of the century, producing conditions similar to those last seen in the 1600s – during the Maunder Minimum. This may have implications for temperatures here on Earth. Future solar cycles will serve as a test of the astrophysicists’ work, but some climate scientists have not welcomed the research and even tried to suppress the new findings.

https://youtu.be/7sh_nlz43Pc

New Solar Research Raises Climate Questions, Triggers Attacks

To most of us the sun seems unchanging. But if you observe its surface, it is seething with vast explosions and ejections. This activity has its origin in intense magnetic fields generated by swirling currents in the sun’s outer layer – scientists call it the solar dynamo.

It produces the well-known 11-year solar cycle which can be seen as sunspots come and go on the sun’s surface.

But models of the solar dynamo have only been partially successful in predicting the solar cycle – and that might be because a vital component is missing.

After studying full-disc images of the sun’s magnetic field, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University and colleagues, discovered that the sun’s dynamo is actually made of two components – coming from different depths inside the sun.

The interaction between these two magnetic waves either amplifies solar activity or damps it down. Professor Zharkova’s observations suggest we are due for a prolonged period of low solar activity.

    Professor Valentina Zharkova:

    We will see it from 2020 to 2053, when the three next cycles will be very reduced magnetic field of the sun. Basically what happens is these two waves, they separate into the opposite hemispheres and they will not be interacting with each other, which means that resulting magnetic field will drop dramatically nearly to zero. And this will be a similar conditions like in Maunder Minimum.

    What will happen to the Earth remains to be seen and predicted because nobody has developed any program or any models of terrestrial response – they are based on this period when the sun has maximum activity — when the sun has these nice fluctuations, and its magnetic field [is] very strong. But we’re approaching to the stage when the magnetic field of the sun is going to be very, very small.

She suggests it could be a repeat of the so-called Maunder Minimum – a period in the 17th century with little solar activity that may have influenced a cooling on Earth.

    Whatever we do to the planet, if everything is done only by the sun, then the temperature should drop similar like it was in the Maunder Minimum. At least in the Northern hemisphere, where this temperature is well protocoled and written. We didn’t have many measurements in the Southern hemisphere, we don’t know what will happen with that, but in the Northern hemisphere, we know it’s very well protocoled. The rivers are frozen. There are winters and no summers, and so on.

    So we only hope because these Maunder Minima will be shorter, the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century was about 65 years, the Maunder Minimum which we expect will be lasting not longer than 30-35 years.

Of course things are not the same as they were in the 17th century – we have a lot more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. And it will be interesting to see how the terrestrial and the solar influences play out.

This is promising research – a new insight into our sun with predictions as to its future behavior, yet Professor Zharkova relates than some climatologists resented her discovery.

    Professor Valentina Zharkova: 

    Some of them were welcoming and discussing. But some of them were quite — I would say — pushy. They were trying to actually silence us. Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our press release. The Royal Astronomical Society replied to them and CCed to us and said, ‘Look, this is the work by the scientists who we support, please discuss this with them.’ We had about 8 or 10 exchanges by email, when I tried to prove my point, and I’m saying, I’m willing to look at what you do, I’m willing to see how our results we produced and what the sun has explained to us. So how this is transformed into climate we do not produce; we can only assume it should be. So we’re happy to work with you, and add to your data our results. So don’t take the sunspots which you get, we can give you our curve. Work with our curve. So they didn’t want to.

Professor Zharkova’s work may have significantly improved our ability to forecast solar activity. If we do enter a new Maunder Minimum, then we are bound to discover new things about our sun and its influences on our climate.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/09/solar-physicist-sees-global-cooling-ahead/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on August 19, 2016, 06:44:03 pm
Did This Climate Alarmist Just Admit His Own Position Is Propaganda?

 :D

In attempting to explain how science works to ignorant climate change skeptics, a climate alarmist unwittingly revealed his own ignorance of basic philosophy. He took a story about people being unwilling to see the truth through propaganda and argued that it proves his point that we should all believe the propaganda.

In "What Climate Skeptics Don't Get About Science," Rhett Allain, associate professor of physics at Southeastern Louisiana University, takes Plato's allegory of the cave and tries to apply it to a scientific understanding.

Science is sort of like Plato’s allegory of the cave. In it, Plato says we are like people in a cave with our backs to a wall. Objects paraded in front of a fire cast shadows on a wall. We see only shadows and must determine what the objects are. This is how scientists do things. Here’s a good example: No one has ever seen an electron. You can’t see them with the naked eye; they’re too small. However, there is great experimental evidence that electrons do exist, and scientists are pretty confident about some of their properties. But I wouldn’t call it the truth.

Allain's point about scientists only being able to deal with human experience is correct, but he should have left Plato's allegory out of it. He later goes on to explain that science is about building models, and repeats the tired old claim that there's a "consensus" on climate change. He is right about science building models, but another key aspect of science is destroying models and replacing them with better ones when old models fail to account for reality. That's what's really going on in Plato's cave.
 
The people seeing images on a cave wall is only the start of Plato's story — if you read on, it becomes clear that those people are being misled and it is the philosopher's job to get them to break free of their own assumptions and see the truth.

In Plato's Republic, Socrates tells of a philosopher who is raised in front of that cave wall, but then escapes the cave and discovers the world above ground. This man sees the sun, real animals and plants — the world as it really is. Full of love for the truth, he enters back into the cave in order to tell everyone else.

But they do not believe him. The people believe the shadows on the wall are true, and cannot accept the ravings of the madman who has seen the real world. Socrates concludes that the people would rather kill the philosopher than embrace a truth outside their narrow mode of thought.

By associating climate alarmists like himself with the people imprisoned in Plato's cave, Allain has unwittingly revealed a terrifying truth. Alarmists are so focused on their vision of a world in peril that they are unwilling to accept the defeat of each of their predictive models.

Indeed, they are not unlike the people holding images before the fire — propagandists in the cave misleading their prisoners about the nature of reality.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/18/did-this-climate-alarmist-just-admit-his-own-position-is-propaganda/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on August 30, 2016, 06:32:52 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwviDPo4Rh4


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on September 01, 2016, 03:15:10 pm
Ship of Fools II: Green Arctic Expedition Frustrated by Large Quantities of Ice

An Arctic expedition designed to raise awareness of the perils of man-made climate change is being frustrated by unexpectedly large quantities of ice.

The Polar Ocean Challenge, whose aim is to circumnavigate the Arctic in a sailing boat while the summer ice-melt allows, is being led by veteran explorer David Hempleman-Adams. He justifies the expedition thus:

    Permanent irreversible change in the sea ice landscape of the Arctic seems inevitable. This will / is already having global economic political, social and environmental implications. A significant change in my lifetime.

    I see this possibility to circumnavigate the Arctic as one I wanted to take despite the risks associated with it in order to increase the worlds attention on the effects of Arctic climate change. There may be a possibility still to curb this progressive warming and melting in the Arctic. But even if this is not possible the next most important thing is to at the very least highlight the need to ‘Navigate the Future of the Arctic responsibly’.

Well, yes, of course, David. That’s just the kind of eco-friendly blah which will have landed your expedition sponsorship from a City of London finance firm. But what if, as the real world evidence increasingly suggests, your prognostications of climate doom are flat out wrong?

Already the expedition is around 4 to 6 weeks behind schedule having been held up in the Laptev Sea by the kind of ice which experts like Cambridge University’s Peter Wadhams – of whom more in a moment – assure us will soon disappear permanently from the Arctic in summer.

Here, for example, is an entry from their August 18 ship’s log:

    Well I came up on watch this morning at 0800.  ice, ice and more b****t ice.

and here

    A Stamukha is an iceberg that is touching the bottom.

    We had to turn round from the ice by the coast last night and find somewhere safe to moor/anchor. There were strong winds so we needed to find somewhere else to sit them out, and the answer was a stamukha.

    We knew it might drift, and it did, so when it had drifted into a more dangerous situation, Ben (who was on anchor watch) woke Nikolay and we’ve moved off it to go and have a look at the ice situation just up ahead again

and here’s one from crew member Ben Edwards, who is 14 years old

    We’re still running into ice, aaaagggghhhh!  We’ve had patches of clear water just large enough that you can’t see the other side, just large enough that you start to think maybe we’ve seen the last of the ice, and then it looms out out of the horizon like a piece of homework that you’ve been trying to avoid doing by moving to India only to find that school exists there as well.  Hmpf.  We’ve put in three new tracks today each one further south than the last in the vain hope that we’d finally escape the ice by running away from it.  Unfortunately it seems that ice is a vindictive substance and refuses to leave us alone.

Poor Ben. Like every other 14-year old in Christendom he has never lived in a period of global warming (it hasn’t happened for 18 years) but yet has been assured non-stop by teachers and other experts that it represents a serious threat to the planet’s future.

And given how the world’s big media organisations so love to ramp up scare stories about this non-existent problem is it any wonder?

On BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this week we heard from Cambridge professor Peter Wadhams that the Arctic is more doomed than ever before.

But apart from being something of a conspiracy theorist – he once claimed that secret agents, possibly in the pay of Big Oil, have been bumping off climate scientists, presumably because they know too much [not, it must be said, a major handicap of any alarmist climate scientist I’ve ever encountered] – he has an embarrassingly dismal track record on forecasting Arctic ice melt. Indeed, as I reported at Breitbart, even within the climate alarmist community he is now considered such a liability that even **** enviro loons prefer not to be associated with him.

Yet the BBC goes on featuring him as if he were an expert whose predictions should be taken seriously.

For the record, here – courtesy of Paul Homewood – is what Arctic Sea Ice coverage currently looks like:
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/09/fullsize_cice_combine_thick_sm_en_20160830_thumb.png)

Note that the coverage is already pretty extensive – raising understandable questions about whether Polar Ocean Challenge is going to be able to complete its mission before the winter freeze sets in. Tony Heller, who has been following the expedition closely at Real Climate Science, says “they are taking a big risk heading into the Northwest Passage now with winter setting in. Even if they don’t encounter ice, it will be cold and the weather rough.”

Note too that summer sea ice coverage has increased and thickened quite a bit since Wadhams first started peddling his “ice free North Pole” predictions in 2007.

(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/09/cice_combine_thick_sm_en_20070830_thumb.png)

But the really sad thing – sad, at least in a “Death of Little Nell” way – is this: all these expeditions, like this David Hempleman-Adams one, and the doomed one a few years ago by explorer Pen Hadow  is that the point they are trying to make is an utterly meaningless one.

All this nonsense you regularly hear from alarmists about the polar regions being navigable by ship for the first time because of global warming is historically and scientifically illiterate. Here, for example, is a history by the Ecotretas blog going back to the 1490s of all the various ships and explorers which have previously negotiated the North East Passage (as recently but-barely navigated by the Polar Ocean Challenge). It also looks like it was pretty toasty up there during the “Arctic Heat Wave” of 1923.

One of these days, someone’s going to get themselves hurt on one of these polar Ship of Fools expeditions. But until that day, I say: “Bring them on!” If idiots want to freeze their balls off, take City investment firms and insurance brokers for a ride, and make utter dicks of themselves for our delectation and amusement while making a mockery of current climate ‘science’, then I’d say they are performing a truly valuable public service.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/01/green-arctic-expedition-frustrated-large-quantities-ice/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on September 15, 2016, 05:30:13 pm
Four Studies Find ‘No Observable Sea-Level Effect’ From Man-Made Global Warming

 Ten years after former Vice President Al Gore warned in his 2006 Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth, that if nothing was done to stop man-made global warming, melting Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets could raise sea levels by up to 20 feet, four peer-reviewed scientific studies found “no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming.”

“It is widely assumed that sea levels have been rising in recent decades largely in response to anthropogenic global warming,” Kenneth Richard writes at NoTricksZone. “However, due to the inherently large contribution of natural oscillatory influences on sea level fluctuations, this assumption lacks substantiation….

“Scientists who have recently attempted to detect an anthropogenic signal in regional sea level rise trends have had to admit that there is ‘no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming’,” Richard points out, listing four peer-reviewed studies published this year that have all come to the same conclusion.

In a paper published on May 18, Hindumathi Palanisamy at the Laboratoire d’Etudes en Geophysique et Oceanograhie Spatiales (LEGOS) in Toulouse, France and her co-authors explain that “sea level is an integrated climate parameter that involves interactions of all components of the climate system (oceans, ice sheets, glaciers, atmosphere, and land water reservoirs) on a wide range of spatial and temporal scales….

“Since 1993, sea level variations have been measured precisely by satellite altimetry. They indicated a faster sea level rise of 3.3 mm/yr over 1993-2015. Owing to their global coverage, they also reveal a strong regional seal level variability that sometimes is several times greater than the global mean sea level rise,” the researchers state.

“Considering the highly negative impact of sea level rise for society, monitoring sea level change and understanding its causes are henceforth high priorities.”

Comparing sea level changes between 1950 and 2009 in the Indian Ocean, South China and Caribbean Seas, Palanisamy’s team found that the “tropical Pacific displays the highest magnitude of sea level variations.”

However, by studying “sea level spatial trend patterns in the tropical Pacific and attempting to eliminate signal corresponding to the main internal climate mode, we show that the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal.”

Another group of scientists led by Mohammad Hadi Bordbar from the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany also concluded in a study published in April that the recent sea level trends in the tropical Pacific “are still within the range of long-term internal decadal variability.

“Further, such variability strengthens in response to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations, which may further hinder detection of anthropogenic climate signals in that region,” the study found.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/4-peer-reviewed-studies-find-no-observable-sea-level-effect-man


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on October 05, 2016, 05:15:21 pm
Earth heading for ICE AGE as sun goes blank: Analysts reveal shock SUNSPOTS discovery

THE EARTH could be in for another Ice Age as the sun has repeatedly ‘gone blank’ this year, it has been revealed.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/717559/Earth-ICE-AGE-sun-goes-blank-sunspot


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on October 05, 2016, 05:16:09 pm
Pew: Most Americans Don’t Believe in ‘Scientific Consensus’ on Climate Change

Nearly three-quarters of Americans don’t trust that there is a large “scientific consensus” amongst climate scientists on human behavior being the cause of climate change, according to an in-depth survey on “the politics of climate” released Tuesday by Pew Research Center. 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/pew-most-americans-dont-believe-scientific-consensus-climate-change


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on November 19, 2016, 02:15:41 pm
UK Researchers: Tax Food to Reduce Climate Change

A group of researchers in Oxford University, England have suggested that imposing a massive tax on carbon intensive foods – specifically protein rich foods like meat and dairy – could help combat climate change.

    Pricing food according to its climate impacts could save half a million lives and one billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions

    Taxing greenhouse gas emissions from food production could save more emissions than are currently generated by global aviation, and lead to half a million fewer deaths from chronic diseases, according to a new study published in Nature Climate Change.

    The study, conducted by a team of researchers from the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food at the University of Oxford and the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington DC, is the first global analysis to estimate the impacts that levying emissions prices on food could have on greenhouse gas emissions and human health.

    The findings show that about one billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions could be avoided in the year 2020 if emissions pricing of foods were to be implemented, more than the total current emissions from global aviation. However, the authors stress that due consideration would need to be given to ensuring such policies did not impact negatively on low income populations.

    “Emissions pricing of foods would generate a much needed contribution of the food system to reducing the impacts of global climate change,” said Dr Marco Springmann of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, who led the study. “We hope that’s something policymakers gathering this week at the Marrakech climate conference will take note of.”

    Much of the emissions reduction would stem from higher prices and lower consumption of animal products, as their emissions are particularly high. The researchers found that beef would have to be 40% more expensive globally to pay for the climate damage caused by its production. The price of milk and other meats would need to increase by up to 20%, and the price of vegetable oils would also increase significantly. The researchers estimate that such price increases would result in around 10% lower consumption of food items that are high in emissions. “If you’d have to pay 40% more for your steak, you might choose to have it once a week instead of twice,” said Dr Springmann.

    …

    The results indicate that the emissions pricing of foods could, if appropriately designed, be a health-promoting climate-change mitigation policy in high-income, middle-income, and most low-income countries. Special policy attention would be needed in those low-income countries where a high fraction of the population is underweight, and possibly for low-income segments within countries.

    …

rest: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/19/uk-researchers-tax-food-to-reduce-climate-change/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on November 25, 2016, 02:38:41 am
Antarctic Sea Ice Has Not Shrunk In 100 Years

 :D

Antarctic sea ice had barely changed from where it was 100 years ago, scientists have discovered, after pouring over the logbooks of great polar explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton. Experts were concerned that ice at the South Pole had declined significantly since the 1950s, which they feared was driven by man-made climate change. But new analysis suggests that conditions are now virtually identical to when the Terra Nova and Endurance sailed to the continent in the early 1900s, indicating that declines are part of a natural cycle and not the result of global warming.   

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/24/antarctic-sea-ice-has-not-shrunk-in-100-years/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on December 04, 2016, 05:57:09 pm
My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic
Roger Pielke Jr.

Much to my surprise, I showed up in the WikiLeaks releases before the election. In a 2014 email, a staffer at the Center for American Progress, founded by John Podesta in 2003, took credit for a campaign to have me eliminated as a writer for Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight website. In the email, the editor of the think tank’s climate blog bragged to one of its billionaire donors, Tom Steyer: “I think it’s fair [to] say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538.”

WikiLeaks provides a window into a world I’ve seen up close for decades: the debate over what to do about climate change, and the role of science in that argument. Although it is too soon to tell how the Trump administration will engage the scientific community, my long experience shows what can happen when politicians and media turn against inconvenient research—which we’ve seen under Republican and Democratic presidents.

I understand why Mr. Podesta—most recently Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman—wanted to drive me out of the climate-change discussion. When substantively countering an academic’s research proves difficult, other techniques are needed to banish it. That is how politics sometimes works, and professors need to understand this if we want to participate in that arena.

More troubling is the degree to which journalists and other academics joined the campaign against me. What sort of responsibility do scientists and the media have to defend the ability to share research, on any subject, that might be inconvenient to political interests—even our own?

I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.

Instead, my research was under constant attack for years by activists, journalists and politicians. In 2011 writers in the journal Foreign Policy signaled that some accused me of being a “climate-change denier.” I earned the title, the authors explained, by “questioning certain graphs presented in IPCC reports.” That an academic who raised questions about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in an area of his expertise was tarred as a denier reveals the groupthink at work.

Yet I was right to question the IPCC’s 2007 report, which included a graph purporting to show that disaster costs were rising due to global temperature increases. The graph was later revealed to have been based on invented and inaccurate information, as I documented in my book “The Climate Fix.” The insurance industry scientist Robert-Muir Wood of Risk Management Solutions had smuggled the graph into the IPCC report. He explained in a public debate with me in London in 2010 that he had included the graph and misreferenced it because he expected future research to show a relationship between increasing disaster costs and rising temperatures.

When his research was eventually published in 2008, well after the IPCC report, it concluded the opposite: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and normalized catastrophe losses.” Whoops.

The IPCC never acknowledged the snafu, but subsequent reports got the science right: There is not a strong basis for connecting weather disasters with human-caused climate change.

Yes, storms and other extremes still occur, with devastating human consequences, but history shows they could be far worse. No Category 3, 4 or 5 hurricane has made landfall in the U.S. since Hurricane Wilma in 2005, by far the longest such period on record. This means that cumulative economic damage from hurricanes over the past decade is some $70 billion less than the long-term average would lead us to expect, based on my research with colleagues. This is good news, and it should be OK to say so. Yet in today’s hyper-partisan climate debate, every instance of extreme weather becomes a political talking point.

For a time I called out politicians and reporters who went beyond what science can support, but some journalists won’t hear of this. In 2011 and 2012, I pointed out on my blog and social media that the lead climate reporter at the New York Times,Justin Gillis, had mischaracterized the relationship of climate change and food shortages, and the relationship of climate change and disasters. His reporting wasn’t consistent with most expert views, or the evidence. In response he promptly blocked me from his Twitter feed. Other reporters did the same.

In August this year on Twitter, I criticized poor reporting on the website Mashable about a supposed coming hurricane apocalypse—including a bad misquote of me in the cartoon role of climate skeptic. (The misquote was later removed.) The publication’s lead science editor, Andrew Freedman, helpfully explained via Twitter that this sort of behavior “is why you’re on many reporters’ ‘do not call’ lists despite your expertise.”

I didn’t know reporters had such lists. But I get it. No one likes being told that he misreported scientific research, especially on climate change. Some believe that connecting extreme weather with greenhouse gases helps to advance the cause of climate policy. Plus, bad news gets clicks.

Yet more is going on here than thin-skinned reporters responding petulantly to a vocal professor. In 2015 I was quoted in the Los Angeles Times, by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Paige St. John, making the rather obvious point that politicians use the weather-of-the-moment to make the case for action on climate change, even if the scientific basis is thin or contested.

Ms. St. John was pilloried by her peers in the media. Shortly thereafter, she emailed me what she had learned: “You should come with a warning label: Quoting Roger Pielke will bring a hailstorm down on your work from the London Guardian, Mother Jones, and Media Matters.”

Or look at the journalists who helped push me out of FiveThirtyEight. My first article there, in 2014, was based on the consensus of the IPCC and peer-reviewed research. I pointed out that the global cost of disasters was increasing at a rate slower than GDP growth, which is very good news. Disasters still occur, but their economic and human effect is smaller than in the past. It’s not terribly complicated.

That article prompted an intense media campaign to have me fired. Writers at Slate, Salon, the New Republic, the New York Times, the Guardian and others piled on.

In March of 2014, FiveThirtyEight editor Mike Wilson demoted me from staff writer to freelancer. A few months later I chose to leave the site after it became clear it wouldn’t publish me. The mob celebrated. ClimateTruth.org, founded by former Center for American Progress staffer Brad Johnson, and advised by Penn State’s Michael Mann, called my departure a “victory for climate truth.” The Center for American Progress promised its donor Mr. Steyer more of the same.

Yet the climate thought police still weren’t done. In 2013 committees in the House and Senate invited me to a several hearings to summarize the science on disasters and climate change. As a professor at a public university, I was happy to do so. My testimony was strong, and it was well aligned with the conclusions of the IPCC and the U.S. government’s climate-science program. Those conclusions indicate no overall increasing trend in hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or droughts—in the U.S. or globally.

In early 2014, not long after I appeared before Congress, President Obama’s science adviser John Holdren testified before the same Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. He was asked about his public statements that appeared to contradict the scientific consensus on extreme weather events that I had earlier presented. Mr. Holdren responded with the all-too-common approach of attacking the messenger, telling the senators incorrectly that my views were “not representative of the mainstream scientific opinion.” Mr. Holdren followed up by posting a strange essay, of nearly 3,000 words, on the White House website under the heading, “An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr.,” where it remains today.

I suppose it is a distinction of a sort to be singled out in this manner by the president’s science adviser. Yet Mr. Holdren’s screed reads more like a dashed-off blog post from the nutty wings of the online climate debate, chock-full of errors and misstatements.

But when the White House puts a target on your back on its website, people notice. Almost a year later Mr. Holdren’s missive was the basis for an investigation of me by Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Grijalva explained in a letter to my university’s president that I was being investigated because Mr. Holdren had “highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke of the scientific consensus on climate change.” He made the letter public.

The “investigation” turned out to be a farce. In the letter, Rep. Grijalva suggested that I—and six other academics with apparently heretical views—might be on the payroll of Exxon Mobil (or perhaps the Illuminati, I forget). He asked for records detailing my research funding, emails and so on. After some well-deserved criticism from the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, Rep. Grijalva deleted the letter from his website. The University of Colorado complied with Rep. Grijalva’s request and responded that I have never received funding from fossil-fuel companies. My heretical views can be traced to research support from the U.S. government.

But the damage to my reputation had been done, and perhaps that was the point. Studying and engaging on climate change had become decidedly less fun. So I started researching and teaching other topics and have found the change in direction refreshing. Don’t worry about me: I have tenure and supportive campus leaders and regents. No one is trying to get me fired for my new scholarly pursuits.

But the lesson is that a lone academic is no match for billionaires, well-funded advocacy groups, the media, Congress and the White House. If academics—in any subject—are to play a meaningful role in public debate, the country will have to do a better job supporting good-faith researchers, even when their results are unwelcome. This goes for Republicans and Democrats alike, and to the administration of President-elect Trump.

Academics and the media in particular should support viewpoint diversity instead of serving as the handmaidens of political expediency by trying to exclude voices or damage reputations and careers. If academics and the media won’t support open debate, who will?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic-1480723518


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on December 08, 2016, 06:49:35 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/politics/leonardo-dicaprio-trump-climate-change-meeting/index.html
12/8/16
Leonardo DiCaprio, Trump talk climate change

(CNN)Leonardo DiCaprio met with President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday to discuss climate change -- adding to the mixed signals from the President-elect on the environment.

"We presented the President-elect and his advisors with a framework ... that details how to unleash a major economic revival across the United States that is centered on investments in sustainable infrastructure," Terry Tamminen, CEO of the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, said in a statement.

"Our conversation focused on how to create millions of secure, American jobs in the construction and operation of commercial and residential clean,
renewable energy generation.

DiCaprio's meeting with Trump only added to the mixed messages coming out of Trump Tower, particularly on the issue of climate change.

On the same day of his meeting with DiCaprio, Trump tapped Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt -- a climate change denier -- to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt is an opponent of many of the Obama EPA's environmental regulations, and sued the agency over its regulations of power plants in his capacity as attorney general.

Coupled with Trump's own history of climate change skepticism, environmentalists see dim prospects for action that scientists say is necessary to avert the most devastating consequences of climate change. Trump has called climate change a "hoax" but in a recent interview allowed for the possibility that human activity may be contributing to global warming.

Trump held a separate meeting this week with another high-profile environmental activist -- former Vice President Al Gore, who has also championed the fight against climate change in his career after politics.

DiCaprio has used his celebrity to champion environmental causes. He emphasized the threat of climate change in his 2016 Academy Awards acceptance speech -- "Climate change is real, it is happening right now," he said -- and produced a documentary on the subject, titled "Before the Flood," which was released this year. According to "The Independent," DiCaprio gave Ivanka Trump a copy of the documentary at the meeting.

The statement from his foundation added that "climate change is bigger than politics, and the disastrous effects on our planet and our civilization will continue regardless of what party holds majorities in Congress or occupies the White House."

And according to the foundation, there may be another meeting.

"The President-elect expressed his desire for a follow up meeting in January, and we look forward to continuing the conversation with the incoming administration as we work to stop the dangerous march of climate change, while putting millions of people to work at the same time," Tamminen said in the statement.

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the DiCaprio meeting.

How drastic might Trump's climate change policy changes be? A report released in November by the International Energy Agency (IEA) outlines two key scenarios for emissions and global warming in the coming decades.

The first scenario assumes world leaders keep the promises made in Paris last year at the United Nation's COP21 summit. The agreement between more than 175 countries introduced environmentally friendly policies to slow the increase in emissions and global warming.

The second scenario assumes no real action is taken and agreements are brushed aside, resulting in a 36% surge in carbon dioxide emissions by 2040, nearly three times the increase expected under the first scenario. While that would be a nightmare for environmentalists, it's unlikely that all Paris signatories would abandon their pledges.

Still, according to a recent United Nations Environment report, the world is still heading for a temperature rise of 2.9 to 3.4 degrees Celsius this century, even with the Paris pledges.


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on January 19, 2017, 01:33:50 pm
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-energy-pick-face-jobs-climate-questions-120142477--finance.html
Trump's energy pick Perry softens stance on climate change
1/19/17

 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Rick Perry, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to run the U.S. Energy Department, said during a Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday that global warming caused by humans is real, but that efforts to combat it should not cost American jobs.

The comment marks a shift for the former Texas governor, who had previously called the science behind climate change "unsettled" and a "contrived, phony mess." It also clashes with Trump's statements during his campaign for the White House that global warming is a hoax meant to weaken U.S. business.

"I believe the climate is changing. I believe some of it is naturally occurring, but some of it is also caused by man-made activity. The question is how do we address it in a thoughtful way that doesn’t compromise economic growth, the affordability of energy or American jobs," Perry said.

Perry's 3-1/2-hour hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources was one of the shortest and least contentious in a long list of sessions to vet Trump Cabinet nominees since last week. The committee has not yet scheduled its vote on Perry's nomination.

As energy secretary, Perry, 66, would oversee a substantial chunk of Trump's energy portfolio. He would lead a vast scientific research operation credited with helping trigger a U.S. drilling boom and advancements in energy efficiency and renewable energy technology, and would also be in charge of maintaining the United States' nuclear weapons arsenal.

Trump, who will be sworn in as president on Friday, has promised to bolster the U.S. oil, gas and coal industries, in part by undoing federal regulations curbing carbon dioxide emissions. He has also suggested pulling America out of a global climate change pact signed in Paris in 2015, calling it expensive for U.S. industry.

He sees Perry, who was governor of Texas from 2000 to 2015 and whose nomination has the support of the energy sector, as someone who can help usher in jobs growth.

Perry added during his hearing that he regrets having previously called for the department's elimination - a proposal he made during his failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

That proposal, which has become known as his "oops" moment, came during a presidential candidate debate when he could not initially remember all of the three Cabinet-level departments he wanted to eliminate: Commerce, Education and Energy.

"After being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination," he said in his opening remarks.

"PROTECT" THE SCIENTISTS

Democrats on the committee expressed worry that Perry would weaken the Energy Department's functions and potentially target its army of scientists focused on climate research.

Perry sought to assuage them.

"I am going to protect the men and women of the scientific community from anyone who would attack them,” he said in response to a question from Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington state about whether he would cut the department's climate science budget.

When pressed on whether there would be budget or staff cuts to key research programs at the department, Perry said: "I will be an advocate (for the programs) ... but I’m not sure I’m going to be 1,000 percent successful."

He distanced himself from a questionnaire the Trump transition team sent to the department in December demanding names and publications of employees who had worked on climate issues. After an uproar by critics who said it amounted to a witch hunt, the team disavowed the survey.

"I didn’t approve it. I don’t approve of it. I don’t need that information," Perry said.

Perry said much of his focus running the department would be on renewing the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. More than half of the department's $32.5 billion budget goes to maintaining nuclear weapons and cleaning up nuclear waste.

"As a former Air Force pilot during the days of the Cold War, I understand the deterrent value of our nuclear weapons systems, and the vital role they play in keeping the peace,” he said.

Perry said he was generally supportive of a state's right to block the siting of nuclear waste dumps, like Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but fell short of ruling out the federal government's power to impose them over state objections in some cases.

Nuclear waste disposal is one of the top hurdles to growth in the U.S. nuclear power industry.

Department leadership under Perry would represent a pivot from being run by learned scientists to a person who is known for close ties to energy interests.

The current energy secretary, Ernest Moniz, is a nuclear physicist who led technical negotiations in the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, while the previous head, Steven Chu, is a Nobel Prize-winning physicist. Perry recently resigned from the board of directors of Energy Transfer Partners LP, the company building the Dakota Access Pipeline opposed by Native Americans and environmentalists.


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on February 04, 2017, 08:03:52 pm
NASA / NOAA Climate Data Is Fake Data

NOAA shows the Earth red hot in December, with record heat in central Africa.

(https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/201612-4-768x601.gif)

The map above is fake. NOAA has almost no temperature data from Africa, and none from central Africa. They simply made up the record temperatures.

(https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/201612-land-4-768x601.gif)
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-land-sfc-mntp/201612.gif

rest: https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/nasa-noaa-climate-data-is-fake-data/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on February 05, 2017, 06:22:37 pm
Whistle-Blower: 'Global Warming' Data Manipulated Before Paris Conference

According to a report in The Mail on Sunday, NOAA scientist Dr. John Bates has produced “irrefutable evidence” that the NOAA study denying the “pause” in global warming in the period since 1998 was based on false and misleading data.

The NOAA study was published in June 2015 by the journal Science under the title “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus.”

Dr. Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, of “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation.” Bates says that Karl did so “in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

Bates said that NOAA bypassed its own protocol, never subjecting the report to NOAA’s strict internal evaluation process. Rather, NOAA superiors rushed the study through in a “blatant attempt to intensify the impact” of the paper on the Paris meeting on climate change, he said.

The “Pausebuster” paper produced by NOAA in 2015 was based on two new sets of temperature data—one measuring land temperatures and the other sea temperatures—both of which turned out to be flawed.

According to reports, NOAA has now decided to replace the sea temperature dataset just 18 months after it was issued, because it used “unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming.”

A reported increase in sea surface temperatures was due to upwards adjustments of readings from fixed and floating buoys to agree with water temperature measured by ships, according to Bates.

Bates said that NOAA had good data from buoys but then “they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.”

The land temperature dataset, on the other hand, was the victim of software bugs that rendered its conclusions “unstable,” Bates said.

Climate change skeptics have long insisted that scientists are susceptible to political and social pressures to produce the “right kind” of data to back up specific policy decisions.

Dr. Duane Thresher, a climate scientist with a PhD from Columbia University and NASA GISS, has pointed to a “publication and funding bias” as a key to understanding how scientific consensus can be manipulated.

Although scientists are held up as models of independent thinkers and unbiased seekers of truth, the reality is that they depend on funding even more than other professions, and will study what they are paid to study.

The Obama administration, which persistently denied that a climate debate even existed, channeled billions of federal dollars into programs and studies that supported its claims, while silencing contrary opinions.

Thomas Karl, the lead author on the Pausebuster paper, had a longstanding relationship with President Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren, giving him a “hotline to the White House.” Holdren was an ardent advocate of vigorous measures to curb emissions.

“In reality, it’s the government, not the scientists, that asks the questions,” said David Wojick, an expert on climate research spending and a longtime government consultant.

Federal agencies order up studies that focus on their concerns, so politics ends up guiding science according to its particular interests.

“Government actions have corrupted science, which has been flooded by money to produce politically correct results,” said Dr. William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

“It is time for governments to finally admit the truth about global warming. Warming is not the problem. Government action is the problem,” he said.

NOAA, the world’s leading source of climate data, not only produced a severely flawed study for political motives, it also mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data.

Not long after the study’s publication, the US House of Representatives Science Committee initiated an inquiry into its claims that no pause in global warming had existed. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.

President Donald Trump has pledged he will withdraw from the Paris Agreement that binds signer countries to a series of stringent measures to lessen emissions.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/05/whistle-blower-global-warming-data-manipulated-paris-conference/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on February 13, 2017, 05:57:51 pm
DAVID ROSE: How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth

They were duped – and so were we. That was the conclusion of last week’s damning revelation that world leaders signed the Paris Agreement on climate change under the sway of unverified and questionable data.

A landmark scientific paper –the one that caused a sensation by claiming there has been NO slowdown in global warming since 2000 – was critically flawed. And thanks to the bravery of a whistleblower, we now know that for a fact.

The response has been extraordinary, with The Mail on Sunday’s disclosures reverberating around the world. There have been nearly 150,000 Facebook ‘shares’ since last Sunday, an astonishing number for a technically detailed piece, and extensive coverage in media at home and abroad.

It has even triggered an inquiry by Congress. Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who chairs the House of Representatives’ science committee, is renewing demands for documents about the controversial paper, which was produced by America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the world’s leading source of climate data.

In his view, the whistleblower had shown that ‘NOAA cheated and got caught’. No wonder Smith and many others are concerned: the revelations go to the very heart of the climate change industry and the scientific claims we are told we can trust.

Remember, the 2015 Paris Agreement imposes gigantic burdens and its effects are felt on every household in the country. Emissions pledges made by David Cameron will cost British consumers a staggering £319 billion by 2030 – almost three times the annual budget for the NHS in England.

That is not the end of it. Taxpayers also face an additional hefty contribution to an annual £80 billion in ‘climate aid’ from advanced countries to the developing world. That is on top of our already gargantuan aid budget. Green levies and taxes already cost the average household more than £150 a year.

The contentious paper at the heart of this furore – with the less than accessible title of Possible Artifacts Of Data Biases In The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus – was published just six months before the Paris conference by the influential journal Science.

It made a sensational claim: that contrary to what scientists have been saying for years, there was no ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the early 21st Century.

Indeed, this ‘Pausebuster’ paper as it has become known, claimed the rate of warming was even higher than before, making ‘urgent action’ imperative.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html#ixzz4Yc3nDeT5


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on February 16, 2017, 12:40:42 am
Many meteorologists question climate change science

Michaels, a former meteorologist at WBZ-TV, lost her job as a science reporter at WGBH’s show “Greater Boston” last week after colleagues raised concerns about her views on vaccines and climate change. She had previously questioned the safety of vaccines and the evidence that human activity was causing global warming, both widely held views in the scientific community.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/02/13/why-weather-forecasters-question-climate-science/h93iEPs3YSwxPLJ58gWCxJ/story.html


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on May 02, 2017, 04:46:17 pm
http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=75989
WOW: Truth About Electric Vehicles Exposed, And It's Bad

4/30/17

Electric vehicles have been exposed as being far more inefficient and energy-intensive than they are advertised, and are not as "carbon neutral" as they claim. From Science Errors: An electric auto will convert 5-10% of the energy in natural gas into motion. A normal vehicle will convert 20-30% of the energy in gasoline into motion. That's 3 or 4 times more energy recovered with an internal combustion vehicle than an electric vehicle. Electricity is a specialty product. It's not appropriate for transportation. It looks cheap at this time, but that's because it was designed for toasters, not transportation. Increase the amount of wiring and infrastructure by a factor of a thousand, and it's not cheap. Electricity does not scale up properly to the transportation level due to its miniscule nature. Sure, a whole lot can be used for something, but at extraordinary expense and materials. Using electricity as an energy source requires two energy transformation steps, while using petroleum requires only one. With electricity, the original energy, usually chemical energy, must be transformed into electrical energy; and then the electrical energy is transformed into the kinetic energy of motion. With an internal combustion engine, the only transformation step is the conversion of chemical energy to kinetic energy in the combustion chamber. The difference matters, because there is a lot of energy lost every time it is transformed or used. Electrical energy is harder to handle and loses more in handling. The use of electrical energy requires it to move into and out of the space medium (aether) through induction. Induction through the aether medium should be referred to as another form of energy, but physicists sandwich it into the category of electrical energy. Going into and out of the aether through induction loses a lot of energy. Another problem with electricity is that it loses energy to heat production due to resistance in the wires. A short transmission line will have 20% loss built in, and a long line will have 50% loss built in. These losses are designed in, because reducing the loss by half would require twice as much metal in the wires. Wires have to be optimized for diameter and strength, which means doubling the metal would be doubling the number of transmission lines. High voltage transformers can get 90% efficiency with expensive designs, but household level voltages get 50% efficiency. Electric motors can get up to 60% efficiency, but only at optimum rpms and load. For autos, they average 25% efficiency. Gasoline engines get 25% efficiency with old-style carburetors and 30% with fuel injection, though additional loses can occur. Applying this brilliant engineering to the problem yields this result: A natural gas electric generating turbine gets 40% efficiency. A high voltage transformer gets 90% efficiency. A household level transformer gets 50% efficiency. A short transmission line gets 20% loss, which is 80% efficiency. The total is 40% x 90% x 50% x 80% = 14.4% of the electrical energy recovered (85.6% lost) before getting to the vehicle and doing something similar to the gasoline engine in the vehicle. Some say the electricity performs a little better in the vehicle, but it's not much. Electricity appears to be easy to handle sending it through wires. But it is the small scale that makes it look cheap. Scaling it up takes a pound of metal for so many electron-miles. Twice as much distance means twice as much metal. Twice as many amps means twice as much metal. Converting the transportation system into an electrical based system would require scaling up the amount of metal and electrical infrastructure by factors of hundreds or thousands. Where are all those lines going to go? They destroy environments. Where is that much natural gas going to come from for the electrical generators? There is very little natural gas in existence when using it for a large scale purpose. Natural gas has to be used with solar and wind energy, because only it can be turned on and off easily for backup. One of the overwhelming facts about electric transportation is the chicken and egg phenomenon. Supposedly, a lot of electric vehicles will create an incentive to create a lot of expensive infrastructure. There are a lot of reasons why none of the goals can be met for such an infrastructure. The basic problem is that electricity will never be appropriate for such demanding use as general transportation, which means there will never be enough chickens or eggs to balance the demand. It's like trying to improve a backpack to such an extent that it will replace a pickup truck. The limitations of muscle metabolism are like the limitations of electrical energy. Electrons are not a space-saving form of energy. Electrons have to be surrounded by large amounts of metal. It means electric motors get heavy and large. When cruising around town, the problems are not so noticeable. But the challenges of ruggedness are met far easier with internal combustion engines. Engineers say it is nice to get rid of the drive train with electric vehicles. But in doing so, they add clutter elsewhere, which adds weight, takes up space and messes up the suspension system. Out on the highway, the suspension system is the most critical factor.


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on May 07, 2017, 08:05:55 pm
Another Arctic ice panic over as world temperatures plummet

Inevitably, when even satellite temperatures were showing 2016 as “the hottest year on record”, we were going to be told last winter that the Arctic ice was at its lowest extent ever. Sure enough, before Christmas, a report from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was greeted with such headlines as “Hottest Arctic on record triggers massive ice melt”. In March we had the BBC trumpeting another study that blamed vanishing Arctic ice as the cause of weather which led to the worst-ever smog in Beijing, warning that it “could even threaten the Beijing Winter Olympics in 2022”.

rest: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/06/another-arctic-ice-panic-world-temperatures-plummet/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on June 03, 2017, 06:11:03 pm
http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=81438
6/3/17
The EU Has Just Proven That The Paris Climate Accord Was Never About Climate!! Look What Was Discovered

Please share this and expose the truth!

President Trump announced that the United States was withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord on Thursday but he also stated the U.S. would be willing to renegotiate the terms of the accord and enter a new agreement.
However, the leaders of Europe made it clear that there would be no renegotiation.


If the accord is so dire and the U.S. withdrawing would cause cataclysmic damage to the world then how could they be opposed to renegotiating? Only if the true drive behind the accord isn't really about saving the world.


Independentsentinel.com reported: The European Union has rejected Donald Trump’s offer to renegotiate the Paris Treaty, proving it was always about bleeding the U.S. dry and appointing globalists as our governing bodies.

The Paris climate agreement is written so as to be an endless drain on the U.S. economy. If they cared about the climate, they’d work with us. It doesn’t help that we have traitors within our own country.

The leftists in this country will be not be dissuaded. A corrupt deal has been worked out with U.S. states and major corporations who will betray the President of the United States.

New York state and New York city, Pittsburgh, California, Washington, and Silicon Valley, among others have vowed to abide by the treaty that was never legally implemented by Barack Obama. The three states that signed up so far account for 25% of the U.S. GDP.

If the Paris treaty signatories can accept some of our states and municipalities, why can’t it be renegotiated? I guess it can be after all.

The treaty – which is recognized as a treaty by every other signatory – was never ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate. Former dictator Barack Obama ignored the Senate and simply called it an accord with the help of a complicit U.N.

The guardian reported that Angela Merkel, who is destroying her country’s sovereignty, said “nothing will stop us”; France’s Macron said he “respects this decision” but he thinks Trump made a “mistake for the U.S. and the planet”; and Theresa May of Britain is disappointed.

While 195 nations say they support the agreement, not all have signed and most, if not all will not abide by it if history is precedent. Most nations don’t have to do a thing for more than a decade. The U.S. bore the burden and now our own countrymen will betray us to the globalists.

The non-binding climate pact called for voluntary compliance which most, probably all nations won’t carry through.

The Paris signatories believe Trump will be ousted in 2020 and this is only a bump in the road. They will hold out until then as they wait for the ultimate goal of having the U.S. to transfer the wealth and resources earned and developed by Americans.

The Paris agreement included the Green Climate fund which is, as President Trump described, one of the scams that demanded an immediate $100 billion from the U.S. and would increase over time. That is in addition to the billions we already send overseas.


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on June 12, 2017, 07:10:07 pm
Trump’s EPA Chief Backs Approach to Science That Could Upend the Global Warming ‘Consensus’

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt reignited a long simmering debate over a method of scientific inquiry that could upset the supposed “consensus” on man-made global warming.

In an interview with Breitbart’s Joel Pollak on Monday, Pruitt said he supported a “red team-blue team” set up to test climate science. Pruitt was inspired by an op-ed by theoretical physicist Steven Koonin, but others have been pushing this idea as well.

“If truth is what we are all after, why would any scientific organization object to an independent look at the claims of the climate establishment?” climate scientist John Christy said.

Christy has testified on the value of “red teams” for climate science many times in the past decade. This time, however, environmentalists and “consensus” scientists are worried Congress will take him seriously.

Red teams would challenge blue teams on global warming hypotheses on “what do we know, what don’t we know, and what risk does it pose to health, the United States, and the world,” Pruitt told Breitbart.

The military commonly using this method to challenge strategies and improve their overall effectiveness. Many climate scientists, however, say it has no place in their field. After all, 97 percent of climate scientists supposedly believe humans are the main cause of global warming.

“Science already has a red team: peer review,” David Titley, a climate scientist and retired rear admiral in the U.S. Navy, told The Washington Post.

“This just feels to me … like another way to skirt the tried and true scientific process that has worked for years in our field and many others,” said Marshall Shepherd, an atmospheric science professor at the University of Georgia who called the idea a “gimmick.”

Consensus scientists say the red team setup could manipulate public understanding of the science, giving a false impression of uncertainty and delay action on global warming. Skeptics, like Christy, say the other side is afraid the method will expose the weakness of the supposed “consensus” on global warming.

“My own analysis concerning 102 climate model runs is as clear as it can be—the theory has failed the simplest of scientific tests,” Christy said. “None of the august scientific societies crunched through the huge volumes of model output and observational data to perform such tests.”

“In the normative scientific method, when our theory fails, we are supposed to go back and modify or reject the theory and test again,” Christy said. “In this modern way of doing science, as best I can tell, the proponents of a failed theory simply yell louder, schedule marches on Washington, and attempt to quash any dissent.”

Consensus scientists say peer review works just fine, but skeptics point out the problems with climate models and many of their predictions. In fact, many articles have been written about the problems with scientific journals and peer review.

Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr. says peer review has become politicized, where  “gatekeeping” plays a role in who gets published and who doesn’t. Skeptics usually get the wrong end of that deal.

Pruitt can only do so much to change how the EPA conducts research, and it’s uncertain how much traction this idea will gain in Congress, especially with other major issues, like the Russia investigation and Obamacare repeal, sucking up political capital.

“I can understand why political organizations would object—because their deeply held beliefs may be shown to be in error and thus set a foundation to undo their attempts to set rules for the ‘hoi polloi,’” Christy said.

“Claiming that the truth has already been determined regarding ‘climate change,’ and thus red teams are not needed, is an argument made by someone who has not examined the theory,” he said.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/06/08/trumps-epa-chief-backs-approach-to-science-that-could-upend-the-global-warming-consensus/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on June 21, 2017, 04:58:04 pm
SHOCKER=> Global Warming Computer Models Were Wrong, the 'Pause' Is Real

It turns out, the theorized “pause” related to global warming is real and all of our fancy computer models that predicted dramatic increases in temperature failed us.

A paper published for Nature Geoscience titled “Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates” admits in shocking detail the shortcomings of climate scientists and their computer models. The most shocking element of all, is the fact that the paper’s lead author is Ben Santer, a man who will go down as one of the most vocal alarmists. James Dellingpole points out in his long form Breitbart piece that this topic was exposed in the “Climategate emails”.

Read the paper’s abstract below:

    In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble. Because observations and coupled model simulations do not have the same phasing of natural internal variability, such decadal differences in simulated and observed warming rates invariably occur. Here we analyse global-mean tropospheric temperatures from satellites and climate model simulations to examine whether warming rate differences over the satellite era can be explained by internal climate variability alone.

    We find that in the last two decades of the twentieth century, differences between modelled and observed tropospheric temperature trends are broadly consistent with internal variability. Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability.

    The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity. We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.

Climate change continues to be debunked. We are living in an age wherein we can acquire so much of the information and yet our scientists, encouraged by the government to find evidence of climate change, global warming, etc., simply make things up in order to receive funding each year. In a bid to receive a paycheck, they have resorted to lying to the world.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/shocker-global-warming-computer-models-wrong-pause-real/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on August 06, 2017, 05:34:21 pm
TEMPERATURE READINGS PLUNGE AFTER AUSTRALIA’S BUREAU OF METEOROLOGY ORDERS END TO ‘TAMPERING’

"The Bureau­ of Meteorology (BoM) initially claimed the adjustments were part of its quality control procedures. But bureau chief executive Andrew Johnson later told Environment Minister Josh­ Frydenberg that investigations had found a number of cold-weather stations were not “fit for purpose” and would be replaced."
#
Aussie temperature tampering scandal: “Smart cards” filter out coldest temperatures. Full audit needed ASAP! - 'The story changes: first it was quality control, then equipment failure, now a smart card?'
Flashback - Scandal: Australian Bureau of Meteorology caught erasing cold temperatures
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/08/scandal-australian-bureau-of-meteorology-caught-erasing-cold-temperatures/

Flashback: Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/07/31/australia-weather-bureau-caught-tampering-with-climate-numbers/

Via: https://www.thegwpf.com/temperatures-plunge-after-bureau-of-meteorology-orders-fix/

TEMPERATURES PLUNGE AFTER AUSTRALIA’S BUREAU OF METEOROLOGY ORDERS FIX
Date: 04/08/17
 
Graham Lloyd, The Australian

Recorded temperatures at the Bureau­ of Meteorology’s Thredbo Top automatic weather station have dropped below -10C in the past week, after action was taken to make the facility “fit for ­purpose”.

A record of the Thredbo Top station for 3am on Wednesday shows a temperature reading of -10.6C. This compares with the BoM’s monthly highlights for June and July, both showing a low of -9.6C.

The BoM said it had taken immed­iate action to replace the Thredbo station after concerns were raised that very low temperatures were not making it onto the official record. Controversy has dogged the bureau’s automatic weather station network since Goulburn man Lance Pigeon saw a -10.4C reading on the BoM’s website on July 2 automatically adjust to -10C, then disappear.

Later independent monitoring of the Thredbo Top station by scientist Jennifer Marohasy showed a recording of -10.6C ­vanish from the record.

BoM initially claimed the adjustments were part of its quality control procedures. But bureau chief executive Andrew Johnson later told Environment Minister Josh­ Frydenberg that investigations had found a number of cold-weather stations were not “fit for purpose” and would be replaced.

The BoM has admitted that, in addition to Goulburn and Thredbo Top, stations at Tuggeranong in the ACT, Butlers Gorge and Fingal in Tasmania and Mount Baw Baw in Victoria would be replace­d.

An in-house investigation that includes two independent experts has been called. The bureau said it rejected allegations aired in some media outlets that it had sought to tamper with temperature data.

It has been reported online that electronic smart cards were allegedly fitted to the BoM’s automatic weather stations, which put a limit on how low temperatures could be recorded in official weather data. The BoM declined to comment ahead of the internal review.

“The findings of a review into this matter will be made available after completion,” a BoM repre­sentative said. “We do not intend to publish detail prior to that.

“The AWS program is part of the observing systems and operations program, separate from the climate areas.”

On her website yesterday, Dr Marohasy said it was not the recording­ devices that were at fault. “To be clear, the problem is not with the equipment; all that needs to be done is for the smart-card readers to be removed,” Dr Marohasy said.

“So that after the automatic weather stations measure the correct­ temperature, this temp­erature can be brought forward firstly into the daily weather observation sheet and subsequently into the CDO (climate data online) dataset.”

Mr Frydenberg rejected any suggestion that he had prior knowledge of smart cards or the cause of problems which made the stations not fit for purpose. He said he only learnt of the issue with the weather station readings when it was raised by The Australian.

Full story

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/04/temperatures-plunge-after-australias-bureau-of-meteorology-orders-fix/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Psalm 51:17 on August 07, 2017, 02:07:36 pm
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/inconvenient-climate-change-wizard-al-gore-global-warming-sequel-bombs-box-office/
HOW INCONVENIENT: Climate Change Wizard Al Gore’s Global Warming Hoax Sequel Bombs At Box Office
The box office performance will disappoint Gore, who had urged his followers to pack movie theaters to send a message to “Trump and the other climate deniers.” Many of the political left no longer want to see Gore as the face of the global warming movement.

8/7/17

According to Deadline Hollywood, Gore’s sequel “grossed $900K, averaging $5,000 (per screen). That brought its cume (cumulative) over seven figures, landing at $1,052,000. Its weekend gross placed it 15th in the overall box office as of Sunday morning. Paramount said it will expand the title to over 500 locations next weekend.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Are there not enough Liberal loons to come out and watch this nonsense? Evidently, no. A main reason for the avoidance of “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth To Power” is because it is filled with crazy levels of misrepresentation all the way down to outright lies. In short, Al Gore forgot the cardinal rule of hucksterism: mix at least a little truth with your falsehoods, or you will lose your base. 

The box office performance will disappoint Gore, who had urged his followers to pack movie theaters to send a message to “Trump and the other climate deniers.”

“By filling theaters, we can show Donald Trump and the other climate deniers in the White House that the American people are committed to climate action –– no matter what they do, say, or tweet!” Gore wrote in an email alert sent to his supporters on Friday August 4th, the day of his nationwide opening.

Many of the political left no longer want to see Gore as the face of the global warming movement. See: Warmist New Republic: ‘The Troubling Return of Al Gore’ – ‘Not everyone on the left is celebrating Gore’s reemergence’
Al Gore Introduces An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power

Is this Al Gore talking, or a Disney animatron? Hmm, hard to say…want a good laugh? Watch the pathetic symbol. Al Gore’s billions depend on you believing in global warming, global cooling climate change, because if not, he will go broke the world will explode.

Gore’s climate claims are failing to materialize as many of his assertions are exactly the opposite of the current climate data. See: Extreme Weather Expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.: ‘World is presently in an era of unusually low weather disasters & Climate Depot’s New ‘Talking Points’ Report – A-Z Debunking of Climate Claims

A prominent Ivy League Geologist who voted for Al Gore, was “appalled” after viewing his first 2006 film. “I voted for Gore in 2000, yeah. I think that if he ran again, depending on who he ran against, I might vote for him. He’s a smart man,” said Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack, who chaired the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania in the skeptical film “Climate Hustle.”

But after viewing Gore’s film, Giegengack had this reaction. “I was appalled. I was appalled because he either deliberately misrepresented the point he was making or didn’t understand it. So it was irresponsible of Al Gore.”

    “CO2 is not the villain that it has been portrayed. I’m impressed by the fact that the present climate, from the perspective of a geologist, is very close to the coldest it’s ever been. The concentration CO2 in the atmosphere today is the close to the lowest it has ever been,” Giegengack explained in “Climate Hustle”.

A key claim in Gore’s sequel about his role in securing the UN Paris climate pact has also been called into question. See:

Sequel depicts Gore clinching 2015 UN Paris deal – But top Indian diplomat says Gore’s claim is nonsense

Gore’s Sequel ‘Sabotaged’!

Gore fans like Tucker are now reduced to blaming the distributor for the sequels disappointing box office.

“A botched strategy by Paramount Pictures effectively sabotaged the nationwide release of the Al Gore documentary An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, which finished in 15th place in US theatres this weekend. This was not supposed to happen,” Tucker explained. source


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on August 07, 2017, 06:07:38 pm
Climate Fraud Al Gore Now Says He Could ‘Become A Catholic’ Because Pope Francis Preaches Global Warming
August 5, 2017

Former vice president Al Gore told CNN that he would consider converting to Catholicism because of the witness of Pope Francis by preaching Climate Change....

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/climate-change-fraud-al-gore-now-says-become-catholic-pope-francis-preaches-global-warming/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on September 05, 2017, 07:32:30 pm
E-Book Debunking Gore’s Climate Claims Outselling ‘An Inconvenient Sequel’



A scientist is outselling Al Gore’s book which accompanies his new film An Inconvenient Sequel at the Amazon Kindle store. Roy Spencer, a climatologist and former NASA scientist, rips global warming alarmism in his new e-book An Inconvenient Deception, which is aimed at the “bad science, bad policy and some outright falsehoods” in the former vice president’s followup to An Inconvenient Truth.

Though Gore’s first film was widely heralded and won an Academy Award, the sequel has had little fanfare. The Daily Caller reports that since the film premiered in August, “ticket sales have lagged, and even left-wing reviewers have harshly criticized the film.”

As for rankings, the e-book An Inconvenient Sequel rests way down the list at #51,031. Spencer’s e-book, An Inconvenient Deception, is much further up at #1,201.

The Daily Caller spoke with Spencer, who said, “There are three big weaknesses in Gore’s new movie: science, economics and energy policy.” He also said Gore is wrong about the weather being like scenes out of the Book of Revelation, “It’s wrong because everything Gore shows in the new movie happens naturally.”

Gore loves touting how man’s carbon footprint has caused sea levels to rise. But as Spencer notes, “Sea level has been rising steadily at about 1 inch per decade for over 150 years, long before CO2 emissions could be blamed.”

Also in the movie, Spencer adds, Gore claims he rightly predicted the flooding of the 9/11 memorial in New York City by 2012’s Superstorm Sandy. He blamed it on melting glaciers causing sea levels to rise, However, Spencer disagrees:

    “[T]hat was due to storm surge, not sea level rise. So in the new movie he lied about the storm surge explanation being mentioned in the first movie.”

Spencer has also been critical of all the voices on the Left calling Hurricane Harvey a disaster made worse by man-made pollution. He pointed to the “many flood disasters in the Houston area… dating back to the mid-1800s when the population was very low.” Case in point, 1935, when downtown Houston was also under water. The population then was two million less than now. Now, that’s an inconvenient truth!

Alarmism used to sell books, but unfortunately for Gore, people are more interested in facts these days.


http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/e-book-debunking-gores-climate-claims-outselling-inconvenient-sequel


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on March 15, 2018, 04:52:41 am
Arctic Warming Study Has Huge Flaws

duh   :P

Research purports to bolster theories that man-made warming is leading to colder U.S. and European winters, but buried in the paper is an admission undercutting its findings.

The study, published in a “Nature Communications” January 2018 issue, claimed historical data showed an East Coast cold snap is two to four times more likely when the Arctic is abnormally warmer than when the pole is colder. It’s not a widely accepted theory among climate scientists, but the study’s made the rounds in the media, touted as more evidence man-made warming is making U.S. winters colder.

The study “basically” confirmed “the story I’ve been telling for a couple of years now,” the study’s co-author, Rutgers University scientist Jennifer Francis, said. “This is no coincidence” and that “it’s becoming very difficult to believe they are unrelated,” Francis, who’s regularly cited in the media during intense cold snaps, added.

That theory resurfaced this winter during a prolonged cold snap in the eastern U.S., which lasted from around Christmas 2017 to mid-January. Cold and snow pummeled the northeast, and former Vice President Al Gore claimed it was the product of man-made warming. Francis’s new study confirms that theory, she said.

Buried in the study, however, is a section on limitations undercutting the mainline findings. JunkScience.com publisher Steve Milloy pointed out the admissions on Twitter.

NOW WATCH why global warming is overblown:

“The most obvious is common to all observational analysis, i.e., correlation does not mean causation,” the authors wrote in their study, adding “even though elevated heights and warmer temperatures in the Arctic are positively correlated with more frequent severe winter weather in the mid-latitudes, we cannot conclude that the warmer Arctic is responsible.”

More importantly, the authors “have not offered mechanistic explanations for these relationships” but instead try and argue “our findings are consistent with previous studies linking a warming Arctic with extreme winter weather in NH mid-latitudes,” they admit.

The authors basically admit they are not testing any hypothesis; they are just running the numbers and looking for some sort of correlation between Arctic warmth and cold snaps in the northeastern U.S. and Europe.

Francis has been arguing for years that melting sea ice and a warming Arctic is weakening the jet stream and leading to more frequent and persistent cold snaps in the U.S. and Europe. But as she admitted in the study, scientists have no idea how this could be happening.

“Five of the past six winters have brought persistent cold to the eastern US and warm, dry conditions to the West, while the Arctic has been off-the-charts warm,” Francis said.

“Exactly how much the Arctic contributed to the severity or persistence of the pattern is still hard to pin down, but it’s becoming very difficult to believe they are unrelated,” she added.

Her study comes as the third nor’easter this winter bears down on the northeastern U.S. The storm follows the “Beast from the East” storm that brought temperatures to record lows across much of Europe while the Arctic went through record warmth.

Many scientists don’t think there’s enough evidence to say for sure what’s driven recent cold snaps. Studies have also found cold snaps have become less common in the last 50 years.

“This study highlights the difficulty in disentangling the cause-and-effect between Arctic warming and middle latitude extreme events,” Weather.us meteorologist and Cato Institute scholar Ryan Maue told CNN.

“While no firm scientific consensus exists in the climate community on these Arctic interactions, this research communication will help direct future research and spur timely debate on a high impact climate change problem,” Maue added.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/14/rutgers-university-global-warming-study/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on June 25, 2018, 08:16:52 pm
NOAA Set to Abandon Climate Change Mission

The National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) may be about to remove ‘climate change’ from its list of core priorities.

According to the New York Times:

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is part of the Department of Commerce, operates a constellation of earth-observing satellites. Because of its work on climate science data collection and analysis, it has become one of the most important American agencies for making sense of the warming planet. But that focus may shift, according to a slide presentation at a Department of Commerce meeting by Tim Gallaudet, the acting head of the agency.

    In the presentation, which included descriptions of the past and present missions for the agency, the past mission listed three items, starting with “to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts.” In contrast, for the present mission, the word “climate” was gone, and the first line was replaced with “to observe, understand and predict atmospheric and ocean conditions.”

    The presentation also included a new emphasis: “To protect lives and property, empower the economy, and support homeland and national security.”

If this is indeed NOAA’s new emphasis, it would certainly accord with the skeptical views of President Trump on the “man-made global warming” issue.

For decades, like NASA, NOAA has been a leading player in promoting climate alarmism.

As recently as the beginning of this year it was caught red-handed trying adjust the Big Freeze of the winter of 2017/2018 in the U.S. out of existence.

But that was just the tip of the iceberg. One of NOAA’s jobs is to maintain the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), one of the world’s major earth surface temperature datasets. It has frequently been caught adjusting this data in order to make early 20th century temperatures colder and recent temperatures hotter so as to give a more dramatic impression of “global warming.”

If NOAA goes back to its day job – as the name suggests – monitoring atmospheric and oceanic conditions, then it will be a healthy sign that the U.S. economy, the taxpayer, honest science and President Trump are #winning.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/25/report-noaa-to-give-up-on-climate-change/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on June 25, 2018, 08:18:14 pm
Happy Birthday, Global Warming! 30 Years of Failed Predictions and Counting

It was 30 years ago today that NASA head Dr. James E Hansen testified to the US Senate that “global warming has begun”.

On June 24, 1988, Dr. Hansen told a panel of Senators that the world is plunging into an era of destruction, and told of hysterical doomsday predictions.

From the New York Times archive, dated June 24th, 1988:

    Until now, scientists have been cautious about attributing rising global temperatures of recent years to the predicted global warming caused by pollutants in the atmosphere, known as the ”greenhouse effect.” But today Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.

    Article Continues Below

    Dr. Hansen, a leading expert on climate change, said in an interview that there was no ”magic number” that showed when the greenhouse effect was actually starting to cause changes in climate and weather. But he added, ”It is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here.”

    If Dr. Hansen and other scientists are correct, then humans, by burning of fossil fuels and other activities, have altered the global climate in a manner that will affect life on earth for centuries to come.

    He and other scientists testifying before the Senate panel today said that projections of the climate change that is now apparently occurring mean that the Southeastern and Midwestern sections of the United States will be subject to frequent episodes of very high temperatures and drought in the next decade and beyond. But they cautioned that it was not possible to attribute a specific heat wave to the greenhouse effect, given the still limited state of knowledge on the subject.

    Mathematical models have predicted for some years now that a buildup of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil and other gases emitted by human activities into the atmosphere would cause the earth’s surface to warm by trapping infrared radiation from the sun, turning the entire earth into a kind of greenhouse.

    If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050, according to these projections. This rise in temperature is not expected to be uniform around the globe but to be greater in the higher latitudes, reaching as much as 20 degrees, and lower at the Equator.

    ”Global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming,” Dr. Hansen said at the hearing today, adding, ”It is already happening now.”

    Some experts also believe that concern over global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels warrants a renewed effort to develop safe nuclear power. Others stress the need for more efficient use of energy through conservation and other measures to curb fuel-burning.

    Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, an atmospheric physicist with the Environmental Defense Fund, a national environmental group, said a number of steps can be taken immediately around the world, including the ratification and then strengthening of the treaty to reduce use of chlorofluorocarbons, which are widely used industrial chemicals that are said to contribute to the greenhouse effect. These chemicals have also been found to destroy ozone in the upper atmosphere that protects the earth’s surface from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun.

So this was the beginning of all the doom and gloom. Since Hansen’s testimony, we’ve been treated a litany of crazed predictions that never came true. In fact, Hansen’s own charts and computer models from 1988 have been debunked, where he predicted a massive rise in temperature that ended up being quite meager.

Leading climate alarmist Al Gore once said that we would reach a “point of no return” in 10 years. 12 years ago.

Remember when a writer for The Independent said “snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”? Charles Onians opined in that article that England would soon never experience any more snow. That article was from 2000. As record blizzards hit England this past March, 2018, The Independent has since removed all traces all of the article, and even the Wayback Machine internet archive has removed the article. Fortunately, the folks at Watts Up With That preserved the article in PDF form.

This other article out of Australia’s The Age blames “growing global wealth” for the pending doom. From 2007. Miraculously, 11 years later, Australia still exists and isn’t under water.

Someone put together an entire website dedicated to climate hysteria predictions that never happened, called ClimateChangePredictions.org .

Tony Heller, of RealClimateScience.com , put together this video titled “Thirty Years Of Failed Climate Predictions”:

Dr. James Hansen has since turned into a wackjob activist, and has been arrested multiple times while protesting.

    30 years ago… guess which NYTimes headline has become the real problem. pic.twitter.com/2heZ1IlStf

    — Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) June 24, 2018

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/06/happy-birthday-global-warming-30-years-of-failed-predictions/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on July 14, 2018, 05:43:37 pm
Global warming? 2018 year of 'lost summer' for Arctic
Report cites threat to shorebirds because of July snow

A report from Scientific American said there are problems this year for the species of shorebirds that each year descend on the Arctic to mate and raise chicks.

It’s because the reproduction happens during the summer, and because of extensive July snow this year, there’s been no summer.

The report said the frozen precipitation “sealed the birds off from food and nesting sites.”

“Without these key resources avian migrants to the region will not reproduce in 2018, experts say.”

The report elaborated that snowmelt usually allows shorebirds to begin nesting on eastern Greenland’s treeless tundra during the first half of June.

But Jeroen Reneerkens, an avian ecologist at the University of Groningen, said when he arrived there this year on June 14, he found a particular species of shorebirds absent.

“The tundra was 100 percent covered in snow, and it was a very deep layer,” he says, estimating an average depth of about one meter. “It was a big shock to see the place like that.”

That kind of development is why activists largely have stopped using the term global warming – which hasn’t been detected for two decades – to climate change.

Marc Morano at Climate Depot said Reneerkens reported never having come across such circumstances before.

“He is uncertain how this ‘disastrous’ incident will affect the overall populations of these shorebird species. But ‘given the scale that this happening [on],’ he says, ‘I do expect that this will have large consequences.'”

Morano pointed out that other areas also are experiencing unusual circumstances.

He cited, from the article, the fact that the region’s tundra still was covered 80 percent with snow as of July 12.

WND recently reported a United Nations official is calling for an “ark” to save the world from global warming.

Patricia Espinosa, the executive secretary of U.N. Climate Change, was speaking at a recent conference at the Vatican hosted by Pope Francis.

Morano noted Espinosa urged the world “to make the fundamental, transformative changes necessary” to fight “global warming.”

The Vatican’s International Conference was titled “Saving our Common Home and the Future of Life on Earth.”

“If we truly want to make the fundamental, transformative changes necessary to combat climate change, perhaps what we need then is not a physical ark, but an ark of ambition for #climateaction,” she said on social media.

Espinosa echoed former U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres, reported Morano.

Figueres called for “centralized transformation” that will make things “very different” for life on the plant.

Espinosa said: “I want to begin by discussing a narrative that is common to many cultures and faith communities throughout the world. It’s the story of a great flood that took place long ago. While different cultures tell it in different ways, most outline how humankind not only had warning that rising waters were coming, but that those warnings were ignored. Now, let me be clear: I don’t propose we begin building an ark—at least not a physical one—but it’s hard to ignore some parallels with today. Every day we are seeing evidence of climate change and its devastating impacts on populations around the globe.”

She said climate change and the world’s response to it “raises larger questions about who we are, why we’re here, and where we’re collectively going.”

“Climate change is about morality: who are we to willingly destroy the ancient and intricate beauty of the world? Climate change is about legacy: who are we to leave a debt of neglect to an unborn generation?”

WND reported last year when Figueres was in Germany for a climate summit and laughed off questions about her call for a globally centralized planning structure.

Morano said he asked her about her message to President Trump and her own calls for a U.S. “centralized transformation” that “is going to make life of everyone on the planet very different.”

Morano: “What about [your call for U.N.] ‘centralized transformation’? What about people who might be afraid the U.N. is essentially going to be a climate central power?”

Figueres: Loud laugh.

Morano: “That is your response?”

Figueres: “Now that is real humor.”

She continued to laugh as she got into the waiting car.

But it wasn’t so long ago that she made the proposal.

According to the Tom Nelson blog, it was in 2012 when she said of her work, “It is the most inspiring job in the world because what we are doing here is we are inspiring government, private sector and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have every undertaken.

“The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t ‘a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective.’ This [U.N. climate change action] is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science. So it’s a very, very different transformation and one that is going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different.”

WND reported when Al Gore used the extreme results of “Superstorm Sandy” to support his contention that sea waters are rising significantly.

The claim is in the sequel to his 2006 movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

The original movie wasn’t without controversy, as a judge in the United Kingdom said it could be shown to schools only if they alert students to nine statements “that are not supported by current mainstream scientific consensus.”

In the promotions for “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power,” critics have found yet another misstatement by Gore.

According to the Media Research Center’s Newsbusters, Gore claims in his film that the flooding caused by Superstorm Sandy at the site of the Twin Towers memorial in New York City is a fulfillment of his prediction in his original movie that a rise in the ocean level would flood the site.

But that isn’t what happened.

In his 2006 film, he said, illustrated by an animation, “If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida.”

Then he showed animations of what he believed would happen to San Francisco, the Netherlands, Beijing and other places.

Turning to Manhattan, he said, “This is what would happen to Manhattan; they can measure this precisely.”

The animation shows water reaching the 9/11 memorial.

But Newsbusters argued Gore has twisted his original words to make it appear his prediction about Manhattan came true.

In a newly released clip from the movie, he said: “Ten years ago when the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ came out, the single most criticized scene was an animated scene showing that the combination of sea level rise and storm surge would put the ocean water into the 9/11 memorial site, which was then under construction. And people said, ‘That’s ridiculous. What a terrible exaggeration.'”

The movie then shows news footage of Superstorm Sandy water reaching the memorial site.

Newsbusters pointed out the original prediction “was not about extenuating circumstances of a storm like Sandy slamming into New York or any ‘storm surge’ at all.”

The report noted the latest maps show that Greenland still has ice 11 years after Al Gore’s prediction of catastrophic melt.

Even scientists dispute Gore’s contention that Superstorm Sandy was the product of “manmade climate change.”

Gore also told an audience in 2009, for example, that “the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”

He also predicted increasing temperatures would cause Earth’s oceans to rise by 20 feet, a claim many scientists say is utterly without rational basis.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2018/07/global-warming-2018-year-of-lost-summer-for-arctic/#7VLmfzULfYpy5TkY.99


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on August 28, 2018, 06:20:44 am
Global Warming Alarmists -- Media Pressure to end Debate

A bit ago, I wrote here that it is a huge advocacy mistake for global-warming alarmists to refuse debating their opponents. After all, if global catastrophe is really coming, one should accept any and every opportunity to persuade doubters.

Now, global-warming public intellectuals have warned the media that if they allow skeptics to have a voice in stories, they will boycott giving comment. From the open letter appearing in the Guardian:

    Balance implies equal weight. But this then creates a false equivalence between an overwhelming scientific consensus and a lobby, heavily funded by vested interests, that exists simply to sow doubt to serve those interests. Yes, of course scientific consensus should be open to challenge — but with better science, not with spin and nonsense. We urgently need to move the debate on to how we address the causes and effects of dangerous climate change — because that’s where common sense demands our attention and efforts should be.

    Fringe voices will protest about “free speech”. No one should prevent them from expressing their views, whether held cynically or misguidedly. However, no one is obliged to provide them with a platform, much less to appear alongside them to give the misleading impression that there is something substantive to debate.

This “We are too right to debate” variation is also folly. Pressuring media to only present the alarmists’ side of the case — which already happens much if not most of the time anyway — will not change minds. To the contrary, it will raise the acute suspicion that they are silencing dissenters because their their hypotheses are actually very debatable and they can’t stand the contest.

And it isn’t as if dissenters’ voices won’t be heard anyway. Their views will still be voiced through the Internet, social media, and skeptical publications.

Global warming is not a top political priority for vast numbers of people. This kind of presumption and arrogance won’t increase their urgency. Insularity does not serve the global-warming alarmist side well. Engagement with all comers does.

The “experts” don’t get to decide when “the debate is over.” The people do.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/global-warming-alarmists-pressure-media-to-end-debate/


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on December 04, 2018, 04:08:59 am
Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions

When drug companies are caught faking clinical trial data, no one is surprised anymore. When vaccine manufacturers spike their human trial samples with animal antibodies to make sure their vaccines appear to work, we all just figure that’s how they do business: lying, cheating, deceiving and violating the law.

https://www.naturalnews.com/045695_global_warming_fabricated_data_scientific_fraud.html


Title: Re: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...
Post by: Mark on July 14, 2019, 05:26:05 pm
Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures

The climate change hoax has collapsed. A devastating series of research papers has just been published, revealing that human activity can account for no more than a .01°C rise in global temperatures, meaning that all the human activity targeted by radical climate change alarmists — combusti

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-07-12-climate-change-hoax-collapses-new-science-cloud-cover.html