About Me
- JLS
- Copyright Notice © JLS and LensFocus, 2008-present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to JLS and LensFocus with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
What's the SUN got to do with it?
Well, it dies provide the energy input to the earth's climate system. Some new research on the upcoming solar cycle 25 suggests that it may rival the Dalton Minimum in the first half of the 19th century when temperatures were rather chilly. Time will tell. And no doubt it will be discovered that humans are somehow responsible for the slowdown in the sun's conveyor belt.
Having Fun with CAGW
Apparently, somebody didn't know the meaning of CAGW and asked to be enlightened over at Watts Up With That. Here are some of the acronyms provided by readers of that blog.
CAGW actually stands for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming
You may have to be well versed in the climate change debate to make sense out of some of these but readers have contributed:
Cash And Grants Weekly
Crazy Al Gore’s Weather?
Collectivist Army of Global Wingnuts
Come And Get Wealthy?
Computer Aided Global Warming
Can’t Allow Growing Wealth
Commies Are Going Wild!
Catastrophes Always Grow Wealth
Conning A Gullible World - my favorite, followed closely by:
Con Artists Going Wild!
CAGW actually stands for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming
You may have to be well versed in the climate change debate to make sense out of some of these but readers have contributed:
Cash And Grants Weekly
Crazy Al Gore’s Weather?
Collectivist Army of Global Wingnuts
Come And Get Wealthy?
Computer Aided Global Warming
Can’t Allow Growing Wealth
Commies Are Going Wild!
Catastrophes Always Grow Wealth
Conning A Gullible World - my favorite, followed closely by:
Con Artists Going Wild!
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Food for thought from Ian Plimer's New Book
How to get Expelled from School
Professor Plimer has another hundred questions like this one in the book.
If we have dangerous warming and the global temperature has increased by 0.8°C since the Little Ice Age, does this mean that the ideal temperature for life on Earth is that of the Little Ice Age?
During the Little Ice Age, people died like flies and it was really not a good time to be on Earth. Besides the cold, there were crop failures, famine, cannibalism and disease. As a child, you might have been on the menu. It was certainly not an ideal temperature then. However, a clever teacher would put you in your place and may suggest that the ideal temperature for an Eskimo is not the ideal temperature for someone living in the jungles of Borneo. You could then come back and suggest that this shows that humans can adapt to a great range of temperature so why worry about a warmer world.
Professor Plimer has another hundred questions like this one in the book.
Not so keen on being green
Global warming/climate change/global climate disruption/call it what you will environmental crisis is losing popularity with the people. Why? Could it be that everything under the sun is being blamed on human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere? This is reminiscent of the daily cancer scares of the past. Everyday there was a new research study that purported to show that this or that causes cancer. People became desnsitized to the warnings and concluded that it took too much time and effort to track all the causes of cancer and thus interfered with the enjoyment of what little life we all appeared to have left anyway so 'screw it'. Live it up and what happens happens. Deal with it then. The environmentalists have been doing the same thing with the global warming scare.
Or could it be the lack of evidence for a catastrophic anthropogenic global warming crisis?
So now they are going to change the name of the crisis again to: sustainable development.
That will be the new catch phrase this year in Rio. Perhaps they will have more success with that. They have to try and keep the funding coming.
Another false eco-scare. Hopefully people are getting wise to the misuse of science and scientific funding to fuel unjustified fears of humans ruining the Earth.
Or could it be the lack of evidence for a catastrophic anthropogenic global warming crisis?
So now they are going to change the name of the crisis again to: sustainable development.
That will be the new catch phrase this year in Rio. Perhaps they will have more success with that. They have to try and keep the funding coming.
Another false eco-scare. Hopefully people are getting wise to the misuse of science and scientific funding to fuel unjustified fears of humans ruining the Earth.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
History of Global Warming
Global warming was announced as an environmental problem back in 1988 by James Hansen of GISS. Soon everything under the sun except the sun was blamed on global warming. It got to be like all the cancer scares that used to fill the media on a nightly basis. So much so that people became desensitized to these reports and went about their lives as before reasoning that if they are going to contract cancer by living there is nothing to be done about it. When the globe stopped warming after 1998 the issue became climate change because that was an easier sell until it was pointed out that change is what the climate does, always has, always will. So the seekers of research funding changed the discussion to global climate disruption and tried to sell us on the idea that current disastrous weather events were unprecedented. This 'worked' until Google newspapers and the Australian Trove database were probed for similar events in the past in the same locations at the same time of year. Such events were readily found and the unprecedented argument beat a hasty retreat. Next up is the catch phrase 'sustainable development' which is where the environmental movement has really wanted to be all along. Now they can talk about what they believe to be the real problems facing mankind: overpopulation, resource overuse and leaving the earth in good shape for future generations. To do this will require global government to effect massive wealth redistribution which is their main goal. It is a Pinky and The Brain cartoon played out in real life.
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose." ~Club of Rome
Game is up. We ain't buyin' it no mo.
No need for more climate conferences. No need to foil FOI requests. No need to suppress critic's research. Disaster averted. CO2 exonerated.
Happy days are here again!
Why are the alarmists not cheering?
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose." ~Club of Rome
- Pinky: Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonight?
- Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to take over the world!
Game is up. We ain't buyin' it no mo.
No need for more climate conferences. No need to foil FOI requests. No need to suppress critic's research. Disaster averted. CO2 exonerated.
Happy days are here again!
Why are the alarmists not cheering?
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
At the turn of the century
Oh, that century when CO2 was low and temperatures were cooler. How ideal.
News from 1900
Weather disasters are nothing new despite the propaganda from talking TV heads that weather like that of 2011 never used to happen.
Thanks to Google and trove newspaper archives we can troll for weather related stories of the past to remind ourselves that humans had notable weather in the past too!
News from 1900
Weather disasters are nothing new despite the propaganda from talking TV heads that weather like that of 2011 never used to happen.
Thanks to Google and trove newspaper archives we can troll for weather related stories of the past to remind ourselves that humans had notable weather in the past too!
To date: this sums it up
Usually when reality mocks a theory by refusing to track the predictions of the theory, the theory is scrapped.
The Skeptic's Case
There is no CAGW. Time to bury the theory that human induced CO2 is causing a catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Q.E.D.
And people seem to be catching on.
The Skeptic's Case
There is no CAGW. Time to bury the theory that human induced CO2 is causing a catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Q.E.D.
And people seem to be catching on.
The rains return in Texas
Just as Governor Perry predicted the rains have returned in Texas. Amazing! Who'd a thunk a redneck governor would turn into an accurate meteorologist.
Hey Ho!
Hey Ho!
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Memo re James Hansen
James Hansen, the guy who started the global warming hysteria back in 1988, thinks that skeptics are committing 'crimes against humanity and Nature" by denying what everyone else knows is true. And yet who is the real denier?
"Global temperatures have not increased for 15 years. Global sea ice is right at the 30 year mean. Sea level is lower than it was in 2004." Real science from Real-Science.com.
It seems NOAA has debunked claim of dangerous 'accelerating' global warming. Do you deny this James?
GISS is still below your scenario 'C'. Keep adjusting that data.
You seem a little confused here James. It seems you can never be wrong about anything - as long as you abandon reason and reality.
Who is anti-science now?
Who is misleading the public now James?
"An honest scientist would admit that he failed spectacularly, retire and go enjoy his grandchildren".
As one commenter on Junkscience.com has pointed out which you seem to forget:
1: CO2 is good, it’s plant food. Without it NOTHING would be green.
2: It’s the sun stupid!
3: Warming is good!
Or we would all want to go live in Nome, Alaska this winter (2012). There is no place like Nome.
The American people seem to get it. Do they know more than warmist alarmists? Are they tired of end-of-the-world prognostications because those forecasts have a perfect record of being false?
Don't you agree James?
Men are never so likely to settle a question rightly as when they discuss it freely.
"Global temperatures have not increased for 15 years. Global sea ice is right at the 30 year mean. Sea level is lower than it was in 2004." Real science from Real-Science.com.
It seems NOAA has debunked claim of dangerous 'accelerating' global warming. Do you deny this James?
GISS is still below your scenario 'C'. Keep adjusting that data.
You seem a little confused here James. It seems you can never be wrong about anything - as long as you abandon reason and reality.
Who is anti-science now?
Who is misleading the public now James?
"An honest scientist would admit that he failed spectacularly, retire and go enjoy his grandchildren".
As one commenter on Junkscience.com has pointed out which you seem to forget:
1: CO2 is good, it’s plant food. Without it NOTHING would be green.
2: It’s the sun stupid!
3: Warming is good!
Or we would all want to go live in Nome, Alaska this winter (2012). There is no place like Nome.
The American people seem to get it. Do they know more than warmist alarmists? Are they tired of end-of-the-world prognostications because those forecasts have a perfect record of being false?
Don't you agree James?
Men are never so likely to settle a question rightly as when they discuss it freely.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Good Point
From Quadrant Online: Neglected Truths of Climate Change by Walter Starck:
Good News is Unwelcome
A seemingly incongruous characteristic of climate change alarmism and environmentalism generally, is that although their proponents profess to be deeply concerned about threats to the natural world they show no interest in any evidence that a threat may not be as bad as they fear. Strangely, such a possibility not only fails to arouse any hopeful interest, its mere suggestion provokes angry rejection. It is obvious their deepest commitment is not actually to nature but to the threat which affords them purpose, importance, funding, recognition and a delicious sense of righteousness.
In the matter of climate change this aggressive defence of the threat is especially apparent. Any suggestion that the danger may be less than predicted or that some natural cause could be responsible for even a part of the claimed warming is like poking a hornet nest. When the evidence for such a valuable threat resides in less than 1°C of warming, every small fraction of it must be defended at any cost.
Great insight.
This should generate happiness. GW not accelerating.
Rejoice. No correlation between global temps and CO2 concentrations.
Modern temps not unprecedented.
Make merry. It was the SUN.
Disease will not spread. Isn't that great?
I'm ecstatic. Global warming not due to CO2.
No need for more climate conferences. No need to foil FOI requests. No need to suppress critic's research. Disaster averted. CO2 exonerated.
Happy days are here again!
Why are the alarmists not cheering??
Could it be because their scheme to play Pinky and The Brain has turned into a cartoon?
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose." ~Club of Rome
Game is up. We ain't buyin' it no mo.
Good News is Unwelcome
A seemingly incongruous characteristic of climate change alarmism and environmentalism generally, is that although their proponents profess to be deeply concerned about threats to the natural world they show no interest in any evidence that a threat may not be as bad as they fear. Strangely, such a possibility not only fails to arouse any hopeful interest, its mere suggestion provokes angry rejection. It is obvious their deepest commitment is not actually to nature but to the threat which affords them purpose, importance, funding, recognition and a delicious sense of righteousness.
In the matter of climate change this aggressive defence of the threat is especially apparent. Any suggestion that the danger may be less than predicted or that some natural cause could be responsible for even a part of the claimed warming is like poking a hornet nest. When the evidence for such a valuable threat resides in less than 1°C of warming, every small fraction of it must be defended at any cost.
Great insight.
This should generate happiness. GW not accelerating.
Rejoice. No correlation between global temps and CO2 concentrations.
Modern temps not unprecedented.
Make merry. It was the SUN.
Disease will not spread. Isn't that great?
I'm ecstatic. Global warming not due to CO2.
No need for more climate conferences. No need to foil FOI requests. No need to suppress critic's research. Disaster averted. CO2 exonerated.
Happy days are here again!
Why are the alarmists not cheering??
Could it be because their scheme to play Pinky and The Brain has turned into a cartoon?
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose." ~Club of Rome
- Pinky: Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonight?
- Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to take over the world!
Game is up. We ain't buyin' it no mo.
Update on Churchill Polar Bears
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Push Back
: the art of questioning what you are being told especially if it is being handed out with authoritarian certainty as the main course and a huge helping of guilt as a side dish.
Apparently, kids are getting tired of having global warming pushed at them as if it were the Gospel of Gore. This questioning - push back - has upset the education establishment and others who want to control what is presented as truth via the mandatory educational program.
Climate change hysteria has become an every day occurrence in the media who are exploiting the scare for their own revenues. It is similar to the everyday cancer scare studies that became so prevalent that people stopped paying attention because they concluded that if damn near everything gave you cancer then there wasn't much to do but live your life the way you want until you are stricken down with the big 'C' at which time it would be handled. We are becoming desensitized to the reports of climate change because the fear of it is groundless and that is becoming obvious to the populace even as scientists compete for funding to keep the scare rolling. The credibility of those who champion the climate change hysteria is in question as Climategate and Nature herself are pushing back against the alarm.
Not only are kids getting tired of it but so are Americans in general. Scientists are also speaking out in more dissenting voices pertaining to the propaganda concerning human induced climate change. The expose that is Climategate has underscored the rampant fraud, corruption, uncertainty and political nature of the climate science issue. Here are two interpretations of the natural disasters that occurred last year (2011). Which one is more realistic? Which one is politically biased?
Push back backs a more realistic view of how the climate works and of just how complex it is. The stench from the BS of global warming/CAGW is so great that it is time to get out the bulldozer and push it back upon those who excreted it. This is too important an issue to ignore as it will harm and is harming too many people. It is an assault upon our freedoms and our standard of living. See 'authoritarian certainty' and 'guilt' links above.
"Push 'em back, push 'em back, wayyyyy back."
Apparently, kids are getting tired of having global warming pushed at them as if it were the Gospel of Gore. This questioning - push back - has upset the education establishment and others who want to control what is presented as truth via the mandatory educational program.
Climate change hysteria has become an every day occurrence in the media who are exploiting the scare for their own revenues. It is similar to the everyday cancer scare studies that became so prevalent that people stopped paying attention because they concluded that if damn near everything gave you cancer then there wasn't much to do but live your life the way you want until you are stricken down with the big 'C' at which time it would be handled. We are becoming desensitized to the reports of climate change because the fear of it is groundless and that is becoming obvious to the populace even as scientists compete for funding to keep the scare rolling. The credibility of those who champion the climate change hysteria is in question as Climategate and Nature herself are pushing back against the alarm.
Not only are kids getting tired of it but so are Americans in general. Scientists are also speaking out in more dissenting voices pertaining to the propaganda concerning human induced climate change. The expose that is Climategate has underscored the rampant fraud, corruption, uncertainty and political nature of the climate science issue. Here are two interpretations of the natural disasters that occurred last year (2011). Which one is more realistic? Which one is politically biased?
Push back backs a more realistic view of how the climate works and of just how complex it is. The stench from the BS of global warming/CAGW is so great that it is time to get out the bulldozer and push it back upon those who excreted it. This is too important an issue to ignore as it will harm and is harming too many people. It is an assault upon our freedoms and our standard of living. See 'authoritarian certainty' and 'guilt' links above.
"Push 'em back, push 'em back, wayyyyy back."
Up with sea level
If 2010 was the warmest year on record then more moisture must have evaporated from the worlds oceans, lakes and waterways. A warmer world means more melting of ice in places like Greenland and Antarctica doesn't it? This would raise sea levels as the melts runs off into the oceans. A warmer world would mean more precipitation as rain and less as snow wouldn't it?
So how come sea level has been falling since 2010?
So how come sea level has been falling since 2010?
Al Gore on the move
It is summer in Antarctica and Al Gore is going to visit with Richard Branson, Kevin Trenberth and James Hansen among others. They will report on the state of global warming on the continent and no doubt issue predictions as to when the Antarctic ice sheet can be expected to dissolve. No mention of whether the ship is solar or nuclear powered.Will Al be living on thin ice? Will the Gore Effect show up? Why are they not in Alaska?
Will we get a report similar to that of 1947?
Al Gore and company revel in confirmation bias. Here is some cognitive dissonance for them. Sorry, Al, no ice loss in Antarctica in last 30 years.
In anticipation of the standard 'the ice is melting' refrain from Gore et al here is some recent research and comment on the Antarctic.
An inconvenient truth: Earth is not melting after all
No need to panic about global warming
SSTs influence Antarctic melt not humans
Both poles melting
OK, maybe not!
Recession of Antarctic ice 3000 feet per year
Antarctic temps on decline for 30 years
Antarctic temps show no sensitivity to increasing CO2
I'm not packing
South Pole amplification
WAIS collapse
We are sure to hear about the Antarctic PIG
I'm still not packing
Hansen 1988:: Antarctic meltdown So how is that going?
Oops!
It has never happened before not even in 1928 or 1932 Maybe there is a cycle involved here somewhere?
Death of Antarctica exaggerated
Antarctic Ice Growing not Melting
Still the sea ice grows
July 2010 - third highest ice peak in satellite record
Antarctic snowfall doubled since 1850
What about the penguins?
Can penguins adapt?
To sum up: South Pole is cooling, sea ice area is expanding, concerns of Antarctica melting are not new, sea surface temps influence Antarctic melt, temps in Antarctica show no sensitivity to CO2 concentration and it is cold there. I'm not packing! Besides, the penguins don't like us.
Welcome to the South Pole
Will we get a report similar to that of 1947?
Al Gore and company revel in confirmation bias. Here is some cognitive dissonance for them. Sorry, Al, no ice loss in Antarctica in last 30 years.
In anticipation of the standard 'the ice is melting' refrain from Gore et al here is some recent research and comment on the Antarctic.
An inconvenient truth: Earth is not melting after all
No need to panic about global warming
SSTs influence Antarctic melt not humans
Both poles melting
OK, maybe not!
Recession of Antarctic ice 3000 feet per year
Antarctic temps on decline for 30 years
Antarctic temps show no sensitivity to increasing CO2
I'm not packing
South Pole amplification
WAIS collapse
We are sure to hear about the Antarctic PIG
I'm still not packing
Hansen 1988:: Antarctic meltdown So how is that going?
Oops!
It has never happened before not even in 1928 or 1932 Maybe there is a cycle involved here somewhere?
Death of Antarctica exaggerated
Antarctic Ice Growing not Melting
Still the sea ice grows
July 2010 - third highest ice peak in satellite record
Antarctic snowfall doubled since 1850
What about the penguins?
Can penguins adapt?
To sum up: South Pole is cooling, sea ice area is expanding, concerns of Antarctica melting are not new, sea surface temps influence Antarctic melt, temps in Antarctica show no sensitivity to CO2 concentration and it is cold there. I'm not packing! Besides, the penguins don't like us.
Welcome to the South Pole
There is nothing so obvious
to a politician than what she has been led to believe by her own eyes and her advisers. Hilary Clinton, in her role as climatologist, announced that the science is settled on her trip to Western Canada and Alaska in 2005. Global warming was beyond doubt and it is accelerating she believed. In the 6 years since her visit the acceleration has reached this point.
Would a revisit at this time of the year convince Hilary that perhaps she needs to revise her forecast? The huskies might suggest it. Hilary may want to stray in Washington as there is no place like Nome.
Nature loves a sure-fired forecast written in arrogance and certainty. It makes them so easy to mock.
The evil gas CO2 is responsible for all the disastrous weather of the past and present. It seems to be causing a lot of snow this year in the Northern Hemisphere. Even the Sahara got some. We know it causes warming but now it is causing cooling too. It is a remarkably adaptive gas. It is now even being exonerated from these horrible accusations. It just goes to prove that you can't keep a good gas down. It causes warming and cooling and doesn't cause warming and cooling. Climate science is certainly settled with a consensus that can confuse anyone whose brain is still working. So how are the alarmists doing with their predictions based on their understanding of how the climate works? Keeping tabs. Bet they are all wrong.
Would a revisit at this time of the year convince Hilary that perhaps she needs to revise her forecast? The huskies might suggest it. Hilary may want to stray in Washington as there is no place like Nome.
Nature loves a sure-fired forecast written in arrogance and certainty. It makes them so easy to mock.
The evil gas CO2 is responsible for all the disastrous weather of the past and present. It seems to be causing a lot of snow this year in the Northern Hemisphere. Even the Sahara got some. We know it causes warming but now it is causing cooling too. It is a remarkably adaptive gas. It is now even being exonerated from these horrible accusations. It just goes to prove that you can't keep a good gas down. It causes warming and cooling and doesn't cause warming and cooling. Climate science is certainly settled with a consensus that can confuse anyone whose brain is still working. So how are the alarmists doing with their predictions based on their understanding of how the climate works? Keeping tabs. Bet they are all wrong.
It happened before?
This is disconcerting news for those who believe that our current modern 21st century weather is unprecedented. The ice free Arctic was a topic of conversation way back in 1884. Seems that this concern has been of concern before. This is good news. We can breathe easier because this means that our current weather in not unprecedented and a catastrophe is not around the corner. Nature seems to have self-correcting mechanisms for keeping the climate in check. Cycles.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Glaciers: Games Greenies Generate
Games can be played with data to create a desired picture that may direct attention where the author desires while ignoring contrary data that provides a clearer picture of what Nature is really doing. If a picture of rapidly receding glaciers is desired with a conclusion that it must come from the current warming a picture of a glacier in earlier times can be compared to a picture of the same receding glacier in more modern times. Conclusion: the world is warming and warming is the cause of the recession. However, if a third intermediary picture is also presented that shows most of the glacial retreat took place between the first and middle picture then a different conclusion might be drawn, especially if the glacier receded most in the earlier cooler time. Such a farce has been presented by warmists but skeptics have caught on. Read up on glaciers.
Not all glaciers are receding. Some are advancing. Including Norway. Inconvenient truths.
Or let's show via time lapse photography how the Columbia glacier in Alaska retreated thousands of feet in a mere 4 years between 2007 and 2011. Well, it did. But then that kind of hasty retreat has been beat before.
But let's not point that out or people might yawn and ask: didn't that happen when CO2 was lower than now?
Or, let's imply that the modern retreat of Alaskan glaciers is due to human induced CO2 in the atmosphere. We'll forget to mention that glaciers have been retreating since the late 1700s. If CO2 is the cause shouldn't melt be speeding up as CO2 is added to the atmosphere by humans in ever greater quantities? Don't worry about Greenland glaciers. Unlike the economy they are no longer in recession.
Let's imply that the glacial melt is due to a warming trend due to man-made climate change.. Seems reasonable. In Washington State the glaciers have been receding. But the state has been cooling. Whaaaat!! And some glaciers in the State have actually been growing. So what is going on? They grow when it is warm; they grow when it is cold; they shrink when it is warm and they shrink when it is cold. Seems glacial behaviour has little to do with temperature or CO2.
Here is an article from 1952 which shows that glacial retreat was well-known before the late 20th century warming when it suddenly became fashionable to blame CO2 for the change in climate. Let's not mention research which suggests other explanations for glacial retreat.
With all the heat trapping gas we humans are adding to the atmosphere we may soon have glaciers in Texas. As one commenter remarked: "As you know, snow in Texas is a sure sign of a warming planet."
They had the same worries about melting glaciers in 1902 that we have now. European glaciers beat a retreat starting in 1864. This was at a time when SUVs were in short supply. In 1849 people knew that some glaciers had advanced and now occupied land that was formally used for growing corn.
Let's blame black soot and GHGs for the retreat of glaciers in modern times. Except that glaciers have been retreating since the end of the last ice age. Interestingly, as one commenter pointed out Jim Hansen said that Tibet had not warmed in 120 years but the glaciers were receding anyway. Even the experts can't keep their stories straight.
It appears that glaciers have a mind of their own and do not conform to Al Gore's preference for a dependence on human induced CO2 as a cause of their retreat. And some of them will defy the theory of CO2 induced warming and expand when it is warm and shrink when it is cold. How dare they!
Not all glaciers are receding. Some are advancing. Including Norway. Inconvenient truths.
Or let's show via time lapse photography how the Columbia glacier in Alaska retreated thousands of feet in a mere 4 years between 2007 and 2011. Well, it did. But then that kind of hasty retreat has been beat before.
But let's not point that out or people might yawn and ask: didn't that happen when CO2 was lower than now?
Or, let's imply that the modern retreat of Alaskan glaciers is due to human induced CO2 in the atmosphere. We'll forget to mention that glaciers have been retreating since the late 1700s. If CO2 is the cause shouldn't melt be speeding up as CO2 is added to the atmosphere by humans in ever greater quantities? Don't worry about Greenland glaciers. Unlike the economy they are no longer in recession.
Let's imply that the glacial melt is due to a warming trend due to man-made climate change.. Seems reasonable. In Washington State the glaciers have been receding. But the state has been cooling. Whaaaat!! And some glaciers in the State have actually been growing. So what is going on? They grow when it is warm; they grow when it is cold; they shrink when it is warm and they shrink when it is cold. Seems glacial behaviour has little to do with temperature or CO2.
Here is an article from 1952 which shows that glacial retreat was well-known before the late 20th century warming when it suddenly became fashionable to blame CO2 for the change in climate. Let's not mention research which suggests other explanations for glacial retreat.
With all the heat trapping gas we humans are adding to the atmosphere we may soon have glaciers in Texas. As one commenter remarked: "As you know, snow in Texas is a sure sign of a warming planet."
They had the same worries about melting glaciers in 1902 that we have now. European glaciers beat a retreat starting in 1864. This was at a time when SUVs were in short supply. In 1849 people knew that some glaciers had advanced and now occupied land that was formally used for growing corn.
Let's blame black soot and GHGs for the retreat of glaciers in modern times. Except that glaciers have been retreating since the end of the last ice age. Interestingly, as one commenter pointed out Jim Hansen said that Tibet had not warmed in 120 years but the glaciers were receding anyway. Even the experts can't keep their stories straight.
It appears that glaciers have a mind of their own and do not conform to Al Gore's preference for a dependence on human induced CO2 as a cause of their retreat. And some of them will defy the theory of CO2 induced warming and expand when it is warm and shrink when it is cold. How dare they!
Obama writes own Obit: rejects Keystone XL
Obama rejects Keystone XL and, if the Republicans make this a campaign issue, sinks his own re-election effort.
Much better to import oil from mid-eastern thugocracies.
You heard it here first! Or maybe not.
Much better to import oil from mid-eastern thugocracies.
You heard it here first! Or maybe not.
Global warming in Canada
With all the heat trapping gas in the atmosphere from the oil sands Canada is warming at an unprecedented rate. Bundle up!
Western Canada
Montreal
Alberta
And again Alberta and other provinces. Has winter arrived?
NASA to fly above Canadian snowstorms Do we still have them??
Must be all the additional water vapor in the air from the summer warming that has been hanging around until winter to fall as snow when the global warming went into hibernation.
Bawa hahahaha!
Western Canada
Montreal
Alberta
And again Alberta and other provinces. Has winter arrived?
NASA to fly above Canadian snowstorms Do we still have them??
Must be all the additional water vapor in the air from the summer warming that has been hanging around until winter to fall as snow when the global warming went into hibernation.
Bawa hahahaha!
Theory of Climate Change
The theory of climate change says that whatever the climate does is what we predicted it will do and it is due to increasing human induced CO2.
All bases covered. We can't be wrong. Send funding.
All bases covered. We can't be wrong. Send funding.
What happened in 1911?
What a weird year for weather. It turns out that in the hadCRUT temperature record it was the coldest year ever. CO2 was lower than today. However look at what transpired in North America that year. Heat waves and forest fires.Geez, what a world. The weather tends to behave like that.And not just in N. America. But 1911 was also a wet year. Talk about global weirding!
In 1908 one professor believed that the world was drying up because the glaciers were receding. He thought that his grandchildren would want for spring water in many places. Still waiting. Climate changes and fools professors.
In 1908 one professor believed that the world was drying up because the glaciers were receding. He thought that his grandchildren would want for spring water in many places. Still waiting. Climate changes and fools professors.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
It was the SUN and NOT the SUV
Latest research reports that increases in solar flux drove increase in global warming during the late 20th century.
Who'd a thunk it?
Who'd a thunk it?
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
