jump to navigation

Breaking News! It’s Global Warming! No Wait it’s Cooling! No Wait…(Part 1) October 24, 2010

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: ,

Breaking News! It’s Global Warming! No Wait it’s Cooling! No Wait…(Part 1)

By Art Horn and Michael J. Economides
Energy Tribune, October 14, 2010

The world is warming at an unprecedented rate. The dire and irrefutable results of this global temperature heat wave will be starvation, inundation of coastal cities, war and the death of billions and the mass extinction of species. But the latest twist is that now climate change is anthropogenic, man-made, and so we must change the way we live, the way we produce energy or we will kill everyone and the planet. These warnings come to us from reliable news media. We have been alerted to this climate catastrophe for two decades now. Surely all these respected and long-lived newspapers, magazines and television networks can be trusted to tell us what the current state of the climate is and what it will do. At least one would think so.

Interestingly, the history of climate reporting in the press reveals many dirty little inconvenient truths not unlike so many other alarmisms, from the “population bomb” which would have caused the death of two billion people by the 1980s, to aids, which would have infected the majority of Americans by 2000 and, to the Y2K disaster that never came to be. Of course, barely dig into the story and social engineering emerges from politicians, Hollywood stars and assorted activists. In turn, with the support of the ubiquitous “scientists,” they take umbrage for their social aims.

When one looks carefully back at the history of climate stories in the media a remarkably consistent theme re-occurs. It borders to a comedy routine had it not had such massive public impact during the last few years.

Read the rest here



1. Bush bunny - October 25, 2010

I’d love to read Part II!

2. drewski - October 25, 2010

Only this time there are 11 OBSERVATIONAL methods (published by NOAA in 2010) that show conclusively that earth’s oceans and air are warming, Arctic Ice and most glaciers are retreating. This is occuring while the green house gasses are accumulating and the sun is at a historically low energy state.

But, of course, none of this is true because Hal Lewis (not a climate scientist) said so in his resignation letter.

3. honestclimate - October 25, 2010
4. Bush bunny - October 25, 2010

So drewski, what are you suggesting? I believe what the honest climate debate suggests, that the planet independent of AGW is one that will go from
glacial and interglacial periods (the one we are experiencing now and will most probably for the next ?500 years). This is a proven palaeo climate fact.

Considering humans or the biological ancestors have been around for at least 2 million years (forgetting the Australopithicines)and giving us biological evolutionary trends, we have over the last 40k years adapted not only to a glacial period experienced in the Northern Hemisphere (when no agriculture was possible) but post glacial in the last 10,000 years. Started in the Middle East or the Fertile Crescent. We have experienced mini ice ages in between. What the climate alarmists are suggesting that the earth as a planet has experienced warming since the 1850s? All because of human activity. Well it has experienced warming but not from AGW! As before this the Northern Hemisphere experienced a mini ice age from about the 1300s to 1850s, when famine etc., was experienced. It has warmed again (Good) but the global temps have yet to exceed those known during the mini ice age. Or Medieval Warm Period).

It is a political argument from whatever point of view anyone wishes to take. If AGW is a factor in global warming, then stop it? Err – how?

Sustainability, yes. We have to adapt especially for providing food for our global population. Whether the climate gets colder or warmer. Just remember if it gets warmer precipitation will increase, that is important to the growth of plants etc.

Cut CO2 emissions. Forget it CO2 is not a polluter, but billions are being made in the name of this, for carbon traders and alternative energy
suppliers (that will increase the price of energy or fuels to consumers).

What I object to is the lies being spread. For example Bangladesh is flooding because of rising
seas from glacial melting.

Actually Bangladesh needs seasonal flooding to provide them and it has nothing to do with glacial melting. They have a viable agriculture and fishing economy that depends on flooding, so stuff that up the pipe of Dr Pachauri.

5. drewski - October 26, 2010

Bush bunny, I am suggesting that multiple sets of independent observations find a human fingerprint on climate change.

It turns out that the observed global warming has a distinct human fingerprint on it.

In climatology, as in any other science, establishing causation is more complicated than merely establishing an effect. However, there are a number of lines of evidence that have helped to convince climate scientists that the current global warming can be attributed to human greenhouse gas emissions (in particular CO2). Here are just some of them:

10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change

The first four pieces of evidence show that humans are raising CO2 levels:

1. Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.
2. Oxygen levels are falling as if carbon is being burned to create carbon dioxide.
3. Fossil carbon is building up in the atmosphere. (We know this because the two types of carbon have different chemical properties.)
4. Corals show that fossil carbon has recently risen sharply.

Another two observations show that CO2 is trapping more heat:

5. Satellites measure less heat escaping to space at the precise wavelengths which CO2 absorbs.
6. Surface measurements find this heat is returning to Earth to warm the surface.

The last four indicators show that the observed pattern of warming is consistent with what is predicted to occur during greenhouse warming:

7. An increased greenhouse effect would make nights warm faster than days, and this is what has been observed.
8. If the warming is due to solar activity, then the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) should warm along with the rest of the atmosphere. But if the warming is due to the greenhouse effect, the stratosphere should cool because of the heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere). Satellite measurements show that the stratosphere is cooling.
9. This combination of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere should cause the tropopause, which separates them, to rise. This has also been observed.
10. It was predicted that the ionosphere would shrink, and it is indeed shrinking.

Often one hears claims that the attribution of climate change is based on modeling, and that nobody can really know its causes. But here we have a series of empirical observations, all of which point to the conclusion that humans are causing the planet to warm.

6. Bush bunny - October 27, 2010

Sorry Drewski, I do not agree with your belief that AGW and CO2 is responsible or drives climate change. Your suggestions to me are not based on reliable references and have nothing to do with climate change. In fact, just look at the effect on earths’ climate from the sun or solar energy and orbital changes.

GHG is made up of 95% of water vapour (clouds if you like) CO2 makes up 4% of atmospheric GHG. The rest is trace gases or GHG mainly (nitrous oxide, methane, and ozone). 99% of CO2 is naturally produced and 1% is human enhanced. CO2 is a gas, and not a heavy particle pollutant.

Certainly, when clouds are over a land base, they not only provide rain, but also blanket the earth
and keep it cooler or warmer depending on which season they arrive. So one can say that CO2 being
a small percentage of GHG can warm the earth. Or the land environment.

Why do you think that frost does not develop when there is cloud covering, or why in desert areas
temperatures during the day, can reach 50C and without cloud cover drop to minus C? And they do.

If and have alarmists suggested that removing water vapor from the equation of GHG (Greenhouse gases) C02 is the largest percentage of GHG, even though it is the smallest actually in comparison to water vapor.(Sorry for removing the ‘u’ from vapor!) Spell check on American spellings.

We are a carbon based planet, so are all living organisms naturally carbon based. As are our minerals. Carbon is our friend not enemy. CO2 is a gas integral to our atmosphere, not a pollutant. Heavy carbon particles not gas are pollutants. (i.e., carbon emmissions from industry that create smog and sulphur from volcano eruptions) We are also a natural ice planet. We are experiencing (thank Gawd?) a natural interglacial period,(since 10,000 years ago approximately in the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere, where most humans were living in the SH then but others like Australian Aborigines in the Southern Hemisphere survived for 60k years here. Humans in NA only are known since 10,000 years ago) that will get warmer and then colder during this era,like the Medieval Warm Period (800s to 1300s) and Mini Ice Age in the Northern Hemisphere from 1350s to 1850s) and one day we might plunge into another severe glacial period! We can expect that one day this planet will cool as it is right now gradually (The sun and our orbit will dictate this and we can’t do anything to control this but pray we can adapt and eventually survive?). I’ll be long dead then and so will you when another full glacial period arrives and makes part of Northern America (certainly Canada down to the Great Lakes) and Northern parts of Europe and Asia unliveable because they won’t be able to provide food production for their populations. But we and all living organisms survive better in a warmer period, (seasonal of course depending of where you live on this planet) when plant life and those living organisms including us and other animals, survive better because we eat plant life or their bi-products including animals we breed who have to live on pastures. And have sufficient water naturally provided and conserved to provide fertility in our soils and the microbiology in them that aid plant fertility and growth.

I live in Australia. And on the Northern Tablelands of NSW (in Armidale that is 3,500 ft above sea level). We experience 4 definite seasons, unlike other areas of Australia and NSW. In fact the catch word for Armidale is we are a City of Four Seasons, and we can experience them in one day sometimes! We also have a lot of deciduous trees and fruit trees here too. Frost and snow too in Winter.

I don’t know where you get your info from, but
it sounds secular and supporting the belief of AGW remember, we live in our immediate atmosphere.
We breathe and so do our plants and animals 78%
Nitrogen, 24% Oxygen, and the rest trace gases like CO2. And the higher areas of our atmosphere
have no absolute no oxygen and if the ionosphere is shrinking well – how can you prove it? And how will that relate to our breathable atmosphere.

As you know I live 3,500 absl. Now the scientific equation is that water boils at 100 C
that is a known scientific fact.

But where I live it boils at 97.5 C. Just meaning
models and also those who reckon CO2 from AGW (only) is based on false data and equations and not taking in account variables.

So am I to assume that the scientific recognised
equation that water boils at 100 C is incorrect.
Sure! At 3,500 ft about sea level it is! Get my gist?

Climate change based on AGW is bullshit. And unscientific. However, as I say this, sustainability is not. I don’t breath beyond our natural atmosphere. Nor do our plants and animals, earth or ocean based. CO2 is a natural and important gas that should not be discouraged.
And certainly not taxed. However, without carbon
taxation or a fixed price, maybe we will be pushed into a better understanding of greening the earth to the betterment of all, not just investors.

Bush bunny

BA Archaeology and Palaeoantropology (University of New England (2005)
Cert IV Agricultural (Biological/Organic) Production (2009)
Diploma in Agricultural (Biological/Organic) Production (2010)

7. drewski - October 28, 2010

Bush bunny – What a confusing and meandering post. Please tell me the relevance of boiling water at 97.5C and how it disproves satellite observations showing a decrease in heat radiating out into space at the same wave length of CO2? You metion something about gas is not a pollutant and then somehow you jump to the conclusion that AGW is bullshit. Huh?

And pleeeeeeeeeeease! give these climate scientists some credit — atmospheric physicists do study water vapor; astro-physicists are aware of the sun; and paleo-climatologists know something about past climate — believe me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: