Denying Global Warming - there is no 'pause'

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

We just had Prof Brian Cox on Australian TV, taking on a minority Senator (who only scored 77 real votes - don't ask) about Global Warming and the alleged 'pause' in the recent two decades or so.

It was highly amusing - Senator Malcolm Roberts claimed NASA had 'corrupted' and 'manipulated' the climate data, that increasing CO2 was CAUSED by Global Warming, that only 0.3% of climate scientists agree with GW, and that the 1930s were just about as hot as our recent hot period. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/images/smilies/0406%20Facepalm.gif

The crowd - mostly young smart persons LOLed out loud :)

The panel were all too polite to strike a killing blow however.

Here you can see a short video of Dr Cox vs Senator Roberts :
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2016/aug/16/i-brought-the-graph-brian-cox-and-malcolm-roberts-debate-climate-change-on-qa-video

I also prepared an info-graphic showing the facts behind this nonsense about Global Warming in a 'pause', or even stopped :
33964

Readers are entirely free, and even encouraged, to copy, use, and spread this graphic.

The original is here :
http://kapyong.5gbfree.com/images/DenyingGW.png


Kapyong

[chancy]

Hello Everyone:

"How deniers lie about global warming by cherry picking date"

I thought this sentence was unusual to say the least???

If anyone is fudging the truth it is "global warming, climate change etc. crowd.
How on the planet earth can "MAN" be causing all the warmth by CO2 emissions?
WHY should "MAN" and mostly the west pay for all the CO2?
Cap and trade doesn't work and this is the model that ALL WESTERN COUNTRIES have decided to use since it's sooooooo lucrative!

Maybe everyone that's going to read this forgot Piers Corbyn and his understanding of the data and messed up models being used today to figure out "climate change, global warming and any other name given to the data to try to make a case of cashing in on cap and trade.

We in Alberta are going through this very thing right now.....
Cap and trade is being introduced here January 1, 2017.
Of course the government says it will only cost $350 dollars per family per year??????? Where in the hell did they get this figure????
They forgot that we are land locked. Everything imported into Alberta comes by train, plane, ship, automobile.
The new standard is to raise gas 17 cents per litre which translates to 76.5 cents per imperial gallon. Of course this won't effect anyone. Of course not?!?!?!?
I guess the government has a different pencil than the working class. Nothing will go up in price. Not anything!

Yes the deniers are lying BUT the "climate change, global warming crowd" is as honest as white is definitely black!

Folks this is all about Billions and Billions in cash dollars! Possibly even Trillions of dollars of revenue and nothing will have changed as far as the planets climate, warming or anything else except governments get Billions and we as people pay again!

So much for deniers.....WE ARE NOT CHARGING ANYONE FOR LIVING ON PLANET EARTH.

Try to say this about "climate change, global warming crowd".

PS If you want to hear some truth just go to you tube or even in the archives here and listen to Piers Corbyn.
It will be very enlightening and probably inspiring.

chancy

[KiwiElf]

I've found that one way to stop the "global warming crowd" in their tracks is to point out to them that the entire solar system is experiencing, hmmm "wayward climate change" and I'd theorise, based on the evidence presented, it is largely caused by the Sun (and perhaps whatever area of space our solar system happens to be in).

How do the global warmers explain humankind being responsible for those changes on other planets, and exactly what will be achieved with a carbon tax, and where are the $$ going?? It's just another blatant "tax" rip off to fill govt coffers. :p

I would also theorise a good deal of it (on Earth, anyway) - is being deliberately manipulated by geoengineering & that if all forms of pollution were stopped tomorrow, it would not make much difference. :sun:

[transiten]

KiwiElf, David Wilcock has wrote extensively on this theory on Divine Cosmos and in his first book "Thre Source Field Investigations".

[Andre]

Taxing carbon dioxide has to be the single biggest scam ever conceived.

[KiwiElf]

Taxing carbon dioxide has to be the single biggest scam ever conceived.

And I fail to see how it will "fix" anything ;)

[Hervé]

... missing quite a few "Big Pictures"... below, we are not talking 10th of Celsius degrees but tens of them Celsius degrees:


Colder right now than throughout almost all of history (https://iceagenow.info/colder-right-now-throughout-almost-history/)

By Robert (https://iceagenow.info/author/xilef/) August 11, 2016 (https://iceagenow.info/colder-right-now-throughout-almost-history/)


And yet, our leaders keep on harping about global warming


https://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Temperature-and-CO2-thru-time.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html)
Graph from “Climate and the Carboniferous Period” http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Ca...s_climate.html (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html)


And CO2 levels were higher than today throughout almost all of history.

When you look at the above chart, you will see almost no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/images/misc/quote_icon.png “The Late Carboniferous to Early Permian (315 mya — 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

“Compared to former geologic times,our present atmosphere,like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished!”


Thanks to Guy (Terra Hertz) for this link

“There’s simply no way for AGW and this chart to both be true,” says Guy. “Anyone who says they can’t see the fundamental incompatibility is either lying or retarded.”

[Baby Steps]

See below. Geological Timescales as per Herve's graph above may be misleading as our ecology and geology has been different (including eras of huge volcano out-gassing that have not happened recently).
There is a very close link between CO2 levels and Climate:

[ozmirage]

KARBONITE DAY
>>><<<
The celebration of the anniversary when AGCC/ AGW alarmists, carbon counters, "consensus" science followists, and others were finally proven to be part of a giant conspiracy to steal billions under bogus “CO2 exchanges” and increase tax revenues by “taxing the air.”
. . .
FRAUD?
It was pretty obvious when any and every oddity was chalked up to CLIMATE CHANGE, with the unspoken inference that it was driven by HUMAN BEINGS and their EVIL greenhouse gases.
. . .
DATA - - - - -
Earth max : (134.33 F)
Space station max : (250 F)
Lunar surface max : ( 242.33 F)

Zero atmosphere = higher temperature than with atmosphere. Ergo, there is no "heating up" or trapping of heat by the atmosphere when it is COOLING the planet. And since there is no conduction nor convection of heat in a vacuum, that leaves RADIATION. The atmosphere is radiating / reflecting back energy, that COOLS the planet.

Facts in support - - -
Earth Albedo : 0.3
Moon Albedo : 0.11

Coincidentally, the greenhouse gases have a higher emissivity that means they COOL the planet even more. And the #1 greenhouse gas is water vapor, which has a far greater effect than trace gases like CO2 or methane.. . .
Remember, even the experts admit that we can do nothing to STOP change, but merely slow it down. Which begs the question, how does sequestering CO2 prevent the alleged disasters?
If “the money” really believed that oceans would rise, they’d be selling off beachfront property or surrounding it with levees and dikes. Mountain retreats would be selling like hotcakes. Governments would be shifting subsidy from the automobile / petroleum / highway hegemony, to electric traction rail - the most efficient form of land transport. All housing would be built with superinsulation, thus minimizing the consumption of resources to maintain comfort. And to minimize the cost from natural disasters, construct disaster resistant resilient structures and homes, as a rule, not an exception.
. . .
Instead, we're told we need to TAX CO2... (D'Oh!)

[Baby Steps]

The problem that the science presents us - in the form of Ice Core samples is that the Co2 increases consistently happen between 200 to 1,000 years AFTER the climate warming. I found the following graph that approximates to a straight line decrease in Oceanic CO2 solubility between 0 and 20c:

https://i.imgur.com/TVpNfgB.png

[Hervé]

[...]
... our ecology and geology has been different (including eras of huge volcano out-gassing that have not happened recently).
[...]

That maybe so, however, any attempt at correlating CO2 and temperature over earth history is an epic fail :)

Moreover, the data are not "denials" but demonstrations that so-called "greenhouse gases" and their actual influence are politicians' imagination figments to justify a money making scam.

[Baby Steps]

From the skeptical science site:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm


Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id)

Note: the above is a statement that they then rebutt. The point I am making is if you look at the previously posted graph you see that the Ocean contains the huge majority of the CO2 sink, and CO2 solubility in the Ocean decreases in a near straight line by 2.8% per degree of increased temperature between zero and 20Centigrade.

So let's say the seas heat by 3 centigrade. That is 8.4% of 37,400 gigatonnes=3100 gigatonnes of co2 potentially being released into the atmosphere from the ocean.

[Baby Steps]

Now look at the following graph. Cumulative Human emissions are approximately 400 billion tonnes by now, compared to let's say 1,047 billion tonnes from a theoretical 1 centigrade increase in Ocean temperature.

https://i.imgur.com/KVaJ9Jn.gif

[Baby Steps]

Again from skeptical science:


before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.
As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).
Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).
But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.
Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne

[chancy]

Hello Everyone:
When I was young the government and the "save the world" gang was pushing "Ice age coming soon"! The only problem was they couldn't link to the "CASH"
Well after 30-40 years of trying it's been linked..."CAP and TRADE".

Since there are so many people that believe this nonsense I have a was to solve the problem once and for all.

The people who don't believe humans are responsible for CO2 pay nothing.

The people who believe the reteric about humans responsible for everything PAY IT ALL!

With is formula no one has to admit tampering with the evidence. No one has to keep lying and everyone gets what they want without ever admitting "SCAM"!

This would be much more effective than spending BIllions if not Trillions of dollars of cash for governments and less cash for the people.

chancy

[Baby Steps]

I looked this stuff up because I wanted to understand why there was a lag between warming in the past and CO2 increases, yet the establishment still is convinced that CO2 is driving our warming.

From what I have seen so far I am still skeptical about the idea that our CO2 emissions are driving the warming. When you have a vast heat sink like the Ocean, and a tiny amount of greenhouse gas, it does not ring true to me.

However we are now liberating a lot of CO2, and the amounts potentially to be released from melting tundra, and the drainage of rainforests that sit on top of huge peaty deposits, PLUS potential release from a warming ocean, mean that we are probably unable to control it.

The conventional model is that solar heating sets off oceanic release, that feeds back to warming, and the feedback loop by liberating more carbon sinks, activates a greenhouse effect may well be right. I am not sure what it can tell us about our current situation, but this may prove academic because we are just getting into a potential 'BIG FLIP' feedback loop, including methane from the ocean bed. I wonder if Kevin Costner, sitting in his boat in the film 'Waterworld' would have had any concern as to whether there was no land any more because of man or a natural process...

[Hervé]

Repost from here:
[...]

Ice age it is:

Irregular heartbeat of the Sun driven by double dynamo (https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/news-archive/259-news-2015/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo)

Published on Thursday, 09 July 2015 08:17
Last Updated on Thursday, 09 July 2015 12:41

Date: July 9, 2015Source: Royal Astronomical Society (RAS)Summary:
A new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645.


https://www.ras.org.uk/images/stories/press/NAM_2015/Thursday9July/Zharkova_small.jpg (https://www.ras.org.uk/images/stories/press/NAM_2015/Thursday9July/Zharkova_small.jpg)
Montage of images of solar activity between August 1991 and September 2001. Credit: Yohkoh/ISAS/Lockheed-Martin/NAOJ/U. Tokyo/NASA. Click for a full-size image




A new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645. Results will be presented today by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting (http://nam2015.org) in Llandudno.



It is 172 years since a scientist first spotted that the Sun’s activity varies over a cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle) lasting around 10 to 12 years. But every cycle is a little different and none of the models of causes to date have fully explained fluctuations. Many solar physicists have put the cause of the solar cycle down to a dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep within the Sun. Now, Zharkova and her colleagues have found that adding a second dynamo, close to the surface, completes the picture with surprising accuracy.

“We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time. Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,” said Zharkova.

Zharkova and her colleagues derived their model using a technique called ‘principal component analysis’ of the magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory (http://wso.stanford.edu/) in California. They examined three solar cycles-worth of magnetic field activity, covering the period from 1976-2008. In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of solar activity. All the predictions and observations were closely matched.

Looking ahead to the next solar cycles, the model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

“In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum)’,” said Zharkova. “Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago.”

https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo


See also this post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?50036-The-Arctic-is-melting-the-Antarctic-is-freezing.-What-does-this-mean&p=1089211&viewfull=1#post1089211) (<---)

7sh_nlz43Pc


=========================================================

This point from above cannot be overemphasized:


... the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,” said Zharkova.That's real science!

Because their theoretical model, derived from facts, can predict other data - not yet observed - with a 97% accuracy... mind blowing!

[LivioRazlo]

Taxing carbon dioxide has to be the single biggest scam ever conceived.

I think the only scam which trumps that is the fact that our entire history is based on lies.

For example, my heart/soul tells me as a Christian that the true day of worship for the Lord is on Saturday. The Papacy/pagans changed this to Sunday (Day of the Sun), hence duping many into worshipping a false idol.

It may not feel true to others, but, to me, it is now the sole factor in my quest for the truth.

[Kapyong]

Gday KiwiElf and all :)


I've found that one way to stop the "global warming crowd" in their tracks is to point out to them that the entire solar system is experiencing, hmmm "wayward climate change" and I'd theorise, based on the evidence presented, it is largely caused by the Sun (and perhaps whatever area of space our solar system happens to be in).

Sorry, that is not correct at all.
The solar system is NOT all experiencing "wayward climate change".
The reality is that a FEW bodies MAY be warming up - out of dozens which are NOT.

Here are some alleged claims of planets warming explained :


Mars: the notion that Mars is warming came from an unfortunate conflation of weather and climate. Based on two pictures taken 22 years apart, assumptions were made that have not proved to be reliable. There is currently no evidence to support claims that Mars is warming at all.



Jupiter: the notion that Jupiter is warming is actually based on predictions, since no warming has actually been observed. Climate models predict temperature increases along the equator and cooling at the poles. It is believed these changes will be catalysed by storms that merge into one super-storm, inhibiting the planet’s ability to mix heat. Sceptical arguments have ignored the fact this is not a phenomenon we have observed, and that the modelled forcing is storm and dust movements, not changes in solar radiation.



Neptune: observations of changes in luminosity on the surface of both Neptune and its largest moon, Triton, have been taken to indicate warming caused by increased solar activity. In fact, the brightening is due to the planet’s seasons changing, but very slowly. Summer is coming to Neptune’s southern hemisphere, bringing more sunlight, as it does every 164 years.



Pluto: the warming exhibited by Pluto is not really understood. Pluto’s seasons are the least understood of all: its existence has only been known for a third of its 248 -year orbit, and it has never been visited by a space probe. The ‘evidence’ for climate change consists of just two observations made in 1988 and 2002. That’s equivalent to observing the Earth’s weather for just three weeks out of the year. Various theories suggest its highly elliptical orbit may play a part, as could the large angle of its rotational axis. One recent paper suggests the length of Pluto’s orbit is a key factor, as with Neptune. Sunlight at Pluto is 900 times weaker than it is at the Earth.



and I'd theorise, based on the evidence presented, it is largely caused by the Sun

YOU would 'theorise' that ?
Why ?
Here is the actual evidence on radiation from the sun :
33979

It is DECREASING lately.

In short -
the claim that the entire solar system is experiencing global warming is demonstrably false.

Readers are encouraged to check the facts before making claims like that :)


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday chancy and all :)


Hello Everyone:
When I was young the government and the "save the world" gang was pushing "Ice age coming soon"!

No, they weren't - I was there.

What actually happened was that a FEW maverick 'scientists' CLAIMED an Ice Age was coming. Most scientists just laughed at the idea.

But some people latched on to that claim, and now remember it as a big thing. Especially those who deny GW.


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday Baby Steps :)


From what I have seen so far I am still skeptical about the idea that our CO2 emissions are driving the warming.

Hmmm...
Is your doctorate in Climate Science or a related field ?


Kapyong

[Baby Steps]

o
Gday Baby Steps :)


From what I have seen so far I am still skeptical about the idea that our CO2 emissions are driving the warming.

Hmmm...
Is your doctorate in Climate Science or a related field ?


Kapyong

errrr... nope....

[Ellisa]

Thank you Kapyong. I fully agree with you and found your first post very informative indeed, but as you can see from the responders, there are many on this site who remain unconvinced, and it has been argued a lot here, so mostly we who are worried about the Earth changes don't bother replying! Minds are made up.

I saw the brilliant Brian Cox on Monday night. So calm, polite and devastatingly in the right! He was amazing.

[chancy]

Gday chancy and all :)


Hello Everyone:
When I was young the government and the "save the world" gang was pushing "Ice age coming soon"!

No, they weren't - I was there.

What actually happened was that a FEW maverick 'scientists' CLAIMED an Ice Age was coming. Most scientists just laughed at the idea.

But some people latched on to that claim, and now remember it as a big thing. Especially those who deny GW.

Kapyong


Hello Kapyong:
It's great to see someone fired up about a subject even if they disagree with my research into the subject.
It's interesting that you believe "Humans" are causing the problems all by themselves here on planet earth.

I agree that the windfall coming is too good to pass up for anyone with your beliefs or any government for that matter!

Since you seem to be very well versed on this subject. Here is the man that has an open invitation to anyone on the planet including anyone with your beliefs to have an open debate. NOT ONE PERSON HAS THE INTESTINAL FORTITUDE TO COME TO THE TABLE WITH PIERS CORBYN in an open forum for the world to see.

I hope that it's you that stops the trend of hiding from public discussion on this subject. Please email Piers Corbyn and let me know when the discussion with take place. I am excited about this prospective discussion.
Since you probably have heard of Piers since you have been on the cutting edge of the CO2 propaganda war from the beginning.
Here's a short video on youtube to get your dander up enough to contact Piers Corbyn. I'm sure you're already counting the win in regards to the discussion with him so please contact him asap.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZLkN8F0Q14

chancy

[Fairy Friend]

I have to agree with the sun controls the weather on all the planets and earth is not excluded. It is more to do with electromagnetism and energy transfer than with other factors and temperature with cloud formation. (Cosmic rays) We do seem to be entering another Maunder Minimum with similar weather patterns of the mini ice age 300-400 years ago.

[Hervé]

Compare the temperature scale of this graph:


http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=33964&d=1471325112


with the temperature scale of this one:


https://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Temperature-and-CO2-thru-time.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html)
Graph from “Climate and the Carboniferous Period” http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Ca...s_climate.html (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html)



... and try to fit it within that geological temperature scale... one gets a flat, subhorizontal "curve" meandering within the vertical space of ~ 1°C...

As I wrote earlier, many "Big Pictures" are being missed to the point that "details" are becoming irrelevant at a "global" scale.

The conclusion remains the same: NO correlation between CO2 concentration and "climate" temperatures.



Related:
Federal Lab Ignored Environmental Data Manipulation For YEARS (http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/08/federal-lab-ignored-environmental-data-manipulation-for-years/#ixzz4EUrRxCRb)

Britain SHUTS DOWN Its Global Warming Agency (http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/14/britain-shuts-down-its-global-warming-agency/#ixzz4EV2K4pbg)

[rgray222]

Whether you believe that global warming is real or not is secondary to governments collecting a tax on the weather. No person in their right mind should every agree to a tax that goes on into perpetuity. Government around the globe are salivating at the idea of collecting such a tax. Global warming has morphed into climate change which covers any weather event that mother nature can throw at planet earth. If anyone thinks that such a tax would be used by governments in a timely, efficient and effective way needs to rethink how government functions and works.

Regardless of what one believes about global warming, people of every political persuasion should agree that governments should never tax people on the weather.

When you think about government taxing people on weather it borders on insanity

[KiwiElf]

I have checked my "facts" Kapyong... :) - it depends on "whose" facts you believe, as they are diametrically opposed by both sets of "experts." :) Suggest you look at the thread on "rising sea levels" as an example (the global sea levels are NOT rising).

Last time I checked, it isn't "illegal" to have a theory based on evidence.:idea: At least I've admitted - unlike some "scientists" who push the man-made global warming theory - that it is a theory (not a fact? No-one has a gun to their heads to believe it or not - and I'm not charging a carbon tax for my theory either! )

I'm not denying humans have contributed to the problem on Planet Earth - I just do not believe they are the sole cause, or that a carbon tax can fix it. I do believe in ongoing and natural climate change which occurs in cycles over hundreds or thousands of years within a sun's solar system. As I've said, I fail to see how taxing humans for that will change or "fix" it?

Perhaps you might try some other data which doesn't come from "skeptic/debunker" websites who favour the "humans are responsible for global warming" theory (and are equally guilty of "cherry-picking" their info?) :)

http://www.space.news/2015-10-06-entire-solar-system-is-heating-up-scientists-blame-solar-warming.html

http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html


In short -
the claim that the entire solar system is experiencing global warming is demonstrably false.

Readers are encouraged to check the facts before making claims like that

LOL - I completely agree!!! :sun: and I encourage you Mr Kapyong, to check what I wrote before you misquote me... I said climate change, not global warming.

[Chester]

Gday chancy and all :)


Hello Everyone:
When I was young the government and the "save the world" gang was pushing "Ice age coming soon"!

No, they weren't - I was there.

What actually happened was that a FEW maverick 'scientists' CLAIMED an Ice Age was coming. Most scientists just laughed at the idea.

But some people latched on to that claim, and now remember it as a big thing. Especially those who deny GW.


Kapyong

But its ok to deny the globe is NOT warming? It sounds like you are denying it isn't warming.

Using the term "denyer" or "who deny" is a psy-op tactic because it implies what is being denied is fact beyond refute. There must be an authority to decide that for you, me and everyone in a case like this, yes?

For someone like me who is a non-scientist, I have to rely on "past performances" from which I form my operational assumptions.

Here's an example of one of these "authorities" - Al Gore.

What I am aware of is that Al Gore was well positioned as a large principal in the very exchange which was pegged to "trade carbon" and all he needed was the legislation to go through. Now tell me honestly... am I supposed to believe that guy and what he was saying with regards to "man caused global warming?" Seriously?

[Hervé]

Repost from here:
[...]

Nobel Laureate Smashes Global Warming Hoax – Video (http://iceagenow.info/2015/09/nobel-laureate-smashes-global-warming-hoax-video/)

September 13, 2015 (http://iceagenow.info/2015/09/nobel-laureate-smashes-global-warming-hoax-video/) Robert (http://iceagenow.info/author/xilef/)


TCy_UOjEir0

How do you get an average global temperature when there are only eight thermometers in Antarctica? This is an extremely important video.

When the American Physical Society, of which he was a long-time member, announced that the evidence for global warming was “incontrovertible,” Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever resigned.


“The only answer to that,” says Giaever, was that 'I resigned.'

“Global warming has really become a new religion, because you can’t discuss it, ” says Giaever “It’s like the Catholic Church. There are a lot of incontrovertible truths in the Catholic Church, I’m sure.”How do you get an average temperature when there are only eight thermometers at the South Pole?


http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Where-the-temperature-is-measured.png (http://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Where-the-temperature-is-measured.png)


Look at where the temperatures are measured, says Giaever. The United States is practically covered. But there are only eight thermometers at the South Pole according to NASA.


“That’s all they have!…. Eight thermometers! …. And it has never been as cold at the South Pole as it is now. There’s more ice than there ever has been.” Only eight thermometers in Antarctica, a continent more than twice the size of the entire contiguous United States!

=============================================

To address the point Senator Roberts attempted to get across in the OP video:
repost from here:
[...]

NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years (http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/)

By tonyheller (http://realclimatescience.com/author/tonyheller/) Posted on March 7, 2016 (http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/)

In their “hottest year ever” press briefing, NOAA included this graph, which stated that they have a 58 year long radiosonde temperature record. But they only showed the last 37 years in the graph.


http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-03-07060741-1024x413.png (http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-03-07060741.png)


NESDIS Strategic Communications (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201601.pdf)


Here is why they are hiding the rest of the data. The earlier data showed as much pre-1979 cooling as the post-1979 warming.

http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-03-07060842-1024x393.png (http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-03-07060842.png)


http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-03-07060954.png (http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-03-07060954.png)


1520-0493(1978)106<0755:GTVSMA>2.0.CO;2 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493%281978%29106%3C0755%3AGTVSMA%3E2.0.CO%3B2)


I combined the two graphs at the same scale below, and put a horizontal red reference line in, which shows that the earth’s atmosphere has not warmed at all since the late 1950’s

http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-03-07060229-1.png (http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-03-07060229-1.png)


The omission of this data from the NOAA report, is just their latest attempt to defraud the public. NOAA’s best data shows no warming for 60 years. But it gets worse. The graph in the NOAA report shows about 0.5C warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original published data shows little warming during that period.


http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-03-07153308.png (http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-03-07153308.png)

cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/angell/global.dat (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/angell/global.dat)


Due to Urban Heat Island Effects, the NOAA surface data shows nearly one degree warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original radiosonde data showed little warming during that time. Global warming theory is based on troposphere warming, which is why the radiosonde data should be used by modelers – instead of the UHI contaminated surface data.



http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-03-07152234-1.png (http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-03-07152234-1.png)


NOAA’s original published radiosonde data showed little net troposphere warming from 1958 to 2010, when the data set ended.



http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-03-07151312-1.png (http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-03-07151312-1.png)



The next graph shows how NOAA has altered their 850-300 mb temperature data since 2011. Another hockey stick of data tampering.



http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-03-07114423.png (http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-03-07114423.png)



2016 version : RATPAC-A-annual-levels.txt (ftp://ftp1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ratpac/ratpac-a/RATPAC-A-annual-levels.txt)


2011 version : global.dat (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/angell/global.dat)


PS: I forgot... cherry picking, eh!?

[Chester]

Here's what I remember in the 70s

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

Look at all the references... dozens and dozens

[TrumanCash]

Okay, I'll take the bait and throw in my two cents worth:

I lived my early years in the 1950s south of Spokane, Washington in an area where the summers were long and hotter than hell. Everyone, including my organic master gardener dad, grew watermelons and cantaloupe. It was easy to do so. In fact I used to help eat the watermelons that my brothers stole from a local gardener who fired buckshot to scare them off. I was raised in a gardening family and my father learned how to garden from his father who made a living growing hot weather veggies in the Spokane valley.

I later drove wheat truck and the summers were so hot I had to huddle next to the truck to catch what little shade I could but nevertheless I had to keep lifting one foot off the ground and then the other (repeatedly) because the ground was too hot to stand on even with thick-soled boots. The temperature sometimes went over 110 degrees! (But apparently thermometers are "unscientific".)

In the mid-90s I moved back to the very same area and could not even grow cantaloupe, let alone watermelon. I tried and tried to do so but the summers were too cool and too short. Not even close to the hot weather we used to have. Living through seven decades in the northwest I can personally say that there was only a very dramatic cooling trend during that period and that has also been confirmed by my looking at those "unscientific" thermometers. (But I don't have a PhD so I can't be trusted to accurately read a thermometer.)

One last note: Since the so-called college educated "scientists" cannot agree on the subject of global warming, what does that say about the subject of "science"? I was raised in an educational system that taught that science was about facts, but now it is about politics and political correctness and finding more ways to enslave people with ever-increasing taxation and bureaucratic horsesh*t. (Not the kind you'd want to put on your garden.)

I'm still waiting for global warming so that I can grow watermelons again. I can't wait for global warming because I'm freezing my ass off!

[Andre]

And then there's this:
http://www.equantum.net/images/Untitled3.png

[chancy]

Okay, I'll take the bait and throw in my two cents worth:

I lived my early years in the 1950s south of Spokane, Washington in an area where the summers were long and hotter than hell. Everyone, including my organic master gardener dad, grew watermelons and cantaloupe. It was easy to do so. In fact I used to help eat the watermelons that my brothers stole from a local gardener who fired buckshot to scare them off. I was raised in a gardening family and my father learned how to garden from his father who made a living growing hot weather veggies in the Spokane valley.

I later drove wheat truck and the summers were so hot I had to huddle next to the truck to catch what little shade I could but nevertheless I had to keep lifting one foot off the ground and then the other (repeatedly) because the ground was too hot to stand on even with thick-soled boots. The temperature sometimes went over 110 degrees! (But apparently thermometers are "unscientific".)

In the mid-90s I moved back to the very same area and could not even grow cantaloupe, let alone watermelon. I tried and tried to do so but the summers were too cool and too short. Not even close to the hot weather we used to have. Living through seven decades in the northwest I can personally say that there was only a very dramatic cooling trend during that period and that has also been confirmed by my looking at those "unscientific" thermometers. (But I don't have a PhD so I can't be trusted to accurately read a thermometer.)

One last note: Since the so-called college educated "scientists" cannot agree on the subject of global warming, what does that say about the subject of "science"? I was raised in an educational system that taught that science was about facts, but now it is about politics and political correctness and finding more ways to enslave people with ever-increasing taxation and bureaucratic horsesh*t. (Not the kind you'd want to put on your garden.)

I'm still waiting for global warming so that I can grow watermelons again. I can't wait for global warming because I'm freezing my ass off!


Hello Truman: I enjoyed your article about growing watermelons and cantelope. Here in Alberta it's the same. My father was an avid gardener. In fact they had to grow big gardens to survive since they didn't have enough money off the farm to buy any luxuries from the store.
My father was born in 1922 and until the early 80's or so watermelons and cantelopes etc. grew fantastically!! Almost over night the nights began to cool down to temperatures that were unheard of in this part of Canada. They couldn't grow watermelons and cantelope because they needed warm temperatures at night which they didn't have anymore. I should note we do get a few days a year in the summer where the temperatures don't cool off at night but it's not like it was when the whole season was blanketed in hot heat even at night.
Thanks again for giving your story!
chancy

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

Here's a summary of the GW debate :

33995

The situation is this :


Big Oil has poured millions of dollars over 50 years to confuse the debate and cast doubt on experts so they can continue to rape the planet
Scientists have taken great care to check the facts - whether it's natural, whether it's the sun, whether it's CO2 or not, how the CO2 affects climate etc. and have formed a firm consensus that the FACTS are clear. (They didn't just have a committee meeting where they all voted for GW and now have to support it 100% - that's politics, not science)
Many people have fallen for the Big Oil propaganda and feel they are just being reasonably sceptical about un-settled business - when in fact they have simply been bamboozled into believing that You Can't Trust the Consensus of Experts.

The belief in a world-wide conspiracy of NASA and scientists to fake the data to get more money is just laughable.

Scientists are still desperate for funding, are still screaming for more funding - which scientists are getting rich over this ?

Sure - politicians and corporations and banks are ripping us off blind using any trick they can get away with.

And people believe it's the SCIENTISTS all over the world who are causing this **** ?
Are you CRAZY ?

Scientists progress by finding out new things - by DISAGREEING with others. Scientists become famous when they show earlier science was WRONG !

And yet some people actually believe that ALL scientists from China and Russia and Iran and UK and France and South Africa and Brazil and USA and Syria and Israel and NZ and Germany etc. etc. have AGREED to a VAST conspiracy to make politicians and corporations and banks richer ?


Frankly -
that is ridiculous, even idiotic view.


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday chancy and all :)



It's interesting that you believe "Humans" are causing the problems all by themselves here on planet earth.

It's interesting that you said that - because I don't think that at all, and I never said so.


I hope that it's you that stops the trend of hiding from public discussion on this subject.

Hiding from public discussion ?
Are you kidding me ?
WHO is hiding from public discussion ?

Scientists all over the world are shouting as loud as they can about the FACTS.
Dr Cox is all over public discussion about GW, so are many other scientists.
GW discussion is all over the media, almost every day.
Very many Forums, including this one, discuss GW publicly.

We, RIGHT HERE, are discussing GW publicly.

When GW Deniers say they want "public discusion", it really means "listen to my Big Oil propaganda and BELIEVE in it".
Scientists HAVE heard the GW denial propaganda and comprehensively demolished all their silly arguments.

Because - there HAS BEEN and IS a vast amount of discussion, and the results are clear :


scientists are quite sure the facts are clear about AGW and are saying so as loudly and as often as they can
Big Oil has been funding propaganda AGAINST AGW for half a century and is spending MILLIONS to say so all over the media
many people have been fooled by Big Oil's propaganda and think it's reasonable to doubt the world's experts on JUST this ONE subject
un-informed laymen with no qualifications or practice in the field now suddenly think they know more than world expert Climate Scientists

Kapyong

[giovonni]

meanwhile ...

Scientists analyze recent extreme weather events in relation to climate change

PBS NewsHour

"The second large-scale fire in California this week is raging through the southern part of the state, and the fatal flooding in Louisiana is worsening. Combined with the fact that this past July was the planet’s single hottest month recorded, are these events indicative of climate change? William Brangham discusses with Columbia University’s Adam Sobel and Louisiana State climatologist Barry Keim."

Published on Aug 17, 2016


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqc23BDYOPE

[Kapyong]

Gday Fairy Friend and all :)


I have to agree with the sun controls the weather ...

Actually, we are discussing climate, not weather.


on all the planets and earth is not excluded. It is more to do with electromagnetism and energy transfer than with other factors and temperature with cloud formation. (Cosmic rays)

Of course the sun's energy is important - do you think scientists haven't thought of that ?
That they don't CHECK ?
Here is the sun's energy output graph :
33997

Note it is going DOWN recently - the sun is obviously NOT increasingly hot.

Furthermore -
if the sun is the cause of this heating, then obviously Mercury would have the greatest increase by far (inverse square law), and Venus would be next etc. The LEAST affected would be the far planets. But there is NO evidence of inner system warming at all, and most system bodies show NO warming either.

But just because of a few ambiguous readings from FAR out in the Solar System, some people have been fooled into believing the entire solar system is experiencing global warming.

Come on guys :)
This "entire solar system is warming" claim is just the latest meme injected into the media and internet by the Big Oil propaganda machine.

Frankly - I thought more members here would be discriminating about propaganda, and check the facts more carefully.


Kapyong

[T Smith]

Gday Baby Steps :)


From what I have seen so far I am still skeptical about the idea that our CO2 emissions are driving the warming.

Hmmm...
Is your doctorate in Climate Science or a related field ?


Kapyong

Here is a comprehensive and well-argued scientific analysis by someone who it would seem does have a doctorate in Climate Science...

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Which seems to support Baby Steps' skepticism...

Regards,

T Smith

[Chester]

It's too bad that so many "scientists" depend on grants for not just their research, but survival.

Too often these grants are traced to funding sources, primarily foundations and philanthropists, whose goals are to create a utopian world (utopian for them and not so much for the rest of us) where the masses (that are allowed to live) will be relegated to the life of what literally could be viewed as a separate species to those "in the club." One of the tools these "elite" use is with regulating every area of your life... so much so that the ordinary human being on this planet today is walking metaphorically in quick sand.

Combine this fact with another fact. Almost the entire scientific community is made up of individuals whose world view is based in materialism (as a metaphysics). Too often those who are anchored in this type of world view think selfishly (themselves alone or perhaps they might include their immediate family and possibly a few "club members") and make their decisions based all and only on this one life and thus are far easier to sell out for continued grants by telling the funders what they want to hear which the controllers use as their excuse to impose additional draconian measures on the world mass population.

You can site "the vast scientific community" all you want yet you won't get someone like me who (finally) knows how these scams work to bite, Kapyong.

I make odds high that those beating the "global warming" drum are sellouts or haven't yet woken up to how the controllers play their games.

They also have plenty of help from those who, if there be a soul, prove they don't have one, like Al Gore.

[chancy]

Gday chancy and all :)



It's interesting that you believe "Humans" are causing the problems all by themselves here on planet earth.

It's interesting that you said that - because I don't think that at all, and I never said so.


I hope that it's you that stops the trend of hiding from public discussion on this subject.

Hiding from public discussion ?
Are you kidding me ?
WHO is hiding from public discussion ?

Scientists all over the world are shouting as loud as they can about the FACTS.
Dr Cox is all over public discussion about GW, so are many other scientists.
GW discussion is all over the media, almost every day.
Very many Forums, including this one, discuss GW publicly.

We, RIGHT HERE, are discussing GW publicly.

When GW Deniers say they want "public discusion", it really means "listen to my Big Oil propaganda and BELIEVE in it".
Scientists HAVE heard the GW denial propaganda and comprehensively demolished all their silly arguments.

Because - there HAS BEEN and IS a vast amount of discussion, and the results are clear :


scientists are quite sure the facts are clear about AGW and are saying so as loudly and as often as they can
Big Oil has been funding propaganda AGAINST AGW for half a century and is spending MILLIONS to say so all over the media
many people have been fooled by Big Oil's propaganda and think it's reasonable to doubt the world's experts on JUST this ONE subject
un-informed laymen with no qualifications or practice in the field now suddenly think they know more than world expert Climate Scientists

Kapyong


Hello Kapyong:
Here is the difference between weather and climate:
"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is often confusion between weather and climate. Weather is the condition of the atmosphere at a particular place over a short period of time, whereas climate refers to the weather pattern of a place over a long period, long enough to yield meaningful averages.
Meteorology studies weather, while climatology studies climate; both are atmospheric sciences."

So Kapyong if you don't believe "Humans" are causing the problem by themselves why would you allow the propaganda of "cap and trade" to rule the western world for sure and probably most of the other nations after they take all of the cash away from us with "cap and trade"

You must be in a part of the world where there is some logic then because here in Canada there is NO DISCUSSION on climate change or global warming or cap and trade or anything else EXCEPT this is the way it is and there is NO DISCUSSION END OF STORY!
Cap and trade does not work. All cap and trade does is get billions and possibly trillions for governments. Just in Alberta alone the government plans on a winfall of 3 billion they say BUT it will be around 30-50 billion per year just off cap and trade. This is a scam and I disagree with paying for something that is not going to help the climate or environment in any way.

As far as "Scientists all over the world are shouting as loud as they can about the FACTS."
I'm not seeing this??? I am very very well read and haven't seen anything other than "this is the way and there is "NO OTHER WAY" in any discussions I have seen or heard.

This is probably because the west is suppose to pay for the complete climate bill and our leaders give us NO DISCUSSION what so ever.

I don't believe oil companies are at the lead of this. I don't believe the deniers such as myself are misinformed. I don't believe the main stream scientists are giving the facts. I'm sure they are leaving data out to acquire cash. Cash runs the programs. Cash controls the people. Cash goes along way to make people say YES even though they don't agree.

The results are NOT CLEAR Kapyong!!

We have members or your side on climate change telling us the POLAR BEARS are disappearing! It's interesting that the Eskimos in north Canada say there are more Polar Bears than ever before!

I saw a documentary about Greenland in the past. The fellow that did the documentary thought the people would be on your side of the war and absolutely up in arms about having warmer temperatures. The complete opposite was true. The people of Greenland welcomed the ability to grow crops and have nice weather once again. Greenland wasn't called GREENLAND for frozen tundra if you follow it's history.

Here's another documentary that you probably think will be hog wash but the facts are in and it's all about cash and not doing anything for our beautiful planet earth.

The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4

chancy

[Kapyong]

Gday KiwiElf and all :)


I have checked my "facts" Kapyong... :) - it depends on "whose" facts you believe, as they are diametrically opposed by both sets of "experts."

I depend on the consensus of qualified experts in the field - 97% of whom agree - an unusually strong consensus that the DATA is clear.

You appear to depend on internet experts with no qualifications in the field, who are biased in favour of Big Oil's propaganda.

(Pardon me, but why do you randomly put quotes around some words ?)



:) Suggest you look at the thread on "rising sea levels" as an example (the global sea levels are NOT rising).

We have directly OBSERVED sea level rise already -

some Sth Pacific islands have already disappeared,
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/five-pacific-islands-lost-rising-seas-climate-change

Miami is already struggling with sea level rise :
http://therealdeal.com/miami/2016/04/07/miami-beach-property-values-may-fall-as-sea-levels-rise-experts/
33998

Here are the records of sea level rise in Miami :
33999

Claiming no sea level rise (those strange quotes again) in the fact of widespread direct evidence of exactly that puts you in the same camp as the Flat Earth Society.



Last time I checked, it isn't "illegal" to have a theory based on evidence.:idea:

Nothing to do with being "illegal" (?), it's whether the evidence supports your theory. I showed that the evidence does NOT support your theory of solar caused heating - e.g. solar radiation is DECREASING, inner planets are NOT heating up, and the alleged evidence is merely a few ambiguous blips and some speculation.


At least I've admitted - unlike some "scientists" who push the man-made global warming theory - that it is a theory (not a fact? No-one has a gun to their heads to believe it or not - and I'm not charging a carbon tax for my theory either! )

Sorry, you have been misled by Big Oil's propaganda :(
Man-made GW is a well-established fact based on clear evidence supported by an unusually wide consensus from many COMPETING countries and scientists.

Furthermore -
it's NOT the scientists who are taxing people !
NO scientist is getting rich out of all this.

Sure - the politicians and corporations and banks are using this as just another excuse to bleed us dry by fooling us with doubt and confusion - Big Oil is laughing all the way to the bank.


I'm not denying humans have contributed to the problem on Planet Earth - I just do not believe they are the sole cause,

Look -
everyone (even me) agrees that BOTH nature and man CAN change climate.

The real question is WHICH really matters right now, not over whether it's ALL man or ALL nature.


I do believe in ongoing and natural climate change which occurs in cycles over hundreds or thousands of years within a sun's solar system.

OK, let's follow your argument carefully -

Point 1. Nature CAN, and HAS changed our climate in the past.

Well, we all agree with that, let's move on to your point 2 -

Oh wait, you DON'T have a point 2.
But you seem to be THINKING this point quite loudly :

Point 2. therefore, THIS change MUST be natural

But you seemed to have skipped a step - checking, testing, measuring, recording etc. to determine IF it is natural or man-made.

Climate Scientists however, HAVE done all that - at length, carefully, in detail, many times. And they announced their firm and clear result as the consensus of all the world's top scientists :

THIS Global Warming event is indeed (mostly all) CAUSED by man.

Denying AGW is akin to joining the Flat Earth Society.



Perhaps you might try some other data which doesn't come from "skeptic/debunker" websites who favour the "humans are responsible for global warming" theory (and are equally guilty of "cherry-picking" their info?) :)

I backed up my claims with clear evidence of how GW Deniers falsify the data, data about the solar radiance, data about the LACK of solar system warming, and evidence which came direct from the top Climate Scientists.

Do you have anything apart from CLAIMS ?
Please SHOW where they cherry-picked the data.

http://www.space.news/2015-10-06-entire-solar-system-is-heating-up-scientists-blame-solar-warming.html

Uh-huh. This page claims the evidence is :
"Growth of the dark spots in Pluto, reports of auroras on Saturn, polar shifts in Uranus and changes in light intensity of Neptune suggests something very strange is happening in the solar system."
Which I already showed worthless up-thread.

Can you explain why Mercury and Venus etc., which would obviously be most affected, do NOT show any warming ?

Why do you think a few vague blips suggesting warming in the far solar system is evidence for the "entire solar system experiencing global warming" ?

Your link also says this -
"Their is no doubt that human activity is impacting climate change."
Even though the writer cannot spell well, his statement there is correct.


Kapyong

[ks4ever]

Dear Kapyong

I am an Archaeologist and Paleoanthropologist and I have very little respect for Brian Cox's science.

I suggest you listen to this interview with Canberra University's own Wallace Thornhill and his impression of Brian Cox's Science on The Moore Show, published on the 14th August:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPqBMdDukkM

Or this interview with Wal Thornhill by Leak Projects Rex Bear, published also on the 14th August, which includes further comments on Brian Cox and also Climate Change. I might add that both of these have already been posted under the Thread "Up at the Ranch and Beyond", on page 951 by Star Tsar on the 14th & 15th August.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Yt55Y-A6rs

I would also recommend you check out Ben Davidson's web site suspicious0bservers and watch "Top 6 Climate Change Problems," and if you are not a regular viewer of his daily forecasts I would suggest you become one as they are very informative and worth watching to keep up with the latest science concerning our sun.

http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/

The Avalon Forum is the best internet site on our planet to discover the issues to do with Climate Change, as they have all been greatly discussed here.

Our sun has entered a Maunder Minimum and this usually coincides with a Mini Ice Age. Everything we are seeing with the changes in weather on this planet ties in with the lead up to a Mini Ice Age. The largest Greenhouse Gas is Water Vapour which is approximately 95% of all Greenhouse Gases. Anything that effects the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere has an enormous effect on climate. The one thing that has the most effect on that water vapour is the radiation emanating from our sun and also space. There are many published articles on the prediction of a future Ice Age, even NASA published an article some 18 months ago predicting that by 2030 the world will be in the depths of the next Mini Ice Age. In September FEMA in the U.S. conducted a think tank from representatives of over thirty countries, to discuss the fallout effects from a future Mini Ice Age. Information from this workshop was leaked and posted by Bill Ryan on this Forum on 1st July. The scenario played out was what would be the effects of a Mini Ice Age on the Planet if it was to begin in 2019. I suggest you read and watch the following interviews from this link:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91630-Ice-Age-Now-FEMA-NWO-Think-Tanks-Ready-for-Global-Food-Shortages-Timeline-and-Which-Countries

Ocean levels are not consistent. In the twentieth century the ocean level around the world rose by an average of 3cm. 1500 years ago the ocean levels in the Southern Hemisphere were 900mm higher than 2000 levels. 3500 years ago ocean levels in the same Hemisphere were 1.7 metres higher, while 12,000 years ago they were 90 metres lower, and at that time there was no Great Barrier Reef where it exists today, although there were a number of other coral reefs which were much smaller.

We need to clean up our act on this planet, but in order to do so we are going to have to take on the Monetary Giants who control the Energy produced and supress the cheaper and cleaner alternatives ruthlessly.

[Atlas]

Cosmic Journeys - Earth in 1000 Years:
V5YdsYJR5Qw

[Hervé]

When the American Physical Society, of which he was a long-time member, announced that the evidence for global warming was “incontrovertible,” Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever resigned.

“The only answer to that,” says Giaever, was that 'I resigned.'

“Global warming has really become a new religion, because you can’t discuss it, ” says Giaever “It’s like the Catholic Church. There are a lot of incontrovertible truths in the Catholic Church, I’m sure.”
http://www.countingcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/grants-thumb-thumb.jpg
How "consensus" is obtained (http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/17/soros-paid-al-gore-millions-to-push-aggressive-us-action-on-global-warming/)

[Kapyong]

Gday Hervé and all :)


Compare the temperature scale of this graph:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=33964&d=1471325112

with the temperature scale of this one:

https://iceagenow.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Temperature-and-CO2-thru-time.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html)

Graph from “Climate and the Carboniferous Period” http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Ca...s_climate.html (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html)



... and try to fit it within that geological temperature scale... one gets a flat, subhorizontal "curve" meandering within the vertical space of ~ 1°C...





The current curve is NOT meandering at all, we can see it is rising rapidly upwards.
It will clearly continue for some time, and will certainly exceed a change of 1 degree.
Your claim is doubly incorrect.

Furthermore -
WHY on EARTH does it matter what happened millions of years ago ?
Those ancient natural changes are NOT happening now.

What IS happening now is rapid climate change caused by mankind - change which will probably hit 2 degrees or more, which will have a HUGE impact on human societies.

Sadly, this change is being helped along by un-informed people who get distracted with Big Oil's propaganda. We can add this to their list of false memes :


the Earth has had many huge climate changes in the past, therefore -
oh whoops - there is no 'therefore'.

Once again, you seem to be loudly THINKING this 'therefore' :


therefore it's only a natural event


The conclusion remains the same: NO correlation between CO2 concentration and "climate" temperatures.
Pardon ?
You did NOT show no correlation.

You merely claimed there are OTHER POSSIBLE connections, including mankind - then jumped straight to a false conclusion.

Your argument boils down to :


Nature CAN change climate,
therefore THIS climate change event CANNOT be man-made.

It it obviously a false conclusion.
Especially in the face of direct evidence that it IS man-made.



Also, may I politely "ask" about this "odd habit" of putting "random" words in "quotes" ?

Is it an attempt at a form of emphasis ?

Because adding quotes does NOT emphasize at all - it does the OPPOSITE - it falsifies the word.

If I say :

I always respected my father Bruce Wayne.
it is quite clear my father is called Bruce Wayne.

But if use quotes to say :

I always respected my "father" Bruce Wayne.
it means Bruce Wayne is NOT my real father at all.

Adding quotes means 'not really'.
(Not counting other uses like quoting of someone else.)


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday chancy and all :)


So Kapyong if you don't believe "Humans" are causing the problem by themselves ...

Because I can understand that there can be a LARGE human factor, AND also a small natural factor(s).

While some people can only imagine exactly all ONE or exactly all the other.


why would you allow the propaganda of "cap and trade" to rule the western world

Oh my dear new friend chancy ! That's is so wonderful and empowering and uplifting to hear that you believe it is up to ME to decide what rules the western world. What a lovely thing to say to me :)

But no :( I don't have that power.

BTW - I have said nothing about "cap and trade" at all.
See - that's about the politicians and corporations and banks sucking us dry with a handy new excuse.

While I'm interested in the FACTS presented by world experts.
But running into a strong head wind of propaganda that Big Oil has been funding for 50 years.

And now, there are even people who think SCIENTISTS are getting money out of this !
Yes, of course there has been SOME increase in funding of Climate Science.
No, the scientists don't get anything out of it personally.

Yet the politicians and corporations and banking families are using this disaster (which they caused and hid) as the latest excuse to channel the wealth from the people to the elite.

Guys -
the scientists (generally trust-worthy and committed to humanity) are NOT getting rich.

The scientists are a DIFFERENT group than the media-industrial-military-banking-medical complex (who are rapacious and destructive and committed to sucking the planet dry.)


I don't believe oil companies are at the lead of this. I don't believe the deniers such as myself are misinformed. I don't believe the main stream scientists are giving the facts. I'm sure they are leaving data out to acquire cash.

Yes, we can see what you BELIEVE.


Here's another documentary that you probably think will be hog wash but the facts are in and it's all about cash and not doing anything for our beautiful planet earth.

The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4


Seriously ?
A YouTube video by a GW denier ?

That's as credible as grafiti in the toilet.


Kapyong

[Hervé]

[...]



The current curve is NOT meandering at all, we can see it is rising rapidly upwards.
It will clearly continue for some time, and will certainly exceed a change of 1 degree.
Your claim is doubly incorrect.
[...]






Thanks, that settles your level of understanding of graphs and scales as well as your faith in favored extrapolations (which, BTW, is the point of contention brought by the "pause" argument).

[Mod hat on]
It seems, as noted by Sam Hunter (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?92583-Denying-Global-Warming-there-is-no-pause&p=1090266&viewfull=1#post1090266) earlier in this thread, that any data provided in counter arguments serve only as spring boards for a propaganda/psy-op type of speech and rhetoric punctuated with words symptomatic of trolling tactics. It would be strongly suggested to curb such tendencies...
[Mod hat off]

[bluestflame]

thanks HERVE , i was biting me tongue the profile pic sorta gave me the impression the aim of the thread was to **** stir

[Kapyong]

Gday ks4ever and all :)


Dear Kapyong
I am an Archaeologist and Paleoanthropologist ...

Wonderful :)
Fascinating fields I think.

Have you heard of Nawarla Gabarnmung (Hole in the Rock) ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabarnmung

It's a man-made stone structure (with paintings) from 45 +/- 1 KYBP !
Wow.
Over four times older than the ancient Jericho tower.
Almost TWENTY times older than the pyramid.
Aboriginal Australians only revealed it to the white-fellas within the last couple of decades, after keeping it secret for 200 years !

Here is a view from outside :
34000
(It's an area dug out from under the 'roof'.)

Here's a large view of inside :
34001

And a good view of the ceiling :
34002

(Obviously the quality pictures are not 45 KY old, this site is still actively used today - imagine that - 45,000 years of continuous painting!)

I digress, but I think this is huge news, and I don't think it is well known yet, and I wonder what my interlocutor here knows ? :)



I am an Archaeologist and Paleoanthropologist and I have very little respect for Brian Cox's science.

I see.
You are not qualified in Climate Science.

Have you published your concerns with Dr Cox's science ?
Has your work been peer-reviewed ?
Has Dr Cox addressed them ?




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPqBMdDukkM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Yt55Y-A6rs


Seriously ?
YouTube videos ?
As scholarly evidence ?
:bigsmile:

Sorry, I have presented evidence for my claims here, if you want to disagree then please present real evidence here.




I would also recommend you check out Ben Davidson's web site suspicious0bservers

Why ?
He's a lawyer who studied economics with a minor in climatology.

Meanwhile, 97% of scientists who ACTUALLY know what they talking about all agree that Climate Change is man-made (not 100%, but the vast majority.)

Why would the view of ONE man, NOT really in the field, outweigh 97% of the experts with the data on their side ?



Ocean levels are not consistent. In the twentieth century the ocean level around the world rose by an average of 3cm. 1500 years ago the ocean levels in the Southern Hemisphere were 900mm higher than 2000 levels. 3500 years ago ocean levels in the same Hemisphere were 1.7 metres higher, while 12,000 years ago they were 90 metres lower, and at that time there was no Great Barrier Reef where it exists today, although there were a number of other coral reefs which were much smaller.

So what ?
Yes, the sea level HAS changed naturally in the past - so ?
What does that have to do with now ?

Are you thinking this ? :


... therefore, THIS Climate Change event MUST be natural

Because that is entirely false.

This Climate Change Event is NOT like past natural events. Just because there HAVE been past natural Climate Change events, does NOT mean that THIS Climate Change event is natural.

The expert Climate Scientists HAVE looked into whether it is natural or not, and concluded, based on evidence that it is NOT natural.

This 'Could Be Natural' meme is classic propaganda material fed to the public through the media and the 'net by Big Oil's machine.




We need to clean up our act on this planet, but in order to do so we are going to have to take on the Monetary Giants who control the Energy produced and supress the cheaper and cleaner alternatives ruthlessly.

Yes.
But the tentacles of the media-industrial-military-banking-medical complex of the elite families reach far these days :(


Kapyong

[chancy]

Seriously ?
A YouTube video by a GW denier ?
That's as credible as grafiti in the toilet.
Kapyong


Hello Kapyong:
I was positive this would be your response to any material I offer. I don't have a problem that you won't look at new material because you are just like the many, many others that have come to Avalon for alittle bit of conflict or at least sparring!

You will find that the material offered here is condensed usually because we or at least I am tired of trying to give good honest information and you kick it back in my face......

I've been known to be very non politically correct here at Avalon in the past and have almost burnt through my membership by the words I am able to express. Therefore, with that in mind I can only say again to quit trying to stir the coals to make a fire.
The fire has been put out and if you aren't interested in learning the truth then why stop by?
No ones forcing you to change your ideas BUT I think some of your ideas have been misaligned by not enough research.

All of us who have been here for years have had our ideas and beliefs changed by new data and new ideas after much research and studying. I for one don't want drama or conspiracy but TRUTH.
This is sometimes hard to get to without due diligence.

If you aren't willing to do that then what's the point????

Have a great day in Aus...This is a great time of the year there!

chancy

[Chester]

Hi Kapyong... the easy giveaway was your many uses of the word "Denyers."

I will speak for myself.

I don't "deny" any potential possibility.

But I have reverse engineered the movement behind "man made world ending global warming," their methods, their goals and their underlying ideologies and philosophies. In addition, I didn't need a degree specializing in smelling rats to know every aspect of the argument stinks.

So... what are your goals for joining this forum, all and only to make (so far) 11 posts, all and only in this thread which you started?

I saw you mentioning "Big Oil." Are they the straw man scapegoat? Gotta have a boogie man to blame for sure. This always makes disinfo more believable when a "bad guy" most folks might buy into can be isolated and labeled.

But again, you don't need a degree in anything to do research. I suggest you research who are the "big players" who own "Big Oil." You'll find that these same "people" own all sorts of interests who will benefit significantly if humanity accepts the draconian measures proposed by "global warming is a fact" proponents.

The real goal is greater power and control over the masses. Further enslavement with ridiculous regulations accompanied by financial scams that benefit some of the drum beaters, like Al Gore. You seem like a smart guy, Kapyong. Have you figured this one out yet?

I have noticed you have responded to just about every other poster here yet you have ignored my own. Are you willing to respond to mine?



Why would the view of ONE man, NOT really in the field, outweigh 97% of the experts with the data on their side ?


This is exactly the question I wish you would research to answer for yourself. I already told you what I have found to be the likely answer in a previous post.

[guayabal]

Let's suppose that "global warming" is really happening... so what? Plants grow stronger with higher CO2 concentrations and on relatively warmer climates (globally speaking), why is it considered a bad thing? Someone may say that it's because we have to protect the cities from higher sea levels, but then I think: really? is it about protecting cities without doing investment or is it about protecting and encouraging places where nature with its high diversity grows strong (+CO2+warm) and in balance?

[Fairy Friend]

Gday Fairy Friend and all :)


I have to agree with the sun controls the weather ...

Actually, we are discussing climate, not weather.


on all the planets and earth is not excluded. It is more to do with electromagnetism and energy transfer than with other factors and temperature with cloud formation. (Cosmic rays)

Of course the sun's energy is important - do you think scientists haven't thought of that ?
That they don't CHECK ?
Here is the sun's energy output graph :
33997

Note it is going DOWN recently - the sun is obviously NOT increasingly hot.

Furthermore -
if the sun is the cause of this heating, then obviously Mercury would have the greatest increase by far (inverse square law), and Venus would be next etc. The LEAST affected would be the far planets. But there is NO evidence of inner system warming at all, and most system bodies show NO warming either.

But just because of a few ambiguous readings from FAR out in the Solar System, some people have been fooled into believing the entire solar system is experiencing global warming.

Come on guys :)
This "entire solar system is warming" claim is just the latest meme injected into the media and internet by the Big Oil propaganda machine.

Frankly - I thought more members here would be discriminating about propaganda, and check the facts more carefully.


Kapyong

I never said warming or cooling was due to irradiance nor that the solar system was experiencing warming. Lol perhaps you should listen more rather than assume. What a limited view to assume I was talking about irradiance at all. Try broadening your view. Cosmic rays don't even come from the sun but the sun protects us from them. Think outside the box.

[ThePythonicCow]

In my view, we all have a right to be wrong, and I exercise my rights (at least that one) on a frequent and regular basis.

However when I get stuck up a blind ally, and insist on making a bunch of unending noise about it, I appreciate it when someone taps me on the shoulder and suggests I be quiet for a little, as the noise is distracting others, and wasting the time and energies of everyone within earshot.

Sometimes learning comes better when being quiet and listening.

[Mod Hat On]

Kapyong - consider this a tap on your shoulder.
[Mod Hat Off]

[Ewan]

I'm enjoying this. :popcorn:

Nah, not really. :ranger:

I've noticed it is increasingly a common tactic of debunkers to deride Youtube videos as unworthy of any attention. An open minded individual would however wish to look at all data in order to fairly ascertain an opinion. We are always only expressing opinions.

I do admit 'scientific papers' would seem on the face of it to present more reliable data than a video found on the internet, but then one also has to then start investigating who funded the research, then who is behind the organisation that supplied the funding, any political or corporate motivations etc. etc. All in all it gets to be a pretty involved exercise and ultimately one should probably still be reluctant to be categorical and final in their statements or conclusions. Also one cannot really then choose to be selective about which scientific data sets they wish to look at, or that would be a self-reinforcing loop and rather dishonest to oneself.

If I may express an opinion that is not at all based on fact. Brian Cox is a media whore who says what the people who pay him want him to say. He may have a sound scientific background but somewhere along his journey he sold out to mana and fame.

[Baby Steps]

What have they got to hide....

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emails


Climate change email scandal shames the university and requires resignations
The hacked emails shows that Phil Jones, after 20 years of failing to issue a correction, isn't the only one who should resign

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, who, at the heart of the scandal, failed to make a vital correction for 20 years. Photograph: University of East Anglia
George Monbiot
This is a tough time for climate science. The Guardian's new revelations about the hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia might help to explain the university's utter failure to confront its critics. They could also explain why the head of the unit, Phil Jones, blocked freedom of information requests and proposed that material subject to those requests be deleted. He has been spared a criminal investigation only because the time limit for prosecutions has expired.
The emails I read gave me the impression that Phil Jones had something to hide. Now we know what it might have been. The Guardian has discovered that Jones appears to have suppressed data that undermines a paper he published in Nature in 1990. The paper claimed that Chinese weather stations show that local heating caused by urbanisation has very little effect on the temperature record. It now seems that much of the data they used is worthless and the documents required to validate it do not exist. The paper might be 20 years old, but in a way that makes the scandal worse: Phil Jones has had 20 years in which to issue a correction. Even after the hacking in October last year, he has still not done so.
When the emails were first published in November, I called for Professor Jones's resignation as head of the CRU. Though he has stepped down temporarily, his position is now even less tenable. The longer he leaves it, the worse this will get.
I believe the head of communications at the university, Annie Ogden, also has to go. She was warned repeatedly that the university's handling of this issue was a catastrophe, and still the policy – of utter passivity in the face of crisis – remains unchanged. Today was a re-run of what happened in December: though the story was on the front page of the Guardian's site at 9pm last night, by 10.30 this morning UEA had still not prepared a response and was unable to answer questions from journalists. As the emails show, climate scientists at the university have been up against a well-armed public relations campaign for many years, but no one at UEA has developed a strategy for responding. Even now the university has failed to make the obvious move: to call in a crisis management team, or at least to hire someone who can show they know how to respond to an emergency.
In fairness, Jones himself responded this afternoon, telling the Press Association that he was confident the 1990 paper, which drew on 42 urban and 42 rural sites, was correct because it was validated by the new data. He said: "I am confident in my mind the site movements that might have taken place at some of the sites were not that important to affect the average of the 42 sites."
The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, is also in hot water. In November he dismissed as "voodoo science" a report for the Indian governmentshowing that the IPCC's date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers was wrong. It's now clear that, actually, the IPCC's claim was voodoo science. It reproduced a speculative suggestion – that the glaciers were going to disappear by 2035 – that had not been published in any peer-reviewed journal. Pachauri's immediate dismissal of the Indian government's refutation was unscientific as well as wrong.
Now the Sunday Times alleges that he first heard that the glacier date was wrong in November, and failed to act. Pachauri was busy preparing for the Copenhagen summit, so perhaps it's not surprising if he didn't pay much attention, but someone at the IPCC should have done so, rather than letting the issue fester.
Pachauri is also taking a lot of heat for his outside interests, though he insists that the allegations made against him are flat wrong. It's worth remembering that he was appointed to run the IPCC after the Bush administration had his predecessor, Bob Watson, booted out at the behest of ExxonMobil. On 6February 2001, 17 days after George W Bush was sworn in, AG (Randy) Randol, ExxonMobil's senior environmental adviser, sent a fax to John Howard, an environmental official at the White House. He asked,
"Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the US?"
The US government immediately complied. Once it had extracted Watson, it accepted Pachauri as his replacement. The very qualities which made him acceptable to the climate change deniers in the White House – he wasn't a climate scientist, he had friendly relations with business – are now being used by climate change deniers as a stick with which to beat him.
Damaging as some of this material is, at least people on this side of the climate science fence are able to confront the problem. Both stories – the glacier error and the revelations about the Chinese weather stations – were broken by the brilliant reporter Fred Pearce, who is possibly the world's longest serving environmental journalist, and has spent decades explaining and championing climate science. The IPCC's glacier claim was actually drawn from an article of Fred's, published in New Scientist in 1999. But it was he who exposed the mistake the panel had made.
On the other side of the debate, people are in denial not only about the science of climate change but also about manipulation and deception by other climate change deniers. They stoutly ignore far graver evidence of falsification and fabrication by their own side, even when there is smoking gun evidence that their champions have secretly taken money from fossil fuel companies to make false claims. They make no attempt to hold each other to account or to sustain any standards of truth at all.
In fact, as Fred Pearce has shown, even their claims about the material in the hacked emails are almost all false.
The vast body of climate science still shows that manmade climate change is real and that it presents a massive challenge to human survival. But those of us who seek to explain its implications and call for action must demand the highest possible standards from the people whose work we promote, and condemn any failures to release data or admit and rectify mistakes. We do no one any favours – least of all ourselves – by wasting our time promoting false claims.
www.monbiot.com

[Baby Steps]

PIERS CORBYN's VIEW....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEcxMn832e8

[Baby Steps]

Dear Kapyong,

I am a waverer, there is science behind both sides of the argument. We are having an entertaining 'battle of the graphs' here. I am learning that there is dispute over the quality of data collection, and modelling.

In human affairs there are countless examples of a prevailing orthodoxy that sheeple jump on, powerful leaders exploit, media parrots, and sadly scientists join , that then turn out to be twaddle. Every time there is a big scientific leap, there is left the wreckage of the previous orthodoxy, such as discredited scientists who may lose their livelihood because they followed the money.

We are lucky here to have you as a very well versed scientist who is taking time to make the case for an important scientific orthodoxy. We tend to think that ANYTHING stated by TPTB must be wrong. But is that always the case??

Please can you give us the best science on the theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Isn't that the crux of the matter?
Many thanks

[Hervé]

[...]

Meanwhile, 97% of scientists who ACTUALLY know what they talking about all agree that Climate Change is man-made (not 100%, but the vast majority.)

Why would the view of ONE man, NOT really in the field, outweigh 97% of the experts with the data on their side ?
[...]


http://www.chrismadden.co.uk/images/cartoons/galileo-telescope-church-cartoon-chris-madden.gif
It took one man taking an actual good look to deconstruct the church dogmatic (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?92583-Denying-Global-Warming-there-is-no-pause&p=1090529&viewfull=1#post1090529) "consensus"


In other words, and with actual science, a "consensus" is way far from a proof of concept when the science is based on flawed/fudged/cooked data to start with.

Real science using genuine scientific method gives off this kind of "consensus":


[...]

This point [...] cannot be overemphasized:


... the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,” said Zharkova.That's real science!

Because their theoretical model, derived from facts, can predict other data - not yet observed - with a 97% accuracy... mind blowing!


When a theoretical model matches factual reality, that validates said model. But when the modelling gives off this kind of results (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?92583-Denying-Global-Warming-there-is-no-pause&p=1090613&viewfull=1#post1090613):


http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=34004&d=1471520122


... the folks that did the modelling should get the message there's something very wrong with their "consensus" model.

[Hervé]

... and a new "Inquisition" is showing its ugly horns:

U.S. Senators trying to muzzle climate change skeptics (https://kansaspolicy.org/19-u-s-senators-promoting-tyranny/)

Dave Trabert August 15, 2016


https://www.sott.net/image/s16/338481/medium/freespeech3.jpg
© The Right Planet

Nineteen U.S. senators are working to destroy free speech and silence dissent, defying the Constitution they swore to defend and uphold. Senators Harry Reid, Tim Kaine, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and fifteen other Democrats took to the Senate floor last month (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/web-of-denial-turns-senate-floor-into-democrats-pu/)to demonize their ‘enemies list’ of fossil fuel companies, think tanks and journalists for having the temerity to disagree with their views. They are also proposing a Congressional Resolution (http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Web%20of%20Denial%20Resolution.pdf) to formally disapprove of the actions of those who disagree with them. Climate change happens to be the subject of their action, but the topic is irrelevant. As President Harry Truman, himself a Democrat, said, “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

That path of repressive measures has already been blazed. Seventeen attorneys general representing fifteen states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands (http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/04/16-democrat-ags-begin-inquisition-against-climate-change-disbelievers/) formed “AGs United for Clean Power” and are threatening legal action and huge fines against anyone who declines to believe in a scientific theory which remains in dispute among respected scientists.

The Daily Signal reports, “This comes on top of U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch admitting that the Justice Department is discussing the possibility of pursing civil actions against climate change deniers, and that she has already referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which federal law enforcement could take action.”

U.S. Virgin Islands AG Claude Walker issued a subpoena in April to the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, demanding 20 years’ worth of communications, emails, statements, drafts, and other documents regarding CEI’s work on climate change and energy policy, including private donor information. Walker later withdrew his subpoena in the face of public backlash. With that effort sidelined, those nineteen U.S. Senators went on the attack, proposing a Senate resolution formally disapproving the actions of those who dare to disagree with them.

Kansas Policy Institute and other organizations objected to their tyrannical methods, writing (https://kansaspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/2016-07-12-Coalition-Letter-Senate-Web-of-Denial-Resolution.pdf) “The delicate balance of our democracy is preserved when all groups are free to speak in the public square, and ALL Americans should be concerned when agents of the government use their official offices to marginalize political foes. We hear you. Your threat is clear: There is a heavy and inconvenient cost to disagreeing with you. Calls for debate will be met with political retribution. That’s called tyranny. And, we reject it.”

Their McCarthy-like response (https://kansaspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/US-Senate_July22.pdf) said our joint defense of free speech is proof of a conspiracy and that we should violate our donors’ constitutional right to private free speech by releasing their names and getting them added to the enemies list.

These police state actions have no place in our Republic, where it is not a crime to disagree with government. Those senators and attorneys general would do well to heed fellow Democrat John F. Kennedy, who said “Without debate, without criticism no administration and no country can succeed and no republic can survive.”

This commentary was submitted to the major newspapers in Kansas but at this writing, none have been willing to allow this defense of the First Amendment to be heard. Elected officials and media should be the most vocal supporters of First Amendment rights; media should not help pave the way to tyranny by ignoring attempts to suppress First Amendment rights of those with whom they may disagree.

[Ewan]

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=34004&d=1471520122



I'd like to find the original source for this graph. When I quote Babysteps post the image does not show up, ergo I quoted yours Hervé.

TinEye reveals two images showing up, one here on Avalon and the other on Piers Corbyn's twitter page. I scrolled through tweet after tweet without finding it but only went back to the beginning of August in doing so.

It looks a damning indictment on the face of it but without an original source there's not much I can do with it.

[Baby Steps]

Its from December 2015:

[Soda]

Hi Kapyong... the easy giveaway was your many uses of the word "Denyers."

I will speak for myself.

I don't "deny" any potential possibility.

But I have reverse engineered the movement behind "man made world ending global warming," their methods, their goals and their underlying ideologies and philosophies. In addition, I didn't need a degree specializing in smelling rats to know every aspect of the argument stinks.

So... what are your goals for joining this forum, all and only to make (so far) 11 posts, all and only in this thread which you started?

I saw you mentioning "Big Oil." Are they the straw man scapegoat? Gotta have a boogie man to blame for sure. This always makes disinfo more believable when a "bad guy" most folks might buy into can be isolated and labeled.

But again, you don't need a degree in anything to do research. I suggest you research who are the "big players" who own "Big Oil." You'll find that these same "people" own all sorts of interests who will benefit significantly if humanity accepts the draconian measures proposed by "global warming is a fact" proponents.

The real goal is greater power and control over the masses. Further enslavement with ridiculous regulations accompanied by financial scams that benefit some of the drum beaters, like Al Gore. You seem like a smart guy, Kapyong. Have you figured this one out yet?

I have noticed you have responded to just about every other poster here yet you have ignored my own. Are you willing to respond to mine?



Why would the view of ONE man, NOT really in the field, outweigh 97% of the experts with the data on their side ?


This is exactly the question I wish you would research to answer for yourself. I already told you what I have found to be the likely answer in a previous post.

I liked it when you said you don't need a degree in smelling rats. :highfive:

[Hervé]

[[...]
It looks a damning indictment on the face of it but without an original source there's not much I can do with it.

You'll find it here along with Piers Corbyn discussing it: https://weatheraction.wordpress.com/2015/12/09/piers-corbyn-nw-england-extreme-floods-driven-by-wild-jet-stream-mini-ice-age-conditions-nothing-to-do-with-co2/

Here is the twitter pics: https://twitter.com/piers_corbyn/status/673023619971305472

[greybeard]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/699681/FREAK-climate-changes-spark-min-ice-age-Britain-2017

Freak climate changes could spark ‘mini ice-age’ in Britain from 2017
FREAK climate change events could cause a mini ice age in Britain in 2017 - a shock new prediction suggests. Experts believe the UK could be in for a big freeze within the next few years as three major forms of climate change trigger "substantial cooling”.

Drastic changes in ocean conditions, greenhouse gases and a weakening of the sun threaten increasingly worsening winters of blistering blizzards and severe snowstorms for years to come.

Dramatic climate changes and "hasty policies" to handle them could mean "rolling blackouts" in the UK over the next few years.

These "worse case scenario" climate would hit the elderly hardest, leaving "some pensioners alone in the dark" on a freezing nights resigned to a "lonely death".

Scientists recently warned the sun's activity is at its lowest for 100 years and some have even drawn parallels with the period when the last mini ice age hit.Severe cold would be brought about for the most part by a big decrease in solar activity as the earth is warmed by "sunspots" and solar flares.

This drop in sunspot activity leads to a so-called Maunder Minimum, which is believed to be responsible for the cripplingly cold winters Europe experienced three centuries ago.

London's river Thames froze over during Britain’s last Maunder minimum period in the 1600s.

Drawing on 400 years of sunspot observations, experts believe we are heading for a similar temperature "minimum".

However, Grahame Madge, meteorologist for the Met Office, told Daily Star Online although a "grand solar minimum" is expected, it will do little to counteract global warming caused by man-made change.

Irregular and complex climatic changes affecting the equatorial Pacific region, known as El Niño, could also play a major part.

Thanks to Wind for this-----I have to say that given the weatherin Scotland last Winter, Spring and early Summer this could well be right

Chris

[Ewan]

When searching for information on temperatures it struck me that you will always get records broken. No-one is going to mention that it wasn't hotter, or even colder for that matter. So changing tack I searched for coldest temperatures ever recorded.

From https://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.nl/2015/03/february-2015-coldest-month-in-history.html comes..

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DiulukbnyVo/VP51FeheKxI/AAAAAAAAel0/5MiHIDWF6fQ/s1600/coldestmonth3.jpg

From http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/222565/southern_china_1st_snow_since_1946_amp_hong_kong_3rd_coldest_ever__mini_ice_age_20152035_126/ comes


3rd coldest temperatures ever recorded in Hong Kong and first snows in 60 years throughout Guangzhou, China. rticles/75362/20160126

And also includes a little video of many recent cold records broken within China.

From http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2015/10/31/argentina-coldest-october-since-records-began/ comes


Low temperatures for 20 days in most of Argentina created the coldest October since 1963, according to the National Meteorological Service (SMN).

“The extremely cold conditions in much of Argentina were because we had many cold surges as they passed by masses of polar origin Patagonia and reached at least five times,” said Telam meteorologist Jose Ignacio Lopez Amorin.

These temperature for October can only be compared to what happened in the spring of 1963, reports SMN. “There were days of more frequent and more cold cold in September and October than in June, July and August, due to a change in airflow partly explained by El Niño and partly by local and zonal conditions, “he said.

Pigüé-in the southwest of the province of Buenos Aires set a record in its historical low temperatures; Mendoza while some areas, particularly Malargüe, marked declines in average middle and lower temperatures.

“Five cold surges in 23 days is a really remarkable rate and, if in October, much more” Amorim stressed, who said the SMN expects that El Niño will last “until February 2016 at least.”

There were many more.

Purely anecdotally I know from my own memories and current observations that weather today in the UK is far more unpredictable and changable than even 20 years ago and far more so than 40 years ago. The summers are shorter and have less days of sunshine. Spring can appear early due to mild winters it is true but often early crops are ruined as cold snaps continue into May and even June.

Half-way through August now and there has been no real summer to speak of. Many days required more than just a t-shirt, if not even a thicker layer as though spring or autumn. I don't really care if one day pops up and breaks all previous records, though you can bet your life it will be shock headlines all through the media if it does. My own observations and experience tell me it is generally colder than in the past both locally and somewhat more widespread.

[Hervé]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/699681/FREAK-climate-changes-spark-min-ice-age-Britain-2017

Freak climate changes could spark ‘mini ice-age’ in Britain from 2017

FREAK climate change events could cause a mini ice age in Britain in 2017 - a shock new prediction suggests. Experts believe the UK could be in for a big freeze within the next few years as three major forms of climate change trigger "substantial cooling”.

Drastic changes in ocean conditions, greenhouse gases and a weakening of the sun threaten increasingly worsening winters of blistering blizzards and severe snowstorms for years to come.
[...]

Hi Chris,

Don't you love MSM insisting on inserting their spins with words like "Climate change," "freak," "greenhouse gases," etc... :)

If you read post #17 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?92583-Denying-Global-Warming-there-is-no-pause&p=1090108&viewfull=1#post1090108) as well as Piers' explanations here: Piers Corbyn – “NW England Extreme Floods – driven by Wild Jet Stream / Mini Ice Age conditions – nothing to do with CO2” (https://weatheraction.wordpress.com/2015/12/09/piers-corbyn-nw-england-extreme-floods-driven-by-wild-jet-stream-mini-ice-age-conditions-nothing-to-do-with-co2/), you may realize there is nothing freaky about current weather patterns since they are predictable as Piers keeps demonstrating with his weather predictions.

The "climate change" is directly tied and correlated to solar patterns rendering "human influence" totally, undetectably insignificant and irrelevant.

[greybeard]

The Gulf stream kept the West Coast of Scotland warm.
It has slowed down and the weather cooled since the oil disaster Gulf of Mexico.

Global warming --I almost wish it was true.
What we have now is climate extremes.

Chris

[greybeard]

Yes Herve Basically cyclic as far as I can see --nothing new under the Sun---and it was happening this way long before humans lit their first fire.

Thanks as ever for your clear factual information Herve.

Chris

[KiwiElf]

Extremes - yes; The last 18 months or so has been quite severe in our South Island in the way of storms, flooding and recent heavy snow fall, and gale like winds in some areas.

Where I am tho, (Bay of Plenty - mid eastern coast of the North Island), has been really mild. (August is usually our coldest month and technically the end of our winter period). Last 3 days I've been running around in t-shirt & jeans! Beautiful, clear days. We've had a few really cold nights and frosts (nothing unusual).

I remember back to our summer Xmas of 2011-12 - it rained for a whole 3 weeks over the holiday period, Dec-Jan - miserable! The only time I can remember it doing that.

Of course, every time we get an "extreme" or big storm, the MS media manage to insert "global warming" into it somewhere. (What can I say?... our MSM virtually parrots everything CNN says...) :facepalm:

I'm also happy to report there is absolutely no change in ocean water levels (...in NZ!) :)

[Sueanne47]

I wish I had seen this thread earlier!

I believe Sir David Attenborough above all else, this video is quite alarming :

Cq1oFhTINXE

[chancy]

I wish I had seen this thread earlier!

I believe Sir David Attenborough above all else, this video is quite alarming :

Cq1oFhTINXE


Hello Everyone:

WOW!! That's all I can say! WOW!!!

I'm sure Sir David Attenborough never got a dime for being the spokesman for this expensive documentary of propaganda !

Remember we as humans only produce 4% of the CO2 on this Planet of ours.
WHY, WHY, WHY are we having to foot the bill for 100% of the CO2 emitted on our planet?

I'm thinking that Sir David Attenborough should have just gone and had a chat with Piers Corbyn who could inform him of the TRUTH.....

chancy

[Sueanne47]

I'm sure Sir David Attenborough never got a dime for being the spokesman for this expensive documentary of propaganda !

I'm thinking that Sir David Attenborough should have just gone and had a chat with Piers Corbyn who could inform him of the TRUTH.....

chancy

You would even diss someone as credible and widely respected as Sir David Attenborough????!!!! WORDS FAIL ME.. :tsk:

[Hervé]

[...]
You would even diss someone as credible and widely respected as Sir David Attenborough????!!!! WORDS FAIL ME.. :tsk:

Well, Sueanne, since you seem to be impressed with "titles," why not lend a sympathetic ear to Lord Christopher Monckton:


7jzBWmpzifc

Published on May 25, 2013
Lord Christopher Monckton is a hotly requested speaker in climate change and global warming debates. This is a presentation he gave to an audience in California where the government wanted to introduce climate change legislation.

Lord Christopher Monckton can almost be considered a neutral observer in the climate change and global warming debate. He takes a middle ground and says he does believe in global warming, but when you evaluate the statistics correctly, the impact on the environment is so tiny that the entire global warming fiasco is effectively a dupe.

This powerful presentation covers most of the general arguments used by global warming propagandists, and demonstrates the deceptive tactics and outright fraud that they use to steer public opinion on this matter with their fake graphs. Furthermore, he covers the topic from an economic view, and points out that the climate change hoax is nothing more than another tax grab from greedy politicians.

In fact, Lord Christopher Monckton even using the climate change scientists own figures to do some simple math, and shows that with their proposed tax schemes to stop global warming; $450 billion dollars will only reduce the effect of global warming by 1/1000th of a degree Fahrenheit. It is disgraceful and without doubt, maybe the greatest hoax of our lifetime.


-----------------------------------------------


UGqcweY1a3I

Published on Sep 3, 2015

[chancy]

I'm sure Sir David Attenborough never got a dime for being the spokesman for this expensive documentary of propaganda !

I'm thinking that Sir David Attenborough should have just gone and had a chat with Piers Corbyn who could inform him of the TRUTH.....
chancy


You would even diss someone as credible and widely respected as Sir David Attenborough????!!!! WORDS FAIL ME.. :tsk:

Hello Sueanne47:

After watching this documentary it sickened me to the core! How much money was spent on it and how much belief in Sir David Attenborough just because he's the narrator! On this side of the pond he's just another narrator! My brother who's not a "Sir" could have done just as good if not better job of narrating....would you have believed the documentary then?

I'm not politically correct and make no excuses for that. I do not believe in coincidences and definitely don't believe in any "Sir's" unless they disclose the big pay check they receive for doing a documentary. By the way I don't believe in the monarchy either so I am definitely not politically correct!

I'm not taking aim at you or anything to do with you Sueanne47. I am definitely taking aim at a bunch of fear mongering taking place in the documentary!

IF I lived in England I would make the people who produced the documentary to give the money back to whomever sponsored this documentary. A shear waste of cold hard cash!

Thanks for your input Sueanne47. You definitely should be watching the nay sayers documentaries in this thread. They are not as pricey as the believers documentaries....
Have a great day!
chancy

[Fairy Friend]

[[...]
It looks a damning indictment on the face of it but without an original source there's not much I can do with it.

You'll find it here along with Piers Corbyn discussing it: https://weatheraction.wordpress.com/2015/12/09/piers-corbyn-nw-england-extreme-floods-driven-by-wild-jet-stream-mini-ice-age-conditions-nothing-to-do-with-co2/

Here is the twitter pics: https://twitter.com/piers_corbyn/status/673023619971305472


Thank you. I was curious about the 102 models from 24 groups. I assume they were different universities but using similar models. The group who is the yellow line didn't do to bad and I am wondering why. It doesn't seem like the same model as the other groups used but stays more steady and wondered if they factored something else in or out the other groups didn't. Just curious.

It seems to me that whether you believe warming or cooling, both claim extreme weather especially flooding, as part of it. So it seems prudent to do things that buffer damage from these. Like Water surge protection. Heat island effects and smog can be local and not affecting things globally but local issues are still issues. I don't argue with some changes to adapt to climate/weather changes. I just recently saw a simple design change in dams that will reduce spillover in extreme flooding so that the base stays intact and the dam doesn't collapse. Very ingenious to cut a hole below the top and put a ski flip ramp to channel the water far away from the base. Some changes should be made.

[Ewan]

I'm sure Sir David Attenborough never got a dime for being the spokesman for this expensive documentary of propaganda !

I'm thinking that Sir David Attenborough should have just gone and had a chat with Piers Corbyn who could inform him of the TRUTH.....

chancy

You would even diss someone as credible and widely respected as Sir David Attenborough????!!!! WORDS FAIL ME.. :tsk:

I believe Sir Jimmy Saville was also widely respected, in this case for all his charity work, he even visited Buckingham Palace occasionally. You can't judge a person because of who they are but only by what they say and do their actions confirm their words. I could even accept poor David just didn't know any better and was not overly concerned with fact-checking.

(I am not equating Attenborough with paedophilia, Saville was just an example that came to mind.)

[Fairy Friend]

Again from skeptical science:


before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.
As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).
Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).
But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.
Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne


I was really bothered by a few statements here. I agree on land we have a O2/CO2 exchange with plants and animals.

But I don't agree with the oceans not being able to handle this. It has a pH buffer system for life present. CO2 will form bicarbonates and convert it to CaCO3 and deposit it to make limestone. Also part of seashells. It does this to keep the pH stable. I use this in tissue culture work with CO2 and Sodium bicarbonate. CO2+H2O=H2CO3/(H+)+HCO3-/NaHCO3 in the lab or CaCO3 in the ocean. It will not release it as much as convert it to limestone and seashells. You can make a shell by blowing with your breathe (CO2) through a straw in a mix of CaCO3. Looked for the original work but found this instead.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/can-seashells-save-the-world-813915.html

I think the oceans buffer with microorganisms too.

I have found Mother nature gives me better answers than most people. Just saying.

[Baby Steps]

the fact remains that co2 is rising rapidly so the ocean is not fully buffering

the ocean is due to add hugely to co2 in the atmosphere as it warms

the amount of heat re-emitted from the co2 blanket back to earth, that would have escaped , is measurable.

perhaps the warming is being counteracted by reduced solar output, wish I could ask Piers

[araucaria]

One massive contributor to manmade CO2 production is Portland cement, for which CaCo3 is decomposed into CaO and CO2, in a kiln, also requiring heat, i.e. an energy source itself likely producing CO2. Cement and concrete as they age recover their CO2 over a period of something like 30,000 years. This means that not only does cement production increase CO2 emissions, it also increases the size of the CO2 sink, albeit with this very long time delay, and it is not a zero-sum operation.

The alternative to cement is often wood, which is a natural CO2 sink from the outset. You absorb the stuff in order to grow trees, and the longer you preserve the timber, the longer it stays out of circulation. Oyster and mussel farms would have a similar effect, but there are limits to the amounts of seafood that people can consume.

Another idea, instead of recycling paper, which is counter-intuitively not the thing to be doing if you are looking for carbon sinks, would be to make more things out of paper.

We should be using high-quality paper-based dishes and light a fire instead of washing up. When you think that the ancient Chinese wore paper armour, it being lightweight and rustproof, you realize just how much we could be doing with all kinds of quality paper products. Hotel linen would be one really useful application. And we might even end up with paper aeroplanes :)
Traditional libraries of hard copy books would make excellent carbon sinks. If the AGW people were really serious, they would be recommending building thousands more rather than closing the ones we have. The problem being of course that people might start reading them and learning things, and that would never do.

[Ewan]

Can't figure out the latter idea regarding paper. Surely recycling paper is similar to preserving wood, if you recycle you are not cutting down more trees to produce fresh paper. If recycling is not carbon friendly it still results in continued deforesting to produce many new paper products.

[bluestflame]

we live on a planet full of carbon based life forms as far as i know

[Bill Ryan]

we live on a planet full of carbon based life forms as far as i know

Yes. But it might be a little more complicated than that!

Even though a great deal of your body chemistry features carbon and oxygen, if you lock yourself in your garage with your car's engine running, the CO2 and CO might not do you all that much good. :)

[Chester]

Nature provides a balance.

Humans have for over a century reached a stage of development where what we do can effect that balance and potentially significantly.

Humans also distort the truth to achieve various agendas important to a few at the expense of the rest and this is the problem some have with so called "man made global warming."

It would be nice if those who could perform a true, honest, detailed and thorough analysis of the the potential existence of and ramifications of man made climate changes would be able to do so. Unfortunately the structure of the western world (and perhaps global) scientific community undermines the validity of the findings of too many otherwise qualified scientists. THAT, to me, is the bigger problem.

[Hervé]

[...]
It would be nice if those who could perform a true, honest, detailed and thorough analysis of the the potential existence of and ramifications of man made climate changes would be able to do so.
[...]

A repost from here:
[...]


From another thread:

what wasn't done nor attempted:






What was definitely NOT used:


[...]



Groningen, zondag 6 februari 2011


Veteran weather modification expert Ben Livingston is a former Navy Physicist who briefed President Lyndon B. Johnson on the effectiveness of weather control back in the 1960's during the Vietnam era, when he was involved in cloud seeding programs that worked to slow down the advance of Vietnamese and Korean troops. Livingston asserts that hurricane control was a national priority of the government more than 40 years ago and that the technology was fully operational to control the weather at the time.


MKl9rqw1Ykw


In this exclusive interview, Livingston explains how for decades the US government has had the power to both lessen and increase the severity of adverse weather for their own purposes.


Dr. Livingston was assigned in 1966 from the Naval weapons research Laboratory to a marine fighter squadron in Vietnam. Instead of guns, the aircraft under Livingston's control were fitted with cloud seeding equipment. "My mission was to find clouds and seed them for maximum precipitation value" he stated.


Dr. Livingston presents evidence from the Stanford research Institute, who were brought into Project Storm Fury (a weather control program) in the late sixties as a third party, which stated conclusively that knowledge of how to stop hurricanes had been uncovered and that they would be directly liable should a hurricane hit and cause extensive damage and loss of life. Four decades later and Livingston exposes how the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina could have been greatly minimized but was allowed to fully impact Gulf states for political reasons.


Having personally flown on 265 missions into the eyes of hurricanes, Livingston remarks that he was "disgusted" by the failure to lessen the impact of Katrina. Livingston's revelations that weather control has been a decades long program in which the US government has been deeply involved are particularly alarming given the abundant modern-day evidence of how chemtrails are being used to warp our environment in a secret geoengineering plot that threatens a myriad of unknown human health and ecological consequences.


************************************************************


... and so was Sandy allowed to strike at the maximum cranked up power that could be mustered to re-instill some trust into the "medias"... "When we tell you to evacuate: just do it!"


The following statement:



Project Storm Fury [...] stated conclusively that knowledge of how to stop hurricanes had been uncovered and that they would be directly liable should a hurricane hit and cause extensive damage and loss of life.... carries with it the terrible corollary that, by the same token, they also know what starts or amplifies a storm into a hurricane... just pure, practical logic!


Couple that with the report that military planes were flying around at the time [hurricane] Sandy hit the coast... along with the fact that storms are Navy's and Air Force's allies in demoralizing the "enemy" in any wars since Vietnam... who's the enemy now?

[ninorc]

Interesting thread, forensically: what happened to the OP? Comes on, kicks off about this Aussie TV debate Climate Change: Prof Brian Cox (scientist) takes on Senator Malcolm Roberts (politician) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVB-rpC2x3w) Finds nobody much agrees with him. Disappears. Hmm...

Anyway, since it's not been mentioned in this thread, I thought I'd recommend Ben Davidson's Suspicious Observers to anyone who is unaware of their excellent work. Like Piers Corbyn, they observe the sun closely, but extrapolate to predict earthquakes and extreme weather events. Unlike Piers, they believe that climate change is real, but they have a clear perspective on the debate and no agenda other than truth. They have a great YouTube channel and, on this subject, I recommend, Top 6 Climate Change Problems (https://youtu.be/4Ew05sRDAcU) which discusses how both sides of the argument have manipulated the data and geo-engineering has further complicated the situation and Why "Global Warming" Failed & Why Climate Change is Real (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c4XPVPJwBY) which is an update based around a speech Ben gave two years ago.

Having digested this, if still interested, check out Ben Davidson's video, The #1 Risk To Earth (https://youtu.be/VVgUZv9ccyQ) which I found very compelling (but then, I am no scientist). What he says is that solar events dictate earth's climate and the magnetosphere cushions us from their impact, but the magnetosphere has weakened so that, even though the sun has been relatively calm, extreme weather events are increasing. The #1 risk is being smacked by a massive CME (Coronal Mass Ejection) that would cause the 'Charington effect' on Earth, taking out electricity grids across the planet. Whoah! Reset!

One aspect of SO's research is pole shift (and possible impending flip). It's no secret that the north pole has shifted, bringing the arctic ice cap more directly in line with the sun. This, I infer, is why the arctic is melting while antarctic sea ice is spreading and thickening.

[ks4ever]

Thanks ninorc

That is why I posted the link in Post 43 of this thread recommending Ben Davidson's article on Top 6 Climate Change Problems.

As an archaeologist I am interested in the big picture like this graph of Ice Core temperature from Greenland going back 48,000 years.

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo1.png

Not this one that Climate Scientists are more likely to use.

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo61.png

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2475.html

If anybody would like to read where this 97% of Scientists Myth comes from I suggest you read the article by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer in The Wall Street Journal dated 26th May 1914, titled "The Myth of Climate Change "97%"".
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

[bluestflame]

my point with the carbon based lifeforms thing is that as far as i've seen it's never been adequately addressed

[Bill Ryan]

my point with the carbon based lifeforms thing is that as far as i've seen it's never been adequately addressed

My answer was just to note that the benefit of CO2 very much depends on whether you're a mammal or a tree.

:sun: :flower: :sun:

[meat suit]

Interesting thread, forensically: what happened to the OP?
One aspect of SO's research is pole shift (and possible impending flip). It's no secret that the north pole has shifted, bringing the arctic ice cap more directly in line with the sun. This, I infer, is why the arctic is melting while antarctic sea ice is spreading and thickening.

great post.... btw.

OP has had the boot for being rude....

its just the magnetic poles that shift... the geographic pole ( earth axis ) stays the same... therefore the arctic ice hasnt moved towards more sun exposure...

[Bill Ryan]

its just the magnetic poles that shift... the geographic pole ( earth axis ) stays the same... therefore the arctic ice hasnt moved towards more sun exposure...

Yes, that's correct. The magnetic pole shift (which is definitely in progress, and is being carefully tracked) isn't a physical movement of the planet. It's just the magnetic field which is changing.

[Hervé]

[...]
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo1.png
[...]

... recovering my jaw from the floor... :jaw:

"Something" unprecedented did occur ~ 10,000 BCE/ 12,000 years ago... which stabilized the global temperature fluctuations... Waowww!

Thanks ks4ever.

PS: Any link to the original research/paper?

[Wind]

Latest video from Dave at Adapt 2030.

Exact Dates Given for Grand Solar Minimum Cooling Globally, IPCC Tries to Suppress Research

kiIPBnZCmVk

[Bill Ryan]

Thanks ks4ever.

PS: Any link to the original research/paper?

I believe (without checking, as I write this) that this has been cited quite a few times in recent presentations by Graham Hancock. But in turn, he'd have found it somewhere else, of course. Important and interesting stuff.

[Ewan]

Interesting thread, forensically: what happened to the OP? Comes on, kicks off about this Aussie TV debate Climate Change: Prof Brian Cox (scientist) takes on Senator Malcolm Roberts (politician) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVB-rpC2x3w) Finds nobody much agrees with him. Disappears. Hmm...

Anyway, since it's not been mentioned in this thread, I thought I'd recommend Ben Davidson's Suspicious Observers to anyone who is unaware of their excellent work. Like Piers Corbyn, they observe the sun closely, but extrapolate to predict earthquakes and extreme weather events. Unlike Piers, they believe that climate change is real, but they have a clear perspective on the debate and no agenda other than truth. They have a great YouTube channel and, on this subject, I recommend, Top 6 Climate Change Problems (https://youtu.be/4Ew05sRDAcU) which discusses how both sides of the argument have manipulated the data and geo-engineering has further complicated the situation and Why "Global Warming" Failed & Why Climate Change is Real (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c4XPVPJwBY) which is an update based around a speech Ben gave two years ago.

Having digested this, if still interested, check out Ben Davidson's video, The #1 Risk To Earth (https://youtu.be/VVgUZv9ccyQ) which I found very compelling (but then, I am no scientist). What he says is that solar events dictate earth's climate and the magnetosphere cushions us from their impact, but the magnetosphere has weakened so that, even though the sun has been relatively calm, extreme weather events are increasing. The #1 risk is being smacked by a massive CME (Coronal Mass Ejection) that would cause the 'Charington effect' on Earth, taking out electricity grids across the planet. Whoah! Reset!

One aspect of SO's research is pole shift (and possible impending flip). It's no secret that the north pole has shifted, bringing the arctic ice cap more directly in line with the sun. This, I infer, is why the arctic is melting while antarctic sea ice is spreading and thickening.


Very interesting and seemingly balanced videos ninorc, thank you for that.

On the same page as one of those links I also ended up watching this documentary.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqsRD4HPtH0


Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation.

This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. In contrast to the global cooling conjecture, the current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the twentieth century.

Concerns about nuclear winter arose in the early 1980s from several reports. Similar speculations have appeared over effects due to catastrophes such as asteroid impacts and massive volcanic eruptions. A prediction that massive oil well fires in Kuwait would cause significant effects on climate was quite incorrect.

The idea of a global cooling as the result of global warming was already proposed in the 1990s. In 2003, the Office of Net Assessment at the United States Department of Defense was commissioned to produce a study on the likely and potential effects of a modern climate change, especially of a shutdown of thermohaline circulation. The study, conducted under ONA head Andrew Marshall, modelled its prospective climate change on the 8.2 kiloyear event, precisely because it was the middle alternative between the Younger Dryas and the Little Ice Age. The study caused controversy in the media when it was made public in 2004. However, scientists acknowledge that "abrupt climate change initiated by Greenland ice sheet melting is not a realistic scenario for the 21st century".

Currently, the concern that cooler temperatures would continue, and perhaps at a faster rate, has been observed to be incorrect by the IPCC. More has to be learned about climate, but the growing records have shown that the cooling concerns of 1975 have not been borne out.

As for the prospects of the end of the current interglacial (again, valid only in the absence of human perturbations): it isn't true that interglacials have previously only lasted about 10,000 years; and Milankovitch-type calculations indicate that the present interglacial would probably continue for tens of thousands of years naturally. Other estimates (Loutre and Berger, based on orbital calculations) put the unperturbed length of the present interglacial at 50,000 years. Berger (EGU 2005 presentation) believes that the present CO2 perturbation will last long enough to suppress the next glacial cycle entirely.

As the NAS report indicates, scientific knowledge regarding climate change was more uncertain than it is today. At the time that Rasool and Schneider wrote their 1971 paper, climatologists had not yet recognized the significance of greenhouse gases other than water vapor and carbon dioxide, such as methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons. Early in that decade, carbon dioxide was the only widely studied human-influenced greenhouse gas. The attention drawn to atmospheric gases in the 1970s stimulated many discoveries in future decades. As the temperature pattern changed, global cooling was of waning interest by 1979.

Certainly after todays watching/learning one can only conclude that the consesus opinion must be bought and paid for. If geo-engineering is already underway, and a lot of the evidence seems to suggest it is, then they are apparently bringing the cooling period closer by adding more cloud cover. Yet it would be their demise too, for their underground facilities surely do not come with 50,000+ year guarantees of survivability. Off-planet escape routes?

Is that why there are reportedly so many visiting observers interested and watching this planet right now. For it must be a rare opportunity to study the demise of a species. (Sigh).

Edit: Just wanted to add that docu this was made before the concept of 'Global Warming' became so mainstream, it was offering potential solution to a very real scenario of a cold period coming up by re-mineralising the soils of the planet with rock dust. Which is what ultimately happens with glacial action. The timing of the GW scare could almost be considered propaganda to counter real scientific information if one were particularly cynical.

[Hervé]

Repost from here:
[...]

Scottish snow (http://theiaincameron.tumblr.com/)
A blog for the chionophiles of Britain
@theiaincameron

#12 - August snow survey 2015

At long last I have the complete figures in from the August 2015 snow survey that was conducted on the 21st and 22nd of that month. There were a couple of discrepancies up until recently, but I have now ironed these out.

The total number of patches counted across Scotland was 678 (see table below). This is way more than double the amount for 2014, and hundreds more than any year since the survey was started in 2008.
Totals since 2008
2008 - 34
2009 - 35
2010 - 34
2011 - 36
2012 - 72
2013 - 81
2014 - 281
2015 - 678
We caution that this total, though very impressive, is likely to be too low. Given the amount of snow that was present all over the hills it’s almost certain that some were missed. However, the patches listed here are confirmed ones, and that’s what we have to go with.

Thanks are due to a lot of people who assisted in this. Everyone who went out did so at their own expense of time and cost. Without these folk the survey would have been impossible.

A small percentage of these patches will survive until winter (typically about 8% of the August total survives). Whether 8% of the August total will survive (~54 patches) is debatable. We will have to keep watching.


http://www.sott.net/image/s13/279649/large/2B5C76DD00000578_0_image_a_6_1.jpg (http://www.sott.net/image/s13/279649/full/2B5C76DD00000578_0_image_a_6_1.jpg)
A cold summer in Scotland has led to this incredible natural phenomena with remaining ice and snow forming a network of icy tunnels and caves clinging to the edge of mountains


=================================================

Then... this year:

'Astonishing' snow depth on North Face of Ben Nevis (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-37020327)

9 August 2016 From the section Highlands & Islands (http://www.bbc.com/news/scotland/highlands_and_islands)



http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/C884/production/_90723315_snowyben.jpg
A climber in a red jacket is just visible in this photograph of the snow on Ben Nevis Climbers have encountered deep snow on Britain's highest mountain while assisting in a scientific project on the peak. Image copyright Highland Mountain Company


It is not unusual for Ben Nevis to have coverings of snow all year.

However, snow expert Iain Cameron has described the depth of the white stuff on the mountain's North Face as "astonishing".

Photographs of the snow, which could be more than 15m deep in places, were taken by Highland Mountain Company.

The images were taken on Monday.


http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/30EA/production/_90722521_snowybentwo.jpg
A climber and the snow on the North Face The firm is assisting scientists who have reached the final week of a three-year programme to survey geology and also fauna and flora on the North Face of the Munro near Fort William. Image copyright Highland Mountain Company


On Twitter, Mr Cameron tweeted the Highland Mountain Company's photographs with the message:

"Spot the climber!

"Utterly astonishing depth of snow yesterday on Ben Nevis. Possibly 15m+" Mr Cameron, who studies, photographs and writes about snow, has previously investigated evidence of an avalanche thought to have occurred during the summer last year in a remote mountain range in the Highlands (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-34410942).

He also counts patches of snow that survive from one winter into the next.


http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/EF94/production/_90723316_tweet.jpg
Iain Cameron's tweet about the snow on The North Face of Ben Nevis Last year, Mr Cameron recorded 73 patches - the most for 21 years. He said the snow survived because of a cool spring and frequent snow showers until June. Image copyright Iain Cameron/Twitter


The scientific team surveying the North Face on Ben Nevis have encountered snowy conditions before.

In 2014, they came across hazards common in arctic and alpine areas but described as "extremely unusual" in the UK during the summer.

While negotiating snowfields, they found compacted, dense, ice hard snow call neve.

Neve is the first stage in the formation of glaciers, the team said.

The team has also encountered sheets of snow weighing hundreds of tonnes and tunnels and fissures known as bergschrunds.

The large, deep cracks in the ice are found at the top of glaciers.

Image copyright Iain Cameron Image caption Iain Cameron in a snow tunnel in a large patch of snow last year


http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/EFBA/production/_86907316_beinnone.jpg
Iain Cameron in a snow tunnel in a large patch of snow last year

[meat suit]

this adds some valuable info'

ztninkgZ0ws

quote from video description:

We’re living in a brief window of time where our planet isn’t frozen underneath a giant layer of glaciers. How much longer will the moderate climate that we’ve come to know as “normal” continue? What causes these dramatic shifts in temperature that thaw our planet and then throw it back into a state of deep freeze? This episode looks at how the changes in our planet’s orbit and rotation impacts our climate.

[IChingUChing]

In the 90s the media scared the bejeebers out of many including me with all the doom and gloom of the coming global warming...

An' what do you know, in the new century it becomes "climate change" - that covers all bases so we can scare everyone whether it gets warmer, colder, rainier or drier - be scared, be very scared!!! You can be sure if it continues to get colder, the media will forget climate change and it will only be talk of the next ice age. Whatever is happening is used to steer the masses.

For me, the biggest issue here is that it's stopped being science and become belief. We should never forget the University of East Anglia Emails scandal,etc, etc., books like "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert"

A nurse where my wife works didn't come to work recently and after 2 days of her absense people went to her flat and found her dead on the floor - a supposedly fit 30 year old. Just saying....

G'nite and don't forget to stay scared always!

[Fairy Friend]

Repost from here:
[...]

Ice age it is:

Irregular heartbeat of the Sun driven by double dynamo (https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/news-archive/259-news-2015/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo)

Published on Thursday, 09 July 2015 08:17
Last Updated on Thursday, 09 July 2015 12:41

Date: July 9, 2015Source: Royal Astronomical Society (RAS)Summary:
A new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645.


https://www.ras.org.uk/images/stories/press/NAM_2015/Thursday9July/Zharkova_small.jpg (https://www.ras.org.uk/images/stories/press/NAM_2015/Thursday9July/Zharkova_small.jpg)
Montage of images of solar activity between August 1991 and September 2001. Credit: Yohkoh/ISAS/Lockheed-Martin/NAOJ/U. Tokyo/NASA. Click for a full-size image




A new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645. Results will be presented today by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting (http://nam2015.org) in Llandudno.



It is 172 years since a scientist first spotted that the Sun’s activity varies over a cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle) lasting around 10 to 12 years. But every cycle is a little different and none of the models of causes to date have fully explained fluctuations. Many solar physicists have put the cause of the solar cycle down to a dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep within the Sun. Now, Zharkova and her colleagues have found that adding a second dynamo, close to the surface, completes the picture with surprising accuracy.

“We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time. Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,” said Zharkova.

Zharkova and her colleagues derived their model using a technique called ‘principal component analysis’ of the magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory (http://wso.stanford.edu/) in California. They examined three solar cycles-worth of magnetic field activity, covering the period from 1976-2008. In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of solar activity. All the predictions and observations were closely matched.

Looking ahead to the next solar cycles, the model predicts that the pair of waves become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. During Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch and this will cause a significant reduction in solar activity.

“In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum)’,” said Zharkova. “Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago.”

https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2680-irregular-heartbeat-of-the-sun-driven-by-double-dynamo


See also this post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?50036-The-Arctic-is-melting-the-Antarctic-is-freezing.-What-does-this-mean&p=1089211&viewfull=1#post1089211) (<---)

7sh_nlz43Pc


=========================================================

This point from above cannot be overemphasized:


... the waves fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97%,” said Zharkova.That's real science!

Because their theoretical model, derived from facts, can predict other data - not yet observed - with a 97% accuracy... mind blowing!




So it sounds like the IPCC has asked for this publication to be removed. It was brought up in a discussion between Suspicious Observers and Dave from adapt 2020 on Aug. 20th. Zharkova has contacted each scientist that wishes it removed but not one will respond to her. She wishes to present her side and wants to know why it is to be removed. It sounds like they are putting a lot of pressure on the journal to remove it. And it sounds like they may succeed.

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689

[TargeT]

The #1 risk is being smacked by a massive CME (Coronal Mass Ejection) that would cause the 'Charington effect' on Earth, taking out electricity grids across the planet. Whoah! Reset!.

we only know of one Carrington event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859), we know of THOUSANDS of asteroid impacts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event).

Playing a simple game of triage:

we are "fairly sure" asteroids have ended most life on this planet a few times

We are struck by asteroids on a constant bases....

in light of that "global warming" is a joke, we need some sky defense! Asteroid busters! Deal with the dog attached to your leg before you worry about the mosquito that just bit you and weather or not it carries a disease that might make you sick....

[ninorc]

its just the magnetic poles that shift... the geographic pole ( earth axis ) stays the same... therefore the arctic ice hasnt moved towards more sun exposure...

Yes, that's correct. The magnetic pole shift (which is definitely in progress, and is being carefully tracked) isn't a physical movement of the planet. It's just the magnetic field which is changing.

Drat! Thought I'd derived some crucial insight there.
I was also influenced by the pronouncements of the Inuit that were widely reported last year:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZSgqM-WF3E

Elsewhere, they're saying the apparent shift in the axis is due to precession, perfectly normal and nothing to worry about.

Sorry if I'm drifting off topic, here.

[ninorc]

we only know of one Carrington event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859), we know of THOUSANDS of asteroid impacts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event).

Playing a simple game of triage:

we are "fairly sure" asteroids have ended most life on this planet a few times

We are struck by asteroids on a constant bases....

in light of that "global warming" is a joke, we need some sky defense! Asteroid busters! Deal with the dog attached to your leg before you worry about the mosquito that just bit you and weather or not it carries a disease that might make you sick....

A repeat of the Carrington event (thanks for the spelling correction, BTW) wouldn't necessarily mean extinction, just that the electrical infrastructure would be taken down, as in 1859, when there wasn't much. What happens if & when the lights go out now that we are so dependent upon electrical systems will surely define the extent to which we have evolved as a species?

As for incoming asteroids, I have it on good authority from Hollywood that a character played by Bruce Willis knows how to deal with 'em!

[Bill Ryan]

Scottish snow (http://theiaincameron.tumblr.com/)
A blog for the chionophiles of Britain
@theiaincameron

#12 - August snow survey 2015

At long last I have the complete figures in from the August 2015 snow survey that was conducted on the 21st and 22nd of that month. There were a couple of discrepancies up until recently, but I have now ironed these out.

The total number of patches counted across Scotland was 678 (see table below). This is way more than double the amount for 2014, and hundreds more than any year since the survey was started in 2008.
Totals since 2008

2008 - 34
2009 - 35
2010 - 34
2011 - 36
2012 - 72
2013 - 81
2014 - 281
2015 - 678

Many thanks, and I found that really very interesting. Many of you know I lived in Scotland throughout the 1990s until 2005, and was an active snow and ice climber on Ben Nevis (and other areas, too). I know the Scottish mountains very well.

While I was there, the winters were warming each year. They really were. All the climbers knew that, and it was obvious. Two (maybe three) of the Scottish ski areas closed, because there was just no snow... just icy heather and rocks: dangerous, and certainly no fun.

All that time, there was just one (famous!) snow patch that was always there, never melting year-round. That was on a mountain called Braeriach, in the Cairngorms, quite a way east of Ben Nevis.

So, it's more than fascinating for me that all that seems to have reversed, and that the heavy winters are there again. And permanent snow patches soon turn to glaciers -- for sure.

[ks4ever]

High Herve and Bill

In reference to the Greenland Temperature ice core record:

The link to the data source was under the second graph.

You can see the graphs at the FORSIGHT Institute:
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553

The data for these graphs can be found here:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

For an even longer period, look at the Antartic core "Vostok".
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/vostok.png

[Fairy Friend]

There are disreprancies in the ice core data from other locations compared to Greenland. The theory from my neck of the woods is that it has to do with the source of Greenlands water changed during that rapid drop in temperature. It seems to match general trends of warming and cooling but when it comes to an absolute temperature the model is not quite accurate enough. At least we see something is off with the models. The problem is O2 isotopes ratios are different from Pacific waters than Atlantic. True, Greenland was hit harder than most areas in the northern hemisphere. But all Ice cores agree, a huge temperature drop occurred 13,000 years ago, lasted 1000 years and jumped back up quickly.

http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/earth/climate/ice-cores-may-not-be-accurate-thermometers/

[Wind]

Adapt 2030 - More Scientists Come Out Predicting Rapid Global Cooling

n3K74tvYoPs

[kerrielea]

WDh8Z6XlN1M

[Hervé]

Adapt 2030 - More Scientists Come Out Predicting Rapid Global Cooling

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3K74tvYoPs

Regarding the comment about governments, "How could you NOT have seen this coming!?!" and the turning of the table on the new "Witch Hunting": Governments and politicians rather than "scientists":


There are some historical dots with regard to such experiences, so, let's start here:
From the early decades of the fifteenth century until 1650, continental Europeans executed between two and five hundred thousand witches (according to conservative estimates), more than 85 percent of them being women. (Ben-Yehuda, 1985)
Why?
[...]

In 1450, 100 years after the Black Death had destroyed about half of Europe's population, the Hundred Years' War was coming to an end and someone had to be blamed, (definitely NOT cometary explosions!), and the so-called Renaissance was kicking off, Jean Vineti, Inquisitor at Carcassone, identified witchcraft with heresy. In 1458, Nicholas Jacquier, Inquisitor in France and Bohemia, identified it as a NEW form of heresy.

[...]

The sanctioned, organized pursuit and persecution of witches, which peaked from 1560 to 1630 and was almost entirely a western European phenomenon, began during a time of grave concern in the Roman Catholic church. The European world in the early 1400s was a wreck. The preceding century has been labeled by historian Barbara Tuchman as "calamitous," and she does not overstate. Starting around 1315, a great famine ravaged much of western Europe. From 1347 to 1352, the Black Death killed more than a third of the continent's population. Other diseases and additional outbreaks of the plague scourged the weakened survivors. As if natural catastrophe weren't enough, England and France chose to fight the Hundred Years' War from 1337 to 1453, the longest war in history. The Church itself fractured, riven by massive organized heresies, and by a schism that led to as many as three men simultaneously laying claim to be the true pope. How could a world created by a watchful, benevolent, and engaged God be such a mess?

[...]
Excerpts from: Wars, Pestilence and Witches (https://www.sott.net/article/147339-Wars-Pestilence-and-Witches)

[KiwiElf]

The recent Soros Email Leaks virtually prove that "Global Warming" - and the subsequent "Carbon Tax" are (& always were) a complete global scam - hope you're reading this, Kapyong! :)

(see post #399 on "Transition into Trump" thread)

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?90590-Transition-into-Trump/page20

[Baby Steps]

SUN SPOTS ARE A BIG FACTOR CLEARLY...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYwgRgbTjjQ

[joeecho]

The thread reminds me of neighbors outside their houses discussing the weather.

http://i.imgur.com/vmetv6f.gif

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/99/09/19/99091929b8e3bbfa57a61afa458fa696.jpg

[TargeT]

Posted this in another thread, but it really belongs here..

PERSPECTIVE BABY! (it too needs calibration)




As they already messed up with this planet, now they need to mess up others.


Nope, that's just very clever propaganda based on the globalist "climate change" (aka global warming) diatribe.


Who walks anymore?

do you realize just HOW MASSIVE this planet is? I live on an island that you can't even see on the globe it's so small, 28 miles long 7 miles wide at it's widest point.... 90% of the ISLAND landmass is still "bush" (aka jungle).. it's the WORST place I've EVER SEEN for litter (trash.. everywhere) & has a 10 acer oil refinery that's just rotting away at this point.

even with all that.. the island thrives..

we are smaller than flees on a dog, we are inconsequential on this planet for the most part... yet we think we can "mess this planet up"?


Here's some perspective:

352,670,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water (estimated) in the oceans (which is 97% of the planets water).
(http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceanwater.html)

Take a good look at that number, now consider this:

One British thermal unit (Btu) is the energy required to raise one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. A U.S. gallon of water weighs 8.3 pounds. So, to raise one gallon of 55°F water up to 56°F it would take 8.3 BTU's

One BTU is approximately:

1.054 to 1.060 kJ (kilojoules)
0.293071 W·h (watt hours)
252 to 253 cal (calories, or "little calories")
0.25 kcal (kilocalories, "large calories", or "food calories")
25,031 to 25,160 ft·pdl (foot-poundal)
778 to 782 ft·lbf (foot-pounds-force)
5.40395 (lbf/in2)·ft3

The IEA estimates that, in 2013, total world energy consumption was 9,301 Mtoe , or 3.89 × 1020 joules, equal to an average power consumption of 12.3 terawatts (12300000000000 watt hours). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption)

so every bit of power we made in 2013 is 3567000000000 btu.

Energetically, there's NO WAY we could possibly effect this planet as a whole or "mess it up"... we simply do not have enough power. Our ego's sure would like to think we can do something like that.. but we don't even know very much about 2/3's of this planet and we physically occupy less than 1% of the remaining 1/3 of the planet...


Look into it, you're falling for a PSYop.


IMO, we need to explore THIS planet still... not go to others...

[Hervé]

I've moved two posts about Nibiru to their appropriate thread: Nibiru Will Pass Earth Before November 2017, The Evidence w/ Investigator David Meade (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?88839-Nibiru-Will-Pass-Earth-Before-November-2017-The-Evidence-w-Investigator-David-Meade)

Please, no more posts about Nibiru or similars on this thread, thank you :)

:focus:

[ninorc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD0NcPU3jb4

See also: Rock star-scientist Brian Cox confused on more than global temperatures (https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/08/19/rock-star-scientist-brian-cox-confused-on-more-than-global-temperatures/)

[Cidersomerset]

Weather is NOT Climate!

sT4133vfTmk

Published on 28 Nov 2016


SHOW NOTES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=17535
No, weather is NOT climate...even when it's warm outside. But in
case there's a climate cultist in your life that insists otherwise,
here are some facts about global warming and vaguely-defined
"extreme" weather that you can use to talk some sense into them.


other articles on ...............
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?94486-Global-ice-age-being-deliberately-triggered-by-NWO-for-world-genocide&p=1113487&viewfull=1#post1113487

[GrayWolfBG]

We did see some odd behaviours across the Pacific basin over the period of the 'alleged pause' with record strength trades and windy conditions across the regions either side of the equator. this was put down to imbalance between Atlantic and Pacific tropical regions and drove the high shear over the Caribbean ( cobbling Hurricane formation since the mid noughties) and Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation strongly negative ( along with the PDO) .

Could it be that China's sprint into industrialisation lead to a regionally dimmed Pacific ( on top of the IPO negative/IPO bury heat into the deeper Pacific)? Could this man made/Natural forcing have lead to the 'faux pause'?

No matter PDO /IPO both swung positive back in 2014 and since then the positive 'heat remaining at the surface' IPO has meant 3 years of back to back global heat records. I understand that Nino put a bit of a spike on 2016's record high so I would not expect 2017 to be a record year but if the Arctic does melt out this year who knows?