Climategate: Why Obama switched his Copenhagen itinerary
Originally, President Barack Obama was supposed to attend the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen for the beginning of the conference on Monday, Dec. 7, bless the occasion and leave. Lately we have heard he switched his itinerary to be there at the end of the two weeks in order to give his blessing and impetus to the decision itself. That’s the conventional wisdom anyway, but I am growing suspicious. Things are falling apart with amazing rapidity for the man-made global warming movement, not just because UN’s own climate chief is getting cold feet.
There’s more, as they say. The Daily Telegraph and The American Thinker are reporting today on what could be smoking guns. Could it be that by pushing back his appearance Obama was just buying time so that, if things go really awry, he doesn’t have to show up at all? Well, the conventional wisdom may still be right on this one, but the way things are going…
Update on non-warming in Copenhagen: As the Copenhagen bandwagon commences, it is perhaps amusing to study some weather information readily available on the internet. I apologize that the figures are not absolutely precise because they are taken from graphs at weatheronline.co.uk. Anyone can check my calculations, which took about 20 minutes and were not taxpayer funded. In the last 28 years (as far as the online records go back), the highest temperature in Copenhagen in December was 11 degrees C and that was back in 1983. Over these years, the average highest December temperature was around 7 C. Today, the high is expected to be, surprise surprise, 7 C, exactly the same as the average of the last 28 years and 4 degrees COOLER than the high of the last 28 years. Can we please have a reality check. Perhaps the eminent delegates are not aware?
Roger your theory of Obama’s political calculations are very likely correct, but what none of the skeptics have explained is why are the snows of Kilimanjaro melting, the Arctic sea is so ice free as to make the dream of a Northwest passage a reality. Maybe man is causing this maybe mother nature I don’t know. What I would like is for both sides to address the problems of their position. With those on this site who believe there is no Global Warming then why are the glaciers and arctic ice melting? Those of the warming view why do you have to manipulate the data to prove your case? Let us have an honest discussion instead of just screaming past one another.
Joseph:
It’s because no one believes lefties anymore. I mean even the credulous have given up on the left. Thinking people never believed you, but now even the slowest are catching on.
Joseph: You know, there’s a reason why the North West Passage has the name it does.
Joseph,
they just came out with the definative report explaining Mt. K and its snow (not CO2). And the artic sea ice is back up to normal and is projected to grow again this winter. Your info is dated by a year or 2. Perhaps you should use that Al Gore invention to study up. Its obvious you haven’t even looked to see if there has been anything on Mt. K and the artic ice.
Joseph,
Things have fluctuated forever in weather and temps. An open discussion, taking years, would be nice and what usually happens….however the AlGores and their kind are much more interested in $ than in actual science, and the open discussion would likely push the money back years, and might even give the opposite result they wish.
Copenhagen, meet bus.
Kilimanjaro is a mountain in Africa that is 19,331 ft high.
At 8,000 ft. the temperature is 23.3 degrees Fahrenheit.
(http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html)
That’s right Joseph! Above 8,000 feet, the temp on Kilimanjaro is BELOW FREEZING. ALL the time!
Ice doesn’t melt when it is below freezing. What is happening on top of Kilimanjaro is ablation, which has been caused by the deforestation of the slopes by people cutting down trees for firewood for cooking.
The reduced number of trees has decreased the local levels of humidity.
Here is another tip for you. Burning coal is much better for the environment than burning wood; you get much less pollution burning coal.
As for ice, the North West passage was passable in the 1930′s. Not so much now,
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40046
though is was more passable in 2007.
In the UK, nearly all the MSM are running alarmists stories today to try to rally support for the train-wreck of global warmism. Most amusingly, the bbc news site is reporting a poll that shows concern over global warming is rising around the world. When was the poll conducted, you ask? Between June and Oct 2009 – it stopped polling about a month before the hoax was exposed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8396512.stm
#3 Joseph
“With those on this site who believe there is no Global Warming …”
I am sure there are not many that do not believe in Global Warming. Most of the sceptics are AGW (anthropogenic (i.e. man-caused) Global Warning) sceptics meaning that they do not subscibe to the “belief” that the global warming is caused by man. There is, and always has been, climate change, just that the latest warming (now cooling) trend is not caused by man. (More likely linked to sunspot activity if you ask me.)
@ Joseph
Yes they have. For Kilimanjaro, see Kaser et al (2004)and http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-shrinking-glaciers-of-kilimanjaro-can-global-warming-be-blamed/8
Joseph:
re joseph
“Roger your theory of Obama’s political calculations are very likely correct, but what none of the skeptics have explained is why are the snows of Kilimanjaro melting, the Arctic sea is so ice free as to make the dream of a Northwest passage a reality. Maybe man is causing this maybe mother nature I don’t know. What I would like is for both sides to address the problems of their position. With those on this site who believe there is no Global Warming then why are the glaciers and arctic ice melting? Those of the warming view why do you have to manipulate the data to prove your case? Let us have an honest discussion instead of just screaming past one another”
Joseph: look at this
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
surprise surperise, as of todat arctic ice is within one sd of 1979-2006 averages
2007 was an anamoly
Joseph, I don’t believe in man-made global warming. It’s not the falsified data, it’s not because the earth is going through a cooling period now in spite of GHG emissions increasing, it’s not because climate change scientists refuse to address the doubts and contrary evidence of others by threatening them and having them blacklisted from publishing their work or that their hockey stick program shows the same results no matter what data is fed into it or that ALL of their predictions have failed to materialize and it isn’t because the proposed cure is to transfer billions, if not trillions of dollars from western countries to failed states in order to combat the effects of global warming.
It’s because of all of those things. All together they make a compelling case that AGW is a socialist fraud on a global scale. It doesn’t matter if insider trading manipulates a stock up or down, it’s fraud. If the snow melts on Kilamanjaro it’s global warming, if the snow comes back it’s climate change. Someone is going to make money. That’s how fraud works.
It’s always dubious to ascribe a local phenomenon to a global cause. When the weather turns warm in Peoria, is that planetary or municipal? The real question is why anybody still thinks of carbon dioxide as a cause of warming when we have seen no statistically significant warming for over a decade in spite of a clear, undisputed rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. Now that we have abundant evidence of the hoaxes behind the IPCC report, the burden of proof rests on the warmers, not their opponents. If we can get the warmers to stop ascribing literally anything and everything to warming — including cold snaps, snowstorms and all other weather — we can think about discussing things rationally. The first step in that process would be if we could all agree that a normal global climate is an abstraction with no relevance; all climate is local, and normal always includes lots of constant change. It will get warmer, it will get colder, and there’s no predicting. We should have agreed on that long ago, but…politics intervened.
Joseph
An honest discussion would be nice, but it is difficult to have one when one side makes data-based claims (claims, I might add, that will cost trillions of dollars and drastically alter the way we live) then refuses to share that data and their methodology. Given the excessive costs and changes that result from a belief in AGW, it is up to AGW proponents to prove it, not up to skeptics to disprove it.
That said, I would love to have AGW explained but the “scientists” cannot seem to explain it to us, constantly telling us we are too stupid to understand it.
This is, for me, very telling. The folks on both ends of those e-mails are college professors. It is their job to explain things in a way that is understandable. Yet, they cannot do it.
I am a college professor myself (Ph.D. in a non-climate-related technical field, though I also teach statistics). Any competent teacher will tell you that to successfully teach how something works, one must first understand how it works (one cannot teach how to, say, subnet an IP network without understanding how to do it in the first place — reading steps from a PowerPoint slide does not constitute teaching). The fact that these climate scientologists cannot explain it to anybody outside of their circle suggests to me that they don’t really understand what is going on.
Their arrogant refusal to share their data, computer code, and methods while corrupting the peer-review process and scientific method only adds to my skepticism.
Benson, not so fast. Google up CO2 detectors and find out how many have been placed in high CO2 footprint areas (like the ones on Mauna Loa near the erupting volcanos) similar to putting temp detectors in artificially hot spots.
Joseph,
The agenda driven people at Copenhagen need to prove not only warming, which was apparently real but may have stopped, but also that it is both unprecedented and man-made. In order to do this they attempted to erase the MWP and LIA to show a flat graph with a sudden rise in the late 20th century. Houdini was never that good.
Remember the Fluorocarbon (Freon, CFC) crisis?
It has been CONCUSIVELY shown that reducing CFCs DID repair the Arctic ozone hole, but now that ozone levels are higher (by the way, ozone is HARMFUL to humans), it is causing COOLING in the Antarctic.
An ozone shield reduces heat received to the earth from the SUN and increases heat losses by radiation to outer space. The net change is to COOL THE EARTH. [www.digitaljournal.com/article/283297].
Environmentalists FIX one problem and CAUSE another.
LEAVE MOTHER NATURE ALONE. She is smarter than any environmentalist, and certainly more honest.
“Roger your theory of Obama’s political calculations are very likely correct, but what none of the skeptics have explained is why are the snows of Kilimanjaro melting…”
Time to find a new talking point:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dutch-gore-wrong-on-snows-of-kilimanjaro/
“why are the snows of Kilimanjaro melting, the Arctic sea is so ice free as to make the dream of a Northwest passage a reality. Maybe man is causing this maybe mother nature I don’t know.”
OK. First K’s glaciers ARE melting. Shockingly, the scientific consensus in this instance is that local weather patterns no longer bring the moisture needed to sustain them. It has nothing to do with AGW. Only the press and a few alamists tout this canard.
Secondly, the fact is that Antartic ice is increasing. Increasing. Now north to the Arctic, ice extent has decreased over the last couple decades but is FAR from “ice free” and in decades LONG past has actually been lower. If you look at graphs of ice coverage, there is more ice there now than in the last several years. More unfounded hysterical exaggeration by ideologs and their minions in the press.
http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com is a source of facts and scientific details you won’t find on TV or in the NYT.
I had no idea anybody was seriously disputing the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels! Does this mean that the new “deniers” will try to argue that IF the gas were increasing, temperatures would be rising, so the mechanism of AGW is a fact?? LOL….
Problem is while those of us who have followed McIntyre’s Climate Audit website on the Briffa’s Yamal series scandal “get it”, most folks cannot follow the technical stuff or dont have the patience.
Both yesterday’s articles in AT, and the UK Telegraph were excellent and easy to follow but I’m still not sure if its enough to educate the public over how this so-called “consensus” has been cooked.
I think it will take another peer-reviewed paper on the Briffa and Jones machinations from Steve McIntyre to blow the IPCC’s finding wide open.
In the end i believe it will be honest scientists that start breaking rank and speaking up over what is clearly the greatest scientific fraud in modern history.
I also think this scandal will eventually bury the Democrats electorally for a generation, as Boxer et al still wont accep the game is up. The longer they apologise for the scandal the worse the Dems will end up looking.
If i were a Dem, i would be really worried we are going to overcook the pudding.
Joseph:
Roger your theory of Obama’s political calculations are very likely correct, but what none of the skeptics have explained is why are the snows of Kilimanjaro melting, the Arctic sea is so ice free as to make the dream of a Northwest passage a reality.
Joseph,
Your wish is my command. Snows of Kilimanjaro melting – even AGW alarmists now agree that the problem at Kilimanjaro isn’t that the smow is melting or melting faster, the probelm is that it doesn’t snow on the mountain anymore. The snow that fell on the mountain top was a result of there being a rain forest at the base of mountain, the moist air was constantly pushed up slope which resulted in snow at elevation. The rain forest is gone – cut down, without the moist air, no more snow. Nothing to do with global warming, it’s land use changes.
Arctic sea ice free? – the northwest passage wasn’t a dream, it was open during the summer at the turn of last century, and again in the 1930s and 40s. In 2007, the arctic sea ice reached a summer low ice point that was a record for the period of 1979 to present, but has rebounded, total sea ice this year reached an all time record high again for ’79 to present. The real problem is that we only have 30 years of data – global temperatures seem to have about a 30 year cycle of up and then down (likely related to the 20-30 year PDO cycle), so the only data we have is from the end of the last cooling (late 70′s) thru to the start of the recent cooling – in other words one warming cycle. There’s no way of knowing what a true average is for arctic sea ice – the data doesn’t exist, and won’t exist for a least another 30 years. Don’t worry too much though, contrary to what is reported in newspapers, the entire arctic basin freezes solid every year, and then melts back in a very predictable manner. The only differences we are discussing is the extent at the low point, a few weeks either side of the end of summer. In other words, for 9 months every year, the extent of arctic sea ice doesn’t vary at all, regardless of whether it’s cold or warm.
Joseph (or anyone else)
If you are interested in seeing actual temperature data (and how NASA and Goddard are falsifying the record)for Africa and elsewhere check out E.M. Smith’s blog at:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
He also has the scoop on Kilimanjaro at the very end of his post on Africa at
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/ncdc-ghcn-africa-by-altitude/
For Himalayan glaciers check out
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/global-warming-and-glacier-melt-down-debate-a-tempest-in-a-teapot/
For an excellent summary on the sound science:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_inconvenient_science.pdf
Let’s hope you’re right Roger about the Obama strategy.
For climate change alarmist only……
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGdbHW9Nlds
Here’s an article that explains the polar regions:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/global_warmists_sly_polar_diso.html
I grew up in southern Minnesota and I remember on more than one occasion our teachers telling us that 10,000-12,000 years ago our school would have been covered with a mile of ice. Geologically speaking that amount of time is a blink of the eye. In fact, historically speaking, it is not that long ago. I am more than happy to see retreating glaciers all over the world. I suspect that this development has more to do with a long range warming cycle than with anthropogenic factors. If I should live so long and it does come to pass I will be more concerned with advancing glaciers in the Canadian Rockies or Mt. Kilimanjaro than with the warming breezes enabling agriculture to flourish where formerly only ice was piled thickly and deeply.
No one is disputing that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased. What we deniers are disputing is the claim that CO2 concentration causes atmospheric temperature changes. This claim was disproven several years ago. (See Vostok ice cores)
Also, CO2 doesn’t regulate climate. There are many factors that regulate climate in a highly complex, poorly understood, chaotic system of which CO2 is a very minor one.
The entire global warming/climate change scam is based on easily manipulated computer models whose predictions contrast sharply with actual measurements. The models can’t even predict the past so their reliability in predicting the future is suspect at best. The warmists are manipulating the data, have turned the scientific method on its head and have resorted to endlessly repeating blatant lies and ad hominem to support their claims.
The warmists began with a hypothesis, reached a conclusion and now cherry pick and create evidence to support their claims, rejecting all contrary evidence.
My position is that there is no global warming or climate change and never has been. The entire “theory” is made up from whole cloth to frighten people into accepting authoritarian collectivism.
What we are seeing is cyclical fluctuation within the known range of variability. Everything that has been observed and most of what is predicted is known to have happened before, long before the industrial age.
I think the fact that India and China suddenly jumped on board instead of continuing their strategy of holding out for a better deal says that they think the whole thing is going pear shaped. Billions in hand for nothing are better than additional billions in the bush that might now be taking flight.
Perhaps it would more appropriate to use the term ‘heretics’ instead of ‘deniers’.
Benson, according to ice core data it is temperature driving the rise of CO2 by an eight hundred year lag. It takes time to percolate gases out of the oceans. It is possible that a current rise in CO2 is the result of a large scale, long-term event that happened to the climate in the thirteenth century. And what happened back then… the medieval warming.
I sense you need to read a little more before using juvenile name-calling like ‘deniers’ directed against those who simply do not believe what you believe.
People that use the term ‘deniers’ remind me of Bible thumpers that believe and mimic anything they are told by fervent preachers; people who will not merely open the book and educate themselves.
Joseph, in comment 3, wrote:
What I would like is for both sides to address the problems of their position.
Few skeptics assert that there has been NO global warming. Certainly, since the end of the Little Ice Age, temperatures have risen — thankfully! As a result, it is not unusual or unexpected to see glacial retreat or other consequences of warming.
What’s more, in some places those melting and retreating glaciers have revealed evidence of past human habitation — meaning that at some point in the distant past, far before we were emitting CO2, temperatures got warm enough to melt that same glacier.
But there are really three main issues:
1) How MUCH has it warmed? Is the surface temperature record reliable?
There is considerable evidence that it is not. Ross McKitrick has done a peer-reviewed study showing that much of the warming correlates with increases in human economic activity, indicating that the surface record is still contaminated by Urban Heat Island effect.
Go here to see the study: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MM.JGRDec07.pdf
Go here to see how the IPCC completely ignores this problem ( and also to see other evidence of blatant bias on the part of the supposedly “independent“ IPCC):
http://ross.mckitrick.googlepages.com/McKitrick.final.pdf
And above all — maintain some perspective here. Even if you accept the temperature record as it now stands, we are talking about LESS than 1 degree C of alleged warming over a century and a half.
2) How much of the warming is due to human-induced CO2 and how much is natural?
A central issue here is the Medieval Warm Period. If it existed, it shows that temperatures can go up as a result of purely natural processes. The alarmists have relied on tree ring data which allegedly shows that temperatures were stable in the past. Based on tree ring data, Michael Mann produced the so-called “hockey stick” graph, which shows a long period of very stable temperatures — with NO Medieval Warm Period — until the second half of the 20th century, which then shows a dramatic rise.
However, Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit.org has shown that Mann’s statistical method used to produce the “hockey stick” is flawed and will, in fact, produce a “hockey stick” shape when only 5% of the underlying data shows such a shape. Go to ClimateAudit.org and read his analyses.
Go here for a summary of the flaws in the hockey stick diagram:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
See also this: http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf
And here is something you may not realize. The leaked CRU e-mail in which Phil Jones refers to a “trick” to “hide the decline” does not refer to “hiding the decline” in temperatures that we’ve seen for the last few years. Rather, it refers to the fact that many of the tree ring studies show DECLINING tree ring widths, indicating COLDER temperatures during the last half of the 20th century. THAT is what he’s seeking to hide.
Why? Because this decline calls into question the very notion that tree rings are reliable temperature indicators. If tree rings fail to show the warming of the 20th century, they may well have failed to show the warming of the Medieval Warm Period.
The individuals that have constructed the numerous global climate models on which the AGW claims depend state unequivocally that the ONLY way they can get those models to show warming is by using a CO2 forcing coupled with a water vapor feedback. But if warming has occurred in the past without CO2, that proves the models are incomplete and do not include all the natural factors affecting climate.
There is another problem with the models — one that most of the public does not know about. ALL of the models agree that if CO2-induced warming occurs, the greatest warming will be in the tropical troposphere, the atmosphere some 10,000 feet up around the equator. Here, according to ALL of the models, the warming will be greater than what is seen at the surface. But the satellite data, as well as radiosonde data from weather balloons, shows very little warming at this point, significantly less than what the surface records show.
Until this can be explained, the climate models cannot be considered valid.
3) If warming does occur, what will be the effects?
Here, we are bombarded by what is almost purely speculation. The scary scenarios of seas rising to flood cities and droughts destroying the world’s agriculture are based on so-called “runaway heating”. Allegedly, as CO2 levels rise, the atmosphere heats up which in turn heats the oceans, causing them to release more CO2, causing still more heating, etc. Eventually, we are told, we will reach a “tipping point” where the process gets out of control, the world heats up 10 or 15 degrees and becomes a “planet hothouse“, melting the world’s ice caps which floods the coastal regions, etc.
Trouble is, CO2 levels have been as much as 20 times higher in the past than they are at present and such “runaway” heating did not occur — the world did not turn into a “planet hothouse” inhospitable to man.
Go here and scroll down to see a long-term record of past CO2 levels and temperatures.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
What that graph indicates is that we are at historically LOW levels of CO2 and temperatures.
This, of course, is only a portion of the evidence that exists on the issue of “global warming”. I offer it, not as an exhaustive review, for it certainly is not — but only as an illustration of the some of the main points of the skeptics arguments — only to deal with what you consider the “skeptic’s weaknesses”. I hope as a result you will be encouraged to read the links I’ve provided and think for yourself.
Latest from my UEA contact…..
My contact (a PhD student) says that this guy is Scottish so definitely not beholding to Westminster…closes with “We’ll see.”
Sir Muir Russell to head the Independent Review into the allegations against the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
Today the University of East Anglia (UEA) announced that Sir Muir Russell KCB FRSE will head the Independent Review into allegations made against the Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
The Independent Review will investigate the key allegations that arose from a series of hacked e-mails from CRU. The review will:
1. Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.
2. Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.
3. Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (‘the FOIA’) and the Environmental Information Regulations (‘the EIR’) for the release of data.
4. Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds.
Sir Muir will have the discretion to amend or add to the terms of reference if he feels necessary, devise his own methods of working, and call on appropriate expertise in order to investigate the allegations fully.
The University has asked for the Review to be completed by Spring 2010 and this will be made public along with UEA’s response.
Announcing the Independent Review, Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor said: “The reputation and integrity of UEA is of the upmost importance to us all. We want these allegations about CRU to be examined fully and independently. That is why I am delighted that Sir Muir has agreed to lead the Independent Review and he will have my and the rest of University’s full support.”
Sir Muir Russell, Head of the Independent Review, said: “I agreed very willingly to Professor Acton’s request to undertake this Independent Review. Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the University or the Climate Science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find. My first task is to scope the project, gather the information I need and source the additional expertise that will be required in order to investigate fully the allegations that have been made. Once this has happened I will be in a position to confirm timescales for publishing the review.”
Ends
palin said “jump”.
obama said…
Joseph:
The whole AGW theory is based on Increasing emissions=increasing temps.
For the past 10 years We have been Increasing emissions, but we have had DECREASING temps.
Nobody is denying there was global warming.
We are just saying the relationship was TEMPORAL, NOT CAUSAL as evidenced by the facts, i.e., temperature drops for 10 years despite increasing and cumulative effects of emissions.
It is not emotional or rabid to keep repeating these simple facts.
Rog, I think you are giving Team 44 too much credit.
Or perhaps it because then he can say he tried, but not be blamed or ridiculed for going and not helping the cause.
Its all unraveling now, the scheme is standing alone and has no clothes on and the bare bones of the fraud is there for everyone to see. Obama if nothing else is a master of perpetrating a fraud and would see that any one involved is going to become a laughing stock so already he is backing away. Those that hang on to this are going to do time in prison, have their reputation ruined or have people laughing at them. It was a religion and not science, it was a money maker and not science, it over and time for Algorical to come up with another one. How about weather control to “save the children.”
SDN:”Google up CO2 detectors and find out how many have been placed in high CO2 footprint areas (like the ones on Mauna Loa near the erupting volcanos) similar to putting temp detectors in artificially hot spots.”
No, it isn’t. First, the problem isn’t “temp detectors in artificially hot spots.” The problem is temp detectors in spots whose artificial heating is greater now than it was in the past. For example, if a thermometer is next to asphalt pavement or an air conditioner, you know it will read higher now relative to its location’s readings 100 (or 60) years ago, because there was essentially no black pavement then, and no air conditioners.
But a constant locally elevated temperature does not result in artificial increases! (If the local temp was equally elevated 150 years ago, as due to a permanent feature, there would be no artificial trend.)
To get back to the Hawaiian CO2 levels: They have been increasing with extraordinary regularity for a natural phenomenon, for the past 50 years. If they were due to local volcanic activity, they would not be increasing so smoothly. They would almost certainly be moving erratically, in line with normal volcanic activity.
Further, unlike temperature, CO2 levels are known to be remarkably constant across the earth, except immediately near and downwind from such sources as coal plants and volcanoes. No one has shown deviances from the Hawaii readings which would undermine their accuracy.
Well, Joseph, it seems you have received quite a lot of information in response to your request – I may be wrong, but I didn’t see anyone attack you ad hominem; in fact, most folks seemed happy to share knowledge with you.
Assuming you’ve continued to read these comments, what does all that information mean to you?
IOpian 32, I was joking. Your CO2 facts are straight, as far as I know, and I’m well aware of the lag. I am so sick of being called a denier, and mocked as a conspiracy theorist, that I wanted to have some fun at the expense of the AWG cult. Sorry I put it so I was misunderstood!
Here’s part 1 of vid series on “Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause?” You’ll find the other parts once you get there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related
Greenland was warm enough to grow grapes a thousand years ago, and the early Scandinavian settlers called it Vineland. Then came the Little Ice Age. Those settlements vanished because the inhabitants, strangely, refused to eat fish when crops could no longer be grown and there was no grazing for animals. So they starved to death.
I followed your link to the article on DeBoer and he said:
“De Boer defended the rigorous review process by some 2,500 scientists of climate change research as solid and thorough. “I think this is about the most credible piece of science that there is out there,” he said.”
Yes, but what about the scientists? Does conspirining to destroy data to avoid FOI requests, which is illegal, sit well with you Herr DeBoer?
Here’s some eye candy that illustrates the issue of “value-added” data:
http://i46.tinypic.com/2akb9j.jpg
http://i46.tinypic.com/t63qxe.jpg
http://i49.tinypic.com/r245ex.jpg
NEW ICE AGE
The period between ice ages has been approximately 10,000 years. The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago. The “little” ice age began in about 1300. Rename the “little ice age”. Make it the “opening phase” of a new ice age. Therefore we must find away to START GLOBAL WARMING right away. CO2 will not work, but releasing a lot of methane might.
The frothing warmists often made noises about skeptics being “traitors” and “denialists” (a.k.a. deniers of the (Jewish and other) Holocaust during the second World War). Shall I expect the warmists to now be arrested and tried for treason to the human race, for being contemptible denialists of the simple reality that the Sun is almost wholly responsible for warming and cooling?
Re: Comment #42
Now, Joseph, if I may, let me suggest an experiment. Take some of the major issues concerning AGW that have been outlined here. Go to some of the left-wing general discussion blogs (Daily Kos – hmmm, that may be a bit hyperbolic, try The Huffington Post, or others) and post there asking for an explanation of these issues. Compare and contrast the tenor and tone of those responses to the responses here. I suspect that the difference will be striking – and most illuminating.
Re: Joesph/comment 3
The reason the glaciers are receding is found in the link above to the American Thinker. There is a temperature chart which shows global warming since the end of the Little Ice Age (1850). This became clear to me when I visited Glacier Bay in Alaska this year. The National Park Service gave us a map which indicated what George Vancouver saw there in the late 1700′s. Glacier Bay was totally covered in glacial ice. When John Muir came the late 1800′s the glaciers had retreated considerably and they continue to do so as the earth returns to temperatures that existed before the LIA. AGW had nothing to do with the glacial recession then and probably has no impact now.
Obie does not want to be associated with any more failures. The stimulus and CAsh for clunkers must still be stinging.
Carol Browner’s EPA already wants to do what Cap & Trade is trying to do. The negative fallout will be absolute for Obama. Watch him trying to blame Bush when many coal businesses go out of business due to the EPA’s new guidelines to tax oxygen. Our little recession is about to turn into a depression. Melt the phones.
When one looks at all the planets in our solar system, there is undeniable evidence of “warming” or energy intensification – so to speak.
All the planets are gaining atmospheric energies that go unexplained.
When taking into account that the earth is gaining more energy through the poles just like the other planets, this would explain the melting of the ice caps.
All of these discussions really skirt the issue of pollution and the planetary caretaker responsibility of humans on earth.
Is Jon Voight there with you?
How do we know that the “hide-the-decline” tree rings are wrong and thermometers are right? Maybe the tree rings are right and the thermometers are wrong owing to “heat island effect” and other factors?
Heres the deal. Global warming IS real, its the phenomonon that makes the earth warmer than mars, (that be 70 below zero) thus making your insignificant existence possible. Its the best friend humanity has, other than God and nuclear energy. Energy doesnt sit around and coagulate like the overeducated con men at the UN would lead you to believe, it gets expressed according to the laws of thermodynamics. I have been saying for years that this is a con to conjur up some sort of tax, and as it turns out, its the new world orders basis for turning the uninformed to them for a snake oil solution. But hey, what did you expect from a thieving treasonous maggot like gore and a bunch of neo- socialist eggheads who obviously know so much more than we do? Just call us obedient drones in their new world order. Hey, they never fooled me. Rome grew wine grapes in the british isles in thier hayday. Not so today. Ancient maps show parts of the antarctic coast with no ice, and these were mapped on sailing ships. The oceans have been high enough to green the arabian land mass, and low enough to form the continental shelf. Think the thieves at the UN dont know this? Why do you think American schools stopped teaching history and started teaching social studies? They didnt want the populace to know. Oh well, sorry guys, we just aint as stupid as you need us to be. The ONLY constant in climate is the constant change. Only the egomaniacs in the UN could convince themselves in the face of the actual data that mankind is causing the changes they are pointing out. I will debate ANY egghead or charlatain live in a public forum in these issues, and I have not much more education than your typical neanderthal. When the truth is on YOUR side, what more do you need? And its on MY side, always was. I stopped getting several magazines because of their shameless kowtowing to the environMENTAL con men and thier shameless minions. Sorry guys, this crisis went to waste. And some friends and I are taking up a collection for the hacker who did this for him to come get. With his skills, Ill just leave it in a secure UN account so he can just take it.
Whether or not the ice caps are melting and the poor polar bears are in jeopardy is irrelevant. Species come and go. Adjust and adapt or die off. That has been the way of life forms since the planet was formed. The dinosaurs didn’t adapt and they died. The dodo bird didn’t adapt and they died. So, too, will the human species whether it is in 100 years or 1,000,000 years. We all have to adjust or adapt or we die.
To believe that the human footprint on the tides of the climate bears any weight is lunacy. The climate changes in 100 and 1,000 year cycles and nothing humans can do can change or forestall the change.
We all want clean air and clean water and to make our world a better place to be, but to pretend anything we do is going to make a difference on a global scale is simply retarded.
Nothing we do will stop the next ice age or the next warming trend. We’re just not that f*cking important in the grand scheme of things.
To be honest, I don’t think Climategate has registered with most lefties, let alone those inside the sycophantic White House echo chamber. After all, it has received only token coverage by most mainstream media outlets, Fox TV only reaches some of those with cable, and not everyone listens to Rush… Remember rule #1 for understanding the actions and motivations of this administration: It’s All About Obama. Period. If they were smarter and/or more competent than they appear to be, I would presume that Obama’s handlers had done some wrangling behind the scenes in advance to make sure the “fix” was in, so Obama could swoop in at the last minute, give a speech, and come home victorious on the world stage by taking credit for an agreement that was really a fait accompli all along… Based on the fact that his handlers instead appear to have competence in short supply and hubris in excess, I think they may sincerely believe that by swooping in at the last minute and giving an impassioned speech, the force of his personality and international popularity will be enough to sway the uncooperative nations of the world… That was their plan for the Olympics after all…one wonders, idly, what lessons they derived from that experience…?
As Physicist Freeman Dyson phrases it, global warming isn’t global. Virtually all of the warming that’s occurred in the recent past has occurred in the northern hemisphere, and mostly at night, as one would suspect any human caused warming would be—from land use.
http://www.infowars.com/globalist-hypocrites-arrive-in-copenhagen-for-summit/
While readying speeches about how the middle class will be forced to lower their living standards, pay higher taxes on all forms of travel, and make personal sacrifices in order to save the planet from the alleged menace of CO2 Copenhagen globalists will be relaxing on the 140 extra private jets that are being forced to drop off attendees in Copenhagen and then fly back to other airports and even other countries just to park due to the lack of spaces.
Elitists will scoff scallops foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges while lecturing the general public about how eating meat is harming the earth.
And while the climate crooks wag their finger at you for having the audacity to own an SUV, they will be running up a bill of over $200 million dollars, and guess who is going to be picking up the tab?
“According to an analysis by the Taxpayer’s Alliance a conservative cost of Copenhagen is £130million.
It includes £6.3million on flights, £20million on hotels and £3.3million on food,reports the Daily Mail.
“The figure also includes the salaries for delegates and the contribution from the Danish government of £37 million. Most of the money will come from taxpayers.” Summits of this size are routinely accompanied by a huge spike in the sex trade in whatever city they happen to be taking place. While servants of the global elite and their masters lecture us about our moral imperatives half of them are out committing adultery on a nightly basis during the same global conferences at which they habitually pose with righteous indignation. Make sure you have plenty of vomit bags on standby the thugs couldn’t care less about the environment they want to tax you out of existence for breathing! http://www.infowars.com/globalist-hypocrites-arrive-in-copenhagen-for-summit/
Check out what Government is doing behind your back at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
Email Prime Minister Harper of Canada and request he not sign the Copenhagen Treaty causing Canadians to lose our Sovereignty at: pm@pm.gc.ca
Protest he inaccurate Climate Change measurements that are being used to Proclaim the Copenhagen
Treaty: http://www.gopetition.com/online/32485.html
10. Jack:
That’s right Joseph! Above 8,000 feet, the temp on Kilimanjaro is BELOW FREEZING. ALL the time!
That is not accurate. Kilimanjaro is in the tropical latitudes. Here is some information about South American cities at high altitudes and tropical latitudes.
Quito has an altitude of 9,895 ft with an average high of 66 degrees, and an average low of 50. I have seen a hail storm in Quito.
La Paz is at an altitude of 11,942 feet. In the winter month of July, our equivalent of January, it has an average high of 63 degrees and an average low of 34 degrees.
I got this information from Wikipedia. As I have been to both cities, I can inform you that the information is accurate. A word of warning: do not get drunk at high altitudes.
Regarding your Engineering Tool Box table, note that it shows the sea level temperature as being 59 degrees. At sea level in the tropics, the average daily high in Mombassa, a sea port in Kenya, ranges from 91 degrees in December to 82 in July, with an average temperature of 75 in July, the coldest month. You need to read and interpret tables.
In terms of comfortable climate, IMHO the best climate in the world is in tropical mountains around 8,000 feet. See Quito as an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Paz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quito
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mombassa
Here’s dear David Bellamy. My mother was totally indoctrinated by the BBC, until she heard that David Bellamy did not accept AGW (she wouldn’t listen to me, but if David Bellamy says it….)
He is wonderful:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAUxWHKSG_g&NR=1
The BBC are beyond disgust for banning him.
Update on non-warming in Copenhagen: As emergency AGW conference continues, it is perhaps ironic to calmly study some weather information readily available on the internet. I apologize that the figures are not absolutely precise because they are taken from graphs at weatheronline.co.uk. Anyone can check my calculations, which took about 20 minutes and were not taxpayer funded. In the last 28 years (as far as the online records go back), the highest December temperature in Copenhagen was 11 degrees C and that was back in 1983. Over these years, the average highest December temperature was around 7 C. Please note, I am using the highs, to put the strongest possible case for the warmists. (If I were Dr. Phil Jones, I would probably be using the lows to distort the case in favour of my own position).
First day: a high of 7 C, exactly the same as the average high of the last 28 years and 4 degrees COOLER than the high of the last 28 years.
Second day: a high of 7 C, the same.
Third day: a high of 6 C, 5 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.
Fourth day: a high of 6 C
Fifth day: a high of 5 C, 6 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.
Can someone please point this out to the Met, the BBC and all the eminent and learned delegates?
I needed to send you one very small observation in order to give many thanks once again for those superb advice you’ve provided on this website. It was remarkably generous of people like you to give publicly what most of us might have offered as an ebook to make some profit for their own end, precisely since you might have tried it if you desired. The thoughts additionally served to provide a easy way to fully grasp that most people have the same dreams like my own to see very much more with regards to this problem. I am certain there are numerous more pleasant occasions up front for those who start reading your website.