NCCO2 Debate will now be posting new climate change commentary on http://ncco2debate.wordpress.com/
Thank you.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
An author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says 20 years of cooling instead!
Now if you remember the North Carolina Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change stated that the commission never really debated the issue of whether man made climate change was real, instead they went off of the data gathered from the computer models of the IPCC, which incidentally is the same data that Al Gore's Nobel prize is based on. And is also the same data that the Cap and Trade legislation is based on which will increase North Carolinian's power bills by $1700 a family! Well now the number 2 author of the IPCC report, Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, now reverses his prediction from warming to cooling!
"One of the world's top climate modelers said Thursday we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html
And David Archibald has actually been predicting the same cooling trend for the last 3 to 4 years by examining Sun cycles.
Will anybody on the NCCGC acknowledge this breaking news? Will it change anything they do? I will send each an email to ask for their comments and post any responses I get, but I not going to hold my breath.
"One of the world's top climate modelers said Thursday we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html
And David Archibald has actually been predicting the same cooling trend for the last 3 to 4 years by examining Sun cycles.
Will anybody on the NCCGC acknowledge this breaking news? Will it change anything they do? I will send each an email to ask for their comments and post any responses I get, but I not going to hold my breath.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Open Letter to Congress from several highly credentialed scientists
The following letter was first posted by Gabriel Rychert check out his Facebook site called: "Fire James Hansen - NASA Climate Chief"
OPEN LETTER TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President’s science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent.
This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of “almost certain” thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.
The facts are: The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists’ computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren?
We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact
THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN’T EXIST.
The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not guesswork, and not false claims about the state of the science.
DEMAND PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS
Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Many alarmists are profiting from their activism. There are billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken.
Robert H. AustinProfessor of PhysicsPrinceton UniversityFellow APS, AAASAmerican Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of Sciences
William HapperCyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of PhysicsPrinceton UniversityFellow APS, AAASMember National Academy of Sciences
S. Fred SingerProfessor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of VirginiaFirst Director of the National Weather Satellite ServiceFellow APS, AAAS, AGU
Roger W. CohenManager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)Fellow APS
Harold W. LewisProfessor of Physics EmeritusUniversity of California at Santa BarbaraFellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study
Laurence I. Gould Professor of PhysicsUniversity of Hartford Chairman (2004), New England Section of APS
Richard LindzenAlfred P. Sloan Professor of MeteorologyMassachusetts Institute of Technology Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMSMember Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters Member National Academy of Sciences
OPEN LETTER TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President’s science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent.
This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of “almost certain” thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.
The facts are: The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists’ computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren?
We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact
THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN’T EXIST.
The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not guesswork, and not false claims about the state of the science.
DEMAND PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS
Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Many alarmists are profiting from their activism. There are billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken.
Robert H. AustinProfessor of PhysicsPrinceton UniversityFellow APS, AAASAmerican Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of Sciences
William HapperCyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of PhysicsPrinceton UniversityFellow APS, AAASMember National Academy of Sciences
S. Fred SingerProfessor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of VirginiaFirst Director of the National Weather Satellite ServiceFellow APS, AAAS, AGU
Roger W. CohenManager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)Fellow APS
Harold W. LewisProfessor of Physics EmeritusUniversity of California at Santa BarbaraFellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study
Laurence I. Gould Professor of PhysicsUniversity of Hartford Chairman (2004), New England Section of APS
Richard LindzenAlfred P. Sloan Professor of MeteorologyMassachusetts Institute of Technology Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMSMember Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters Member National Academy of Sciences
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
What Every Legislator Should Know About Climate Change
This is a response from John Casey, engineer, and former NASA advisor, currently the Director of the Space and Science Research Center in Orlando. FL when I asked him what are the most important things for any legislator to know currently about the man-made climate change hypothesis.
1. Global warming has ended.
2. The Earth's temperature average is on a long term down trend.
3. One of the most amazing events in the history of modern science, a "solar hibernation" has begun, and with it will come decades of deep, long cold as it always,always, does once hibernations begin. Anyone who accepts these three fundamental and easily verifiable truths of climate change, must also accept that the Sun and not mankind rules the climate variations on our planet.
Here are a few more very important aspects of the next climate change that they should know:
4. Greenhouse gasses, specifically CO2 had little effect in the past period of warming of the Earth caused primarily by the Sun, and will likewise have no tangible beneficial effect in keeping us warmer during the next cold climate era.
5. The next cold era which has already started, will bring the coldest weather in over 200 years.
6. The next cold climate era will have the potential to cause massive crop damage world wide causing the worst subsistence crisis in recorded human history.
7. Legislative action to control something that does not exist (i.e. global warming) not only creates a complete embarrassment of our nation's democratic processes upon which I believe voters will soon seek revenge, but will also cause historians to judge today's politicians with great distain in that their attempts to control climate will have made the suffering of countless unprepared and unaware citizens so much worse during the first cold climate period of the 21st century.
These truths have been my consistent message for the past two plus years.We need all to know what is happening with the Sun and what it will mean to us, our children, and grandchildren.Your help in helping spread this word will serve all well.
Best Regards,
John Casey
1. Global warming has ended.
2. The Earth's temperature average is on a long term down trend.
3. One of the most amazing events in the history of modern science, a "solar hibernation" has begun, and with it will come decades of deep, long cold as it always,always, does once hibernations begin. Anyone who accepts these three fundamental and easily verifiable truths of climate change, must also accept that the Sun and not mankind rules the climate variations on our planet.
Here are a few more very important aspects of the next climate change that they should know:
4. Greenhouse gasses, specifically CO2 had little effect in the past period of warming of the Earth caused primarily by the Sun, and will likewise have no tangible beneficial effect in keeping us warmer during the next cold climate era.
5. The next cold era which has already started, will bring the coldest weather in over 200 years.
6. The next cold climate era will have the potential to cause massive crop damage world wide causing the worst subsistence crisis in recorded human history.
7. Legislative action to control something that does not exist (i.e. global warming) not only creates a complete embarrassment of our nation's democratic processes upon which I believe voters will soon seek revenge, but will also cause historians to judge today's politicians with great distain in that their attempts to control climate will have made the suffering of countless unprepared and unaware citizens so much worse during the first cold climate period of the 21st century.
These truths have been my consistent message for the past two plus years.We need all to know what is happening with the Sun and what it will mean to us, our children, and grandchildren.Your help in helping spread this word will serve all well.
Best Regards,
John Casey
Monday, June 29, 2009
The EPA has been caught in an blatant COVER UP of reports skeptical of man-made global warming.
June 26, 2009 11:09 PM
EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming
Posted by Declan McCullagh
(CBS/AP/iStockphoto)
The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data." The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17:
"The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."
The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency -- and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.
Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself.
"It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else," Carlin said.
"That was obviously coming from higher levels." E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to "have any direct communication" with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic. "I was told for probably the first time in I don't know how many years exactly what I was to work on," said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. "And it was not to work on climate change."
One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead. For its part, the EPA sent CBSNews.com an e-mailed statement saying: "Claims that this individual’s opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter-agency review was conducted."
Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT.
His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing. After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research.
"My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature. If there is a need for the government to lower planetary temperatures, Carlin believes, other mechanisms would be cheaper and more effective than regulation of carbon dioxide. One paper he wrote says managing sea level rise or reducing solar radiation reaching the earth would be more cost-effective alternatives.
The EPA's possible suppression of Carlin's report, which lists the EPA's John Davidson as a co-author, could endanger any carbon dioxide regulations if they are eventually challenged in court.
"The big question is: there is this general rule that when an agency puts something out for public evidence and comment, it's supposed to have the evidence supporting it and the evidence the other way," said Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, D.C. that has been skeptical of new laws or regulations relating to global warming. Kazman's group obtained the documents -- both CEI and Carlin say he was not the source -- and released the e-mails on Tuesday and the report on Friday. As a result of the disclosure, CEI has asked the EPA to re-open the comment period on the greenhouse gas regulatory proceeding, which ended on Tuesday.
The EPA also said in its statement: "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding." That appears to conflict with an e-mail from McGartland in March, who said to Carlin, the report's primary author:
"I decided not to forward your comments... I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." He also wrote to Carlin: "Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc." One reason why the process might have been highly charged politically is the unusual speed of the regulatory process.
Lisa Jackson, the new EPA administrator, had said that she wanted her agency to reach a decision about regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act by April 2 -- the second anniversary of a related U.S. Supreme Court decision. "All this goes back to a decision at a higher level that this was very urgent to get out, if possible yesterday," Carlin said. "In the case of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a year or two. In this case, it was a few weeks to get it out for public comment." (Carlin said that he and other EPA staff members asked to respond to a draft only had four and a half days to do so.)
In the last few days, Republicans have begun to raise questions about the report and e-mail messages, but it was insufficient to derail the so-called cap and trade bill from being approved by the U.S. House of Representatives.
Rep. Joe Barton, the senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce committee, invoked Carlin's report in a floor speech during the debate on Friday. "The science is not there to back it up," Barton said. "An EPA report that has been suppressed... raises grave doubts about the endangerment finding. If you don't have an endangerment finding, you don't need this bill. We don't need this bill. And for some reason, the EPA saw fit not to include that in its decision." (The endangerment finding is the EPA's decision that carbon dioxide endangers the public health and welfare.)
"I'm sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach," Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the senior Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said in a statement. "But the EPA is supposed to reach its findings based on evidence, not on political goals. The repression of this important study casts doubts on EPA's finding, and frankly, on other analysis EPA has conducted on climate issues." The revelations could prove embarrassing to Jackson, the EPA administrator, who said in January: "I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency." Similarly, Mr. Obama claimed that "the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over... To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy. It is contrary to our way of life." "All this talk from the president and (EPA administrator) Lisa Jackson about integrity, transparency, and increased EPA protection for whistleblowers -- you've got a bouquet of ironies here," said Kazman, the CEI attorney.
EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming
Posted by Declan McCullagh
(CBS/AP/iStockphoto)
The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data." The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17:
"The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."
The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency -- and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.
Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself.
"It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else," Carlin said.
"That was obviously coming from higher levels." E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to "have any direct communication" with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic. "I was told for probably the first time in I don't know how many years exactly what I was to work on," said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. "And it was not to work on climate change."
One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead. For its part, the EPA sent CBSNews.com an e-mailed statement saying: "Claims that this individual’s opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter-agency review was conducted."
Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT.
His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing. After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research.
"My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."
Carlin's report listed a number of recent developments he said the EPA did not consider, including that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there's "little evidence" that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth's temperature. If there is a need for the government to lower planetary temperatures, Carlin believes, other mechanisms would be cheaper and more effective than regulation of carbon dioxide. One paper he wrote says managing sea level rise or reducing solar radiation reaching the earth would be more cost-effective alternatives.
The EPA's possible suppression of Carlin's report, which lists the EPA's John Davidson as a co-author, could endanger any carbon dioxide regulations if they are eventually challenged in court.
"The big question is: there is this general rule that when an agency puts something out for public evidence and comment, it's supposed to have the evidence supporting it and the evidence the other way," said Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Washington, D.C. that has been skeptical of new laws or regulations relating to global warming. Kazman's group obtained the documents -- both CEI and Carlin say he was not the source -- and released the e-mails on Tuesday and the report on Friday. As a result of the disclosure, CEI has asked the EPA to re-open the comment period on the greenhouse gas regulatory proceeding, which ended on Tuesday.
The EPA also said in its statement: "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding." That appears to conflict with an e-mail from McGartland in March, who said to Carlin, the report's primary author:
"I decided not to forward your comments... I can see only one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." He also wrote to Carlin: "Please do not have any direct communication with anyone outside of (our group) on endangerment. There should be no meetings, e-mails, written statements, phone calls, etc." One reason why the process might have been highly charged politically is the unusual speed of the regulatory process.
Lisa Jackson, the new EPA administrator, had said that she wanted her agency to reach a decision about regulating carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act by April 2 -- the second anniversary of a related U.S. Supreme Court decision. "All this goes back to a decision at a higher level that this was very urgent to get out, if possible yesterday," Carlin said. "In the case of an ordinary regulation, these things normally take a year or two. In this case, it was a few weeks to get it out for public comment." (Carlin said that he and other EPA staff members asked to respond to a draft only had four and a half days to do so.)
In the last few days, Republicans have begun to raise questions about the report and e-mail messages, but it was insufficient to derail the so-called cap and trade bill from being approved by the U.S. House of Representatives.
Rep. Joe Barton, the senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce committee, invoked Carlin's report in a floor speech during the debate on Friday. "The science is not there to back it up," Barton said. "An EPA report that has been suppressed... raises grave doubts about the endangerment finding. If you don't have an endangerment finding, you don't need this bill. We don't need this bill. And for some reason, the EPA saw fit not to include that in its decision." (The endangerment finding is the EPA's decision that carbon dioxide endangers the public health and welfare.)
"I'm sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach," Rep. James Sensenbrenner, the senior Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said in a statement. "But the EPA is supposed to reach its findings based on evidence, not on political goals. The repression of this important study casts doubts on EPA's finding, and frankly, on other analysis EPA has conducted on climate issues." The revelations could prove embarrassing to Jackson, the EPA administrator, who said in January: "I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency." Similarly, Mr. Obama claimed that "the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over... To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy. It is contrary to our way of life." "All this talk from the president and (EPA administrator) Lisa Jackson about integrity, transparency, and increased EPA protection for whistleblowers -- you've got a bouquet of ironies here," said Kazman, the CEI attorney.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
More lies about artic ice exposed.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words right? Depending on what you are trying to present, that picture can make or break any presentation. So it was with great interest that I noticed this picture (top) in the article from the UK Telegraph with this alarming title:
Arctic sea-ice in September 1979 and 2007, showing the biggest reduction since satellite surveillance began. Photo: Fugro NPA Ltd
Hmmm…right below it there was a link to the World Wildlife Fund, and in the body of the article, was the source of this “news” story.
WWF’s report, Climate Change: Faster, stronger, sooner, has updated all the scientific data and concluded that global warming is accelerating far beyond the IPCC’s forecasts.
I didn’t realize that the WWF was a scientific organization, and that they could update the data and conclude our current situation worse that findings of the IPCC. How stupid of me to not pay attention to this.
I didn’t realize that the WWF was a scientific organization, and that they could update the data and conclude our current situation worse that findings of the IPCC. How stupid of me to not pay attention to this.
CNN also picked up this WWF press release.
See CNN’s story here.
Maybe WWF should “update” their findings with this picture from 2008:
Click for a larger image direct from the source
Yes a picture is worth a thousand words, isn’t it? For those of you that visit these other blogs, be sure they see this updated picture and send my regards. While you are at it, ask them at the Telegraph to provide the source data and methodology for the creation of the two images used in the report. They look more like artist renderings than data based 3D models. The images were not part of the WWF report. The actual satalite photos are the ones with the purple coloration. http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=10&fd=19&fy=1979&sm=10&sd=19&sy=2008 here is a link to see them.
Farmer's Almanac must not use the same "models" the IPCC use.
Old Farmer’s Alamanac Dampens Talk of Global Warming; Global Cooling The New Trend
Published by Frosty the Know Man at 9:00 am under The Science Debate
http://thechillingeffect.org/2008/09/10/old-farmers-alamanac-dampens-talk-of-global-warming-global-cooling-the-new-trend/
USA Today has one heck of a story this morning:
The Old Farmer’s Almanac is going further out on a limb than usual this year, not only forecasting a cooler winter, but looking ahead decades to suggest we are in for global cooling, not warming.
Based on the same time-honored, complex calculations it uses to predict weather, the Almanac hits the newsstands on Tuesday saying a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate point to a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.
“We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes,” writes meteorologist and climatologist Joseph D’Aleo. “Studying these and other factor suggests that cold, not warm, climate may be our future.”
Published by Frosty the Know Man at 9:00 am under The Science Debate
http://thechillingeffect.org/2008/09/10/old-farmers-alamanac-dampens-talk-of-global-warming-global-cooling-the-new-trend/
USA Today has one heck of a story this morning:
The Old Farmer’s Almanac is going further out on a limb than usual this year, not only forecasting a cooler winter, but looking ahead decades to suggest we are in for global cooling, not warming.
Based on the same time-honored, complex calculations it uses to predict weather, the Almanac hits the newsstands on Tuesday saying a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate point to a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.
“We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes,” writes meteorologist and climatologist Joseph D’Aleo. “Studying these and other factor suggests that cold, not warm, climate may be our future.”
Alaska has had one of its coldest summers...I bet its Sarah Palin's fault!
Summer has been one of Alaska's coldest
By Craig Medred Anchorage Daily News
Summer is officially over in Alaska, and if you got out in the sun to enjoy both days of it you were lucky. Those were the two July days the temperature at the offices of the National Weather Service in Anchorage hit 70 degrees or better.
"Those temperatures occurred at the beginning of the month (of July) and were immediately followed by a long stretch of cool and wet weather.
"With only two days above 70 degrees this year, that sets a new record for the fewest days to reach 70,'' the weather-watching agency reported Friday.
Read the complete story at adn.com
By Craig Medred Anchorage Daily News
Summer is officially over in Alaska, and if you got out in the sun to enjoy both days of it you were lucky. Those were the two July days the temperature at the offices of the National Weather Service in Anchorage hit 70 degrees or better.
"Those temperatures occurred at the beginning of the month (of July) and were immediately followed by a long stretch of cool and wet weather.
"With only two days above 70 degrees this year, that sets a new record for the fewest days to reach 70,'' the weather-watching agency reported Friday.
Read the complete story at adn.com
Alaska glaciers grew this year, thanks to colder weather
By Craig Medred Anchorage Daily News
From Cooler Heads Digest
Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008.
Unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chill temperatures in June, July and August.
"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound,"
said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia.
"On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August.
In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years."
Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.
"It's been a long time on most glaciers where they've actually had positive mass balance," Molnia said.
That's the way a scientist says the glaciers got thicker in the middle. Read the complete story at adn.com
By Craig Medred Anchorage Daily News
From Cooler Heads Digest
Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008.
Unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chill temperatures in June, July and August.
"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound,"
said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia.
"On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August.
In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years."
Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.
"It's been a long time on most glaciers where they've actually had positive mass balance," Molnia said.
That's the way a scientist says the glaciers got thicker in the middle. Read the complete story at adn.com
Greenland really was Green?
Greenland Ice Find Debunks Al Gore’s Global Warming Theories
By Noel Sheppard (Bio Archive)July 7, 2007 - 10:19 ET (NewsBusters)
Just in time for worldwide concerts to draw attention to the planet’s imminent doom at the hands of anthropogenic global warming, a new find in Greenland suggests that much of the hysteria in Al Gore’s schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth” has absolutely no basis in scientific fact.
Even though this study will likely get little to no attention from a media in full fawn mode over Gore and his Live Earth concerts, the findings throw a huge monkey wrench into alarmist warnings of climate-related devastation to the planet and species offered as reasons for developed nations to radically change behavior.
As marvelously reported by the Boston Globe Friday (h/t Benny Peiser, emphasis added throughout):
An international team of scientists, drilling deep into the ice layers of Greenland, has found DNA from ancient spiders and trees, evidence that suggests the frozen shield covering the immense island survived the earth's last period of global warming.
The findings, published today in the journal Science, indicate Greenland's ice may be less susceptible to the massive meltdown predicted by computer models of climate change, the article's main author said in an interview.
"If our data is correct, and I believe it is, then this means the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought,"
said Eske Willerslev, research leader and professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Copenhagen.
"This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming. They may withstand rising temperatures."
How can that be? After all, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore – who has had absolutely no training in the relevant areas of science despite the media belief that he is indeed the foremost expert on the subject – says Greenland is going to thaw in the near future with devastating repercussions.
Surely he can’t be wrong:
A painstaking analysis of surviving genetic fragments locked in the ice of southern Greenland shows that somewhere between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, the world's largest island had a climate much like that of Northern New England, the researchers said. Butterflies fluttered over lush meadows interspersed with stands of pine, spruce, and alder.
Greenland really was green, before Ice Age glaciers enshrouded vast swaths of the Northern Hemisphere.
Wait. Isn’t the debate over and the science settled on this issue?
It appears not:
More controversially -- and as an example of how research in one realm of science can unexpectedly affect assumptions in another -- the discovery of microscopic bits of organic matter retrieved from ice 1.2 miles beneath the surface indicates that the ice fields of southern Greenland may be more resilient to rising global temperatures than has been forecast. The DNA could have been preserved only if the ice layers remained largely intact.
A scenario often raised by global warming specialists is that Greenland's ice trove will turn liquid in the rising temperatures of coming decades, with hundreds of trillions of gallons of water spilling into the Atlantic. This could cause ocean levels worldwide to rise anywhere from 3 to 20 feet, according to computer projections -- bad news for seaport cities like Boston.
But the discovery of organic matter in ice dating from half-a-million years ago offers evidence that the Greenland ice shield remained frozen even during the earth's last "interglacial period" -- some 120,000 years ago -- when average temperatures were 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than they are now. That's slightly higher than the average temperatures foreseen by most scientists for the end of this century, although some environmentalists warn it might get even hotter.
Incredible.
And, as many scientists have been claiming regardless of such falling on deaf press ears, this indicates just how nonsensical and worthless climate models proclaiming imminent planetary doom are:
Researchers from the Danish-led team said the unanticipated findings appear to fly in the face of prevailing scientific views about the likely fate of Greenland's thickly-layered ice, although Willerslev stressed that the findings do not contradict the basic premise that the earth's temperature is rising to worrisome levels, with gases emitted by industry, cars, and other human activity playing a big role.
"But it suggests a problem with the [computer] models" that predict melting ice from Greenland could drown cities and destroy civilizations, according to Willerslev.
Think this will be headline news during Live Earth weekend?
No. Neither do I. Regardless, it certainly makes watching the concerts more comical!
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
By Noel Sheppard (Bio Archive)July 7, 2007 - 10:19 ET (NewsBusters)
Just in time for worldwide concerts to draw attention to the planet’s imminent doom at the hands of anthropogenic global warming, a new find in Greenland suggests that much of the hysteria in Al Gore’s schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth” has absolutely no basis in scientific fact.
Even though this study will likely get little to no attention from a media in full fawn mode over Gore and his Live Earth concerts, the findings throw a huge monkey wrench into alarmist warnings of climate-related devastation to the planet and species offered as reasons for developed nations to radically change behavior.
As marvelously reported by the Boston Globe Friday (h/t Benny Peiser, emphasis added throughout):
An international team of scientists, drilling deep into the ice layers of Greenland, has found DNA from ancient spiders and trees, evidence that suggests the frozen shield covering the immense island survived the earth's last period of global warming.
The findings, published today in the journal Science, indicate Greenland's ice may be less susceptible to the massive meltdown predicted by computer models of climate change, the article's main author said in an interview.
"If our data is correct, and I believe it is, then this means the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought,"
said Eske Willerslev, research leader and professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Copenhagen.
"This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming. They may withstand rising temperatures."
How can that be? After all, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore – who has had absolutely no training in the relevant areas of science despite the media belief that he is indeed the foremost expert on the subject – says Greenland is going to thaw in the near future with devastating repercussions.
Surely he can’t be wrong:
A painstaking analysis of surviving genetic fragments locked in the ice of southern Greenland shows that somewhere between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, the world's largest island had a climate much like that of Northern New England, the researchers said. Butterflies fluttered over lush meadows interspersed with stands of pine, spruce, and alder.
Greenland really was green, before Ice Age glaciers enshrouded vast swaths of the Northern Hemisphere.
Wait. Isn’t the debate over and the science settled on this issue?
It appears not:
More controversially -- and as an example of how research in one realm of science can unexpectedly affect assumptions in another -- the discovery of microscopic bits of organic matter retrieved from ice 1.2 miles beneath the surface indicates that the ice fields of southern Greenland may be more resilient to rising global temperatures than has been forecast. The DNA could have been preserved only if the ice layers remained largely intact.
A scenario often raised by global warming specialists is that Greenland's ice trove will turn liquid in the rising temperatures of coming decades, with hundreds of trillions of gallons of water spilling into the Atlantic. This could cause ocean levels worldwide to rise anywhere from 3 to 20 feet, according to computer projections -- bad news for seaport cities like Boston.
But the discovery of organic matter in ice dating from half-a-million years ago offers evidence that the Greenland ice shield remained frozen even during the earth's last "interglacial period" -- some 120,000 years ago -- when average temperatures were 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than they are now. That's slightly higher than the average temperatures foreseen by most scientists for the end of this century, although some environmentalists warn it might get even hotter.
Incredible.
And, as many scientists have been claiming regardless of such falling on deaf press ears, this indicates just how nonsensical and worthless climate models proclaiming imminent planetary doom are:
Researchers from the Danish-led team said the unanticipated findings appear to fly in the face of prevailing scientific views about the likely fate of Greenland's thickly-layered ice, although Willerslev stressed that the findings do not contradict the basic premise that the earth's temperature is rising to worrisome levels, with gases emitted by industry, cars, and other human activity playing a big role.
"But it suggests a problem with the [computer] models" that predict melting ice from Greenland could drown cities and destroy civilizations, according to Willerslev.
Think this will be headline news during Live Earth weekend?
No. Neither do I. Regardless, it certainly makes watching the concerts more comical!
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Watts Up With That?
Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts
Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts
BOB ZELLAR/Gazette Staff
Vehicles drive through the snow and slush Highway 3 between Zimmerman Trail and the airport Friday October 10, 2008.
Here in Northern California, we are getting some much earlier than normal cold weather. As you can see on my Bidwell Ranch Weather Station, we got into the 30’s last night, not a record, but darned early for fall weather here:
Russ Steele reports on his Nevada County Watch blog that his first freeze came last night, about a month early. Also a hat tip to him for alerting me to this story.
Pamela Gray in comments points out this record report from the NWS:
Russ Steele reports on his Nevada County Watch blog that his first freeze came last night, about a month early. Also a hat tip to him for alerting me to this story.
Pamela Gray in comments points out this record report from the NWS:
00SXUS76 KPDT 111801RERPDT
RECORD EVENT REPORTNATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE PENDLETON OR1100 AM PDT SAT OCT 11 2008…NEW DAILY RECORD LOW TEMPERATURES FOR OCTOBER 11TH…
NOTE: STATIONS MARKED WITH * INDICATE THAT THE STATION REPORTS ONCEPER DAY. FOR CONSISTENCY…THESE VALUES ARE CONSIDERED TO HAVEOCCURRED ON THE DAY THE OBSERVATION WAS TAKEN BUT MAY HAVE ACTUALLYOCCURRED (ESPECIALLY FOR MAX TEMPERATURE) ON THE PREVIOUS DAY.
NOTE: STATIONS MARKED WITH * INDICATE THAT THE STATION REPORTS ONCEPER DAY. FOR CONSISTENCY…THESE VALUES ARE CONSIDERED TO HAVEOCCURRED ON THE DAY THE OBSERVATION WAS TAKEN BUT MAY HAVE ACTUALLYOCCURRED (ESPECIALLY FOR MAX TEMPERATURE) ON THE PREVIOUS DAY.
STATION PREVIOUS NEW RECORDSRECORD/YEAR RECORD BEGAN
*JOHN DAY(CITY), OR 23 / 1990 21 1953MEACHAM, OR 20 / 2002 15 1948 :SINCE MID*MITCHELL, OR 26 / 2002 21 1949PENDLETON(ARPT), OR 33 / 1990 25 1934 :SINCE MID*PENDLETON(CITY), OR 24 / 1890 22 1890*PENDLETON(ES), OR 23 / 1990 18 1956WALLA WALLA, WA 35 / 1987 33 1949 :SINCE MID
*JOHN DAY(CITY), OR 23 / 1990 21 1953MEACHAM, OR 20 / 2002 15 1948 :SINCE MID*MITCHELL, OR 26 / 2002 21 1949PENDLETON(ARPT), OR 33 / 1990 25 1934 :SINCE MID*PENDLETON(CITY), OR 24 / 1890 22 1890*PENDLETON(ES), OR 23 / 1990 18 1956WALLA WALLA, WA 35 / 1987 33 1949 :SINCE MID
Harbinger of a colder than normal winter perhaps.
Earliest measurable snowfall in Boise since recordkeeping began in 1898, according to the National Weather Service.
Watts Up With That?
Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts
Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts
Valley shivers as winter weather makes a premature appearance
Big snow flakes fell early Friday evening, turning Downtown Boise into a giant snow globe for people on their way home from work. The snow caught many people off guard, including this bicyclist heading down Idaho Street between 8th and 9th around 5:45 p.m. Across the Treasure Valley, tree branches heavy with wet, snow-covered leaves fell on power lines, causing scattered power outages.
This is the earliest measurable snowfall in Boise since recordkeeping began in 1898, according to the National Weather Service. At 10 p.m., the Weather Service said 1.7 inches of snow had fallen. The previous earliest recorded snowfall was Oct. 12, 1969, when a little more than an inch fell. And if the snow wasn’t enough, meteorologists say winds across southwestern Idaho will average 25 to 40 mph through Saturday afternoon, with gusts up to 55 mph. Sustained winds of 30 to 40 mph are expected, which can make driving difficult.
There is also some early and record snows in Billings Montana
A snowfall record for Oct. 11 was set in Billings yesterday.
A snowfall record for Oct. 11 was set in Billings yesterday.
According the National Weather Service, Billings saw 3.1 inches of snow Friday. The old record of 2.8 inches was set in 1969.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Solor Hibernation coming- period of long lasting cold weather the result.
Researchers who have predicted a long term solar minimum or ‘solar hibernation’ and/or a new climate change to a period of long lasting cold weather based upon solar activity.
1. Dr. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov: Russian Academy of Scientists. Head of space research at the Pulkova Observatory, St. Petersburg.
Comment: RIA Novosti, August 25, 2006: “Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century – when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland – could start in 2012-2105 and reach its peak in 2055-2060….He said he believed the future climate change would have very serious consequences and that authorities should start preparing for them today….”
2. David Archibald. Summa Development Limited. (Australia).
From his paper: Archibald, D.C., (2006), Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response, Energy and Environment, Vol.17, No.1.
Comment from paper: “Based on a solar maxima of approximately 50 for solar cycles 24 and 25, a global temperature decline of 1.5C is predicted to 2020 equating to the experience of the Dalton Minimum.”
3. Dr. O.G.Badalyan, and Dr.V.N. Obridko, Institute of Terrestrial Magnestism. Russia, Dr.J.Sykora. Astronomical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovak Republic.
From their paper: Balalyan, O.G., V.N. Obridko, and J. Sykora, (2000), Brightness of the coronal green line and prediction for activity cycles 23 and 24, Solar Physics, 199: pp.421-435.
Comment from paper: “ A slow increase in (intensity of coronal green line) in the current cycle 23 permits us to forecast a low-Wolf-number (number of sunspots) cycle 24 with the maximum W~50 at 2010-2011.” (Note: a 50 sunspot level is a Dalton class minimum)
4. Dr. B. P. Bonev, Dr. Kaloyan M. Penev, Dr. Stefano Sello.
From their paper: Bonev, B.P., et. al., (2004), Long term solar variability and the solar cycle in the 21st century, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 605, pp.L81-L84.
Comment from their paper: “…we conclude that the present epoch is at the onset of an upcoming local minimum in long term solar variability.”
5. John L. Casey, Director, Space and Science Research Center. Orlando, Florida
From the center’s research report: Casey, John L. (2008), The existence of ‘relational cycles’ of solar activity on a multi-decadal to centennial scale, as significant models of climate change on earth. SSRC Research Report 1-2008 – The RC Theory, www.spaceandscience.net.
Comments from the research report:
“ As a result of the theory, it can be predicted that the next solar minimum may start within the next 3-14 years, and last 2-3 solar cycles or approximately 22-33 years. …It is estimated that there will be a global temperature drop on average between 1.0 and 1.5 degrees C, if not lower, at least on the scale of the Dalton Minimum. …This forecast next solar minimum will likely be accompanied by the coldest period globally for the past 200 years and as such, has the potential to result in world wide, agricultural, social, and economic disruption.”
6. Dr. Peter Harris. Engineer, retired, Queensland, Australia.
From his analysis of glacial and interglacial cycles he concludes: “…we can say there is a probability of 94% of imminent global cooling and the beginning of the coming ice age.”
7. Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera. Researcher at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
His comments from his research released in August 2008: “…in two years or so, there will be a small ice age that lasts for 60-80 years.”
8. Dr’s. Y.T.Hong, H.B. Jiang, T.S. Liu, L.P.Zhou, J.Beer, H.D. Li, X.T.Leng, B.Hong, and X.G. Qin.
From their paper: Response of climate to solar forcing recorded in 6,000-year (isotope) O18 time-series of Chinese peat cellulose. The Holocene 10.1 (2000) pp. 1-7.
The Chinese team of researchers observed “…a striking correspondence of climate events to nearly all of the apparent solar activity changes.”
In showing O18 isotope measurements were high during the coldest periods they concluded, “If the trend after AD 1950 continues…the next maximum of the peat O18 (and therefore cold maximum) would be expected between about AD 2000 and AD 2050.”
9. Dr. Boris Komitov, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of
Astronomy, and Dr. Vladimir Kaftan: Central Research Institute of Geodesy, Moscow.
From their paper: Komitov, B., and V. Kaftan, (2004), The sunspot activity in the last two millennia on the basis of indirect and instrumented indexes: time series models and their extrapolations for the 21st century, paper presented at the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 223.
Comment from paper: “It follows from their extrapolations for the 21st century that a supercenturial solar minimum will be occurring during the next few decades….It will be similar in magnitude to the Dalton minimum, but probably longer as the last one.”
10. Dr. Theodor Landscheidt (1927- 2004), Schroeter Institiute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, Canada)
Among his comments from many years of research on solar climate forcing include: “Contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man made warming as high as 5.8(degrees)C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected.”
11. Dr. Ernest Njau: University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
From his paper: Njau, E., (2005), Expected halt in current global warming trend?, Renewable Energy, Vol.30, Issue 5, pp.743-752.
Comment from paper: “… the mean ‘global temperature variations reaches the next peak about 2005 after which it will expectedly be on a decreasing trend. Finally it is shown that…Greenland is currently in an ongoing cooling trend which is expected to last up to at least the year 2035.”
12. Dr. Tim Patterson: Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton Univ., Can.
From an article in the Calgary Times: May 18, 2007. Indeed, one of the more interesting, if not alarming statements Patterson made before the Friends of Science luncheon is satellite data shows that by the year 2020 the next solar cycle is going to be solar cycle 25 – the weakest one since the Little Ice Age (that started in the 13th century and ended around 1860) a time when people living in London, England, used to walk on a frozen Thames River and food was scarcer. Patterson: “This should be a great strategic concern in Canada because nobody is farming north of us.” In other words, Canada – the great breadbasket of the world - just might not be able to grow grains in much of the prairies.
13.Dr’s. Ken K. Schatten and W.K.Tobiska.
From their paper presented at the 34th Solar Physics Division meeting of the American Astronomical Society, June 2003:
“The surprising result of these long range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity.”
14. Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin. Merited Scientist of Russia and Fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and researcher at the Oceanology Institute.
From recent news articles, regarding the next climate change he has said: “Astrophysics know two solar cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of irradiating solar surface….Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041,and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.”
15. Dr’s. Ian Wilson, Bob Carter, and I.A. Waite.
From their paper: Does a Spin-Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle? Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 25(2) 85-93 June 2008).
Dr. Wilson adds the following clarification:
“It supports the contention that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20-30 years. On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by ~ 1-2 C.”
16. Dr’s. Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian. Nanjing Normal University, China
From their paper in Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 95,115-121: Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years.
“… we believe global climate changes will be in a trend of falling in the following 20 years.”
1. Dr. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov: Russian Academy of Scientists. Head of space research at the Pulkova Observatory, St. Petersburg.
Comment: RIA Novosti, August 25, 2006: “Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century – when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland – could start in 2012-2105 and reach its peak in 2055-2060….He said he believed the future climate change would have very serious consequences and that authorities should start preparing for them today….”
2. David Archibald. Summa Development Limited. (Australia).
From his paper: Archibald, D.C., (2006), Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response, Energy and Environment, Vol.17, No.1.
Comment from paper: “Based on a solar maxima of approximately 50 for solar cycles 24 and 25, a global temperature decline of 1.5C is predicted to 2020 equating to the experience of the Dalton Minimum.”
3. Dr. O.G.Badalyan, and Dr.V.N. Obridko, Institute of Terrestrial Magnestism. Russia, Dr.J.Sykora. Astronomical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovak Republic.
From their paper: Balalyan, O.G., V.N. Obridko, and J. Sykora, (2000), Brightness of the coronal green line and prediction for activity cycles 23 and 24, Solar Physics, 199: pp.421-435.
Comment from paper: “ A slow increase in (intensity of coronal green line) in the current cycle 23 permits us to forecast a low-Wolf-number (number of sunspots) cycle 24 with the maximum W~50 at 2010-2011.” (Note: a 50 sunspot level is a Dalton class minimum)
4. Dr. B. P. Bonev, Dr. Kaloyan M. Penev, Dr. Stefano Sello.
From their paper: Bonev, B.P., et. al., (2004), Long term solar variability and the solar cycle in the 21st century, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 605, pp.L81-L84.
Comment from their paper: “…we conclude that the present epoch is at the onset of an upcoming local minimum in long term solar variability.”
5. John L. Casey, Director, Space and Science Research Center. Orlando, Florida
From the center’s research report: Casey, John L. (2008), The existence of ‘relational cycles’ of solar activity on a multi-decadal to centennial scale, as significant models of climate change on earth. SSRC Research Report 1-2008 – The RC Theory, www.spaceandscience.net.
Comments from the research report:
“ As a result of the theory, it can be predicted that the next solar minimum may start within the next 3-14 years, and last 2-3 solar cycles or approximately 22-33 years. …It is estimated that there will be a global temperature drop on average between 1.0 and 1.5 degrees C, if not lower, at least on the scale of the Dalton Minimum. …This forecast next solar minimum will likely be accompanied by the coldest period globally for the past 200 years and as such, has the potential to result in world wide, agricultural, social, and economic disruption.”
6. Dr. Peter Harris. Engineer, retired, Queensland, Australia.
From his analysis of glacial and interglacial cycles he concludes: “…we can say there is a probability of 94% of imminent global cooling and the beginning of the coming ice age.”
7. Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera. Researcher at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
His comments from his research released in August 2008: “…in two years or so, there will be a small ice age that lasts for 60-80 years.”
8. Dr’s. Y.T.Hong, H.B. Jiang, T.S. Liu, L.P.Zhou, J.Beer, H.D. Li, X.T.Leng, B.Hong, and X.G. Qin.
From their paper: Response of climate to solar forcing recorded in 6,000-year (isotope) O18 time-series of Chinese peat cellulose. The Holocene 10.1 (2000) pp. 1-7.
The Chinese team of researchers observed “…a striking correspondence of climate events to nearly all of the apparent solar activity changes.”
In showing O18 isotope measurements were high during the coldest periods they concluded, “If the trend after AD 1950 continues…the next maximum of the peat O18 (and therefore cold maximum) would be expected between about AD 2000 and AD 2050.”
9. Dr. Boris Komitov, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of
Astronomy, and Dr. Vladimir Kaftan: Central Research Institute of Geodesy, Moscow.
From their paper: Komitov, B., and V. Kaftan, (2004), The sunspot activity in the last two millennia on the basis of indirect and instrumented indexes: time series models and their extrapolations for the 21st century, paper presented at the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 223.
Comment from paper: “It follows from their extrapolations for the 21st century that a supercenturial solar minimum will be occurring during the next few decades….It will be similar in magnitude to the Dalton minimum, but probably longer as the last one.”
10. Dr. Theodor Landscheidt (1927- 2004), Schroeter Institiute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, Canada)
Among his comments from many years of research on solar climate forcing include: “Contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man made warming as high as 5.8(degrees)C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected.”
11. Dr. Ernest Njau: University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
From his paper: Njau, E., (2005), Expected halt in current global warming trend?, Renewable Energy, Vol.30, Issue 5, pp.743-752.
Comment from paper: “… the mean ‘global temperature variations reaches the next peak about 2005 after which it will expectedly be on a decreasing trend. Finally it is shown that…Greenland is currently in an ongoing cooling trend which is expected to last up to at least the year 2035.”
12. Dr. Tim Patterson: Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton Univ., Can.
From an article in the Calgary Times: May 18, 2007. Indeed, one of the more interesting, if not alarming statements Patterson made before the Friends of Science luncheon is satellite data shows that by the year 2020 the next solar cycle is going to be solar cycle 25 – the weakest one since the Little Ice Age (that started in the 13th century and ended around 1860) a time when people living in London, England, used to walk on a frozen Thames River and food was scarcer. Patterson: “This should be a great strategic concern in Canada because nobody is farming north of us.” In other words, Canada – the great breadbasket of the world - just might not be able to grow grains in much of the prairies.
13.Dr’s. Ken K. Schatten and W.K.Tobiska.
From their paper presented at the 34th Solar Physics Division meeting of the American Astronomical Society, June 2003:
“The surprising result of these long range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity.”
14. Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin. Merited Scientist of Russia and Fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and researcher at the Oceanology Institute.
From recent news articles, regarding the next climate change he has said: “Astrophysics know two solar cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of irradiating solar surface….Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041,and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.”
15. Dr’s. Ian Wilson, Bob Carter, and I.A. Waite.
From their paper: Does a Spin-Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle? Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 25(2) 85-93 June 2008).
Dr. Wilson adds the following clarification:
“It supports the contention that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20-30 years. On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by ~ 1-2 C.”
16. Dr’s. Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian. Nanjing Normal University, China
From their paper in Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 95,115-121: Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years.
“… we believe global climate changes will be in a trend of falling in the following 20 years.”
Thursday, October 9, 2008
NASA's Dr. David Hathaway cannot provide any clear scientific evidence that green house gases are driving climate change.
This is a brief conversation with NASA's David Hathaway. As you will see, NC C02 Debate gave him an opportunity to direct us to ANY clear evidence that green house gases are actually driving climate change and he could not provide an answer. Interestingly, he did indicate that the Sun does affect climate change. Here is NC CO2 Debate's
initial email to Dr. Hathaway:
Dr Hathaway,
I am NOT a scientist. However I am a tax paying citizen of North Carolina who plainly sees that the only "consensus" on man-made climate change is the one that is contained within the media pundits. Your group is the expert when it comes to our Sun. In May of 2006 you wrote:
"The slowdown we see now means that Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries." Dr David Hathaway, NASA Web Release, May 2006."
The Director of The Space and Science Research Center, John Casey, has drawn the following conclusion from your research, in regards to how the Sun's cycle will affect our planet's climate:
"We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun's surface. They will have only one outcome – a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet."
Would you care to comment, for the record, on Mr. Casey's conclusions?
Dr Hathaway's initial response:
"His conclusion is based on the hypothesis that solar variability (the sunspot cycle) is the controlling factor in climate change. While there is evidence that solar variability does affect climate to some degree, it also appears that other factors – volcanoes, El Nino/La Nina, and greenhouse gases play more significant roles."
NCC02debate's follow up question (that Hathaway never responded to):
When you state that GHG's play a more significant role in global warming is your opinion informed from the IPCC data? So far every time I am able to get to the heart of all the newly formed government agencies in North Carolina to deal with the imminent doom of GW, they always end up pointing back to the fatally flawed computer models of the IPCC. Meantime, the American Northwest had its 2nd coolest Spring since 1894, Sydney Australia had its coolest Summer in 50 years, South Africa had its coldest day in September in recorded history with record snowfalls, and your agencies data suggests the ice cap has increased by 30%. I see a global trend here, but it is not looking very warm. Can you point me to any hard scientific evidence, published in a peer reviewed journal that links rising amounts of GHG's with anything more that a slight increase in global temperature?
But don't think that will stop the state from taxing us, and our businesses, for this newest pollutant. Write your legislators and ask them why they are spending our tax dollars to control c02 when there has been NO public debate of the issue?
initial email to Dr. Hathaway:
Dr Hathaway,
I am NOT a scientist. However I am a tax paying citizen of North Carolina who plainly sees that the only "consensus" on man-made climate change is the one that is contained within the media pundits. Your group is the expert when it comes to our Sun. In May of 2006 you wrote:
"The slowdown we see now means that Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries." Dr David Hathaway, NASA Web Release, May 2006."
The Director of The Space and Science Research Center, John Casey, has drawn the following conclusion from your research, in regards to how the Sun's cycle will affect our planet's climate:
"We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun's surface. They will have only one outcome – a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet."
Would you care to comment, for the record, on Mr. Casey's conclusions?
Dr Hathaway's initial response:
"His conclusion is based on the hypothesis that solar variability (the sunspot cycle) is the controlling factor in climate change. While there is evidence that solar variability does affect climate to some degree, it also appears that other factors – volcanoes, El Nino/La Nina, and greenhouse gases play more significant roles."
NCC02debate's follow up question (that Hathaway never responded to):
When you state that GHG's play a more significant role in global warming is your opinion informed from the IPCC data? So far every time I am able to get to the heart of all the newly formed government agencies in North Carolina to deal with the imminent doom of GW, they always end up pointing back to the fatally flawed computer models of the IPCC. Meantime, the American Northwest had its 2nd coolest Spring since 1894, Sydney Australia had its coolest Summer in 50 years, South Africa had its coldest day in September in recorded history with record snowfalls, and your agencies data suggests the ice cap has increased by 30%. I see a global trend here, but it is not looking very warm. Can you point me to any hard scientific evidence, published in a peer reviewed journal that links rising amounts of GHG's with anything more that a slight increase in global temperature?
But don't think that will stop the state from taxing us, and our businesses, for this newest pollutant. Write your legislators and ask them why they are spending our tax dollars to control c02 when there has been NO public debate of the issue?
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The Director of North Carolina's State Climate Office tells NC Farm Bureau Insurance Company that North Carolina is NOT unseasonablly warm.
Ryan Boyles
Director of the North Carolina State Climate Office and member of the North Carolina Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change or, LCGCC, was recently asked about the origination of the term "Indian Summer". He in essence said that North Carolina is NOT currently any warmer than it has ever been. Boyles said:
"It really depends on how we define warm weather, The Carolina's, by definition, have an Indian Summer every year. But it's also not uncommon for us to have an ice storm one week and 60-degree temperatures the next. It's not really unseasonably warm weather for us."
My question for Dr Boyles is; how can North Carolina not be warming, when the IPCC has told us the globe is warming? In light of the normal weather NC is having how will that affect his view on the LCGCC? I sent Ryan the following email for a response about the article, but I shockingly got no reply.
North Carolina "not having unseasonably warm weather"
"I read that quote from you in the NC Farm Bureau September/October 2008 Vol 79 no.5 magazine. There are many places in North America, Australia, and Africa experiencing unusually cold weather. Can we finally say that global warming is called off?"
Your tax dollars are being high jacked to fight a hoax. Why, because NC is broke! As long as the issue of man made climate change remains, undebated, as the North Carolina Climate Change Advisory Group admitted, the beureacrats in Raleigh will continue to use it as a reuse to collect more taxes from you and I next year than they were able to last year. So let the spending continue! Let's see if we can set new spending records "trying to save the planet."
Does ANYONE know where Wonder Women's lasso of truth is....
Gore’s twisted tornado facts
Published by Editor under General, The Science Debate
Thanks to Watt’s Up With That for this deconstruction of Gore’s proclamation before Iowa Democrats that climate change has resulted in increased tornadoes, including the one that leveled much of Parkersburg earlier this year. “Yes, we’ve always had tornadoes in Iowa and in Tennessee,” he said. “But they’re coming more frequently and they’re stronger.”
The graph above suggests otherwise
It is blatent inaccuaracies like these that justify the debate I am calling my elected officials in North Carolina to engage in before they decide to start wasting our tax money on controlling c02! If we find out to late that snow load rated greenhouses were what we needed once again it will be the North Carolina taxpayer that will be left out in the cold.
Graph from NWS/NOAA. Smaller (F1) tornadoes seem to be on the increase, but not larger ones (F2-F5). This is likely due to increased reporting from Doppler Radar, storm chasers, and news gathering. Small tornadoes that once went unnoticed are now often reported, and make the news.
Gore is flat wrong.
Published by Editor under General, The Science Debate
Thanks to Watt’s Up With That for this deconstruction of Gore’s proclamation before Iowa Democrats that climate change has resulted in increased tornadoes, including the one that leveled much of Parkersburg earlier this year. “Yes, we’ve always had tornadoes in Iowa and in Tennessee,” he said. “But they’re coming more frequently and they’re stronger.”
The graph above suggests otherwise
It is blatent inaccuaracies like these that justify the debate I am calling my elected officials in North Carolina to engage in before they decide to start wasting our tax money on controlling c02! If we find out to late that snow load rated greenhouses were what we needed once again it will be the North Carolina taxpayer that will be left out in the cold.
Graph from NWS/NOAA. Smaller (F1) tornadoes seem to be on the increase, but not larger ones (F2-F5). This is likely due to increased reporting from Doppler Radar, storm chasers, and news gathering. Small tornadoes that once went unnoticed are now often reported, and make the news.
Gore is flat wrong.
Well it appears citizens of Alaska should hold off on that winter weather clothing yard sale sponsored by Al Gore and the IPCC.
Chilling in Alaska
Published by Editor under The Science Debate
Many thanks to TCE reader Donald Ferguson for forwarding this item from Weather.com to us.
…UNSEASONABLY COLD WEATHER CONTINUES AT FAIRBANKS…
THE HIGH TEMPERATURE YESTERDAY AT THE FAIRBANKS INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT WAS 31 DEGREES. THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME THIS FALL THAT THE
HIGH TEMPERATURE FAILED TO REACH THE FREEZING MARK. ON AVERAGE THE
DATE OF THE FIRST DAY WITH A HIGH TEMPERATURE BELOW FREEZING IS
OCTOBER 11TH. SO FAR THIS MONTH THE WARMEST TEMPERATURE OF 38
DEGREES WAS OBSERVED ON THE 2ND.
THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE SO FAR THIS MONTH OF 27.1 DEGREES IS 8.2
DEGREES BELOW THE 30-YEAR AVERAGE. IT HAS BEEN THE COLDEST FIRST 5
DAYS OF THE MONTH OF OCTOBER SINCE 1992.
Published by Editor under The Science Debate
Many thanks to TCE reader Donald Ferguson for forwarding this item from Weather.com to us.
…UNSEASONABLY COLD WEATHER CONTINUES AT FAIRBANKS…
THE HIGH TEMPERATURE YESTERDAY AT THE FAIRBANKS INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT WAS 31 DEGREES. THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME THIS FALL THAT THE
HIGH TEMPERATURE FAILED TO REACH THE FREEZING MARK. ON AVERAGE THE
DATE OF THE FIRST DAY WITH A HIGH TEMPERATURE BELOW FREEZING IS
OCTOBER 11TH. SO FAR THIS MONTH THE WARMEST TEMPERATURE OF 38
DEGREES WAS OBSERVED ON THE 2ND.
THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE SO FAR THIS MONTH OF 27.1 DEGREES IS 8.2
DEGREES BELOW THE 30-YEAR AVERAGE. IT HAS BEEN THE COLDEST FIRST 5
DAYS OF THE MONTH OF OCTOBER SINCE 1992.
More and more scientists are realizing the Sun's affects on the climate
Dr. James Hansen, Astronomer from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has been accusing man made c02 as the culprit for climate change for years. But Practically every version of the IPCC's data continues to be surrrounded in doubts of scientific accuracy and reliability, in particularly, with the links bewtween co2 levels and dramatic, out of range, out of season, out of mind temperature changes.
Those of us who have been a bit skeptical about "green house" gases being the driving force of climate change, and continued to search for other plausible hypotheses for climate change are finally beginning to see scientists speaking out publically about one very plausible and troubling possibility; that the very same Sun we depend on for life to continue to exsist, is also the primary driver of global climate changes.
Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun’s surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era.
Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research he led that independently discovered the sun’s changes are the result of a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from cold climate to warm and back again.
“We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun’s surface. This will have only one outcome - a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet.
This is not however a unique event...it is but the normal sequence of alternating climate changes that has been going on for thousands of years.
Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next series of climate changes many decades in advance. I have verified the accuracy of these cycles’ behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%.”
As to what these changes are Casey says,
“The sun’s surface flows have slowed dramatically. NASA’s studies have found that when the surface movement slows down, sunspot counts drop significantly. All records of sunspot counts and other proxies of solar activity going back 6,000 years clearly validates our own findings that when we have sunspot counts lower then 50 it means only one thing - an intense cold climate, globally.
What we are saying today is that my own research and that of the other scientists at the SSRC verifies that NASA is right about one thing – a solar cycle of 50 or lower is headed our way. With this next solar minimum predicted by NASA, what I call a “solar hibernation,” the SSRC forecasts a much colder Earth just as it has transpired before for thousands of years. If NASA is the more accurate on the schedule, then we may see even warmer temperatures before the bottom falls out. If the SSRC and other scientists around the world are correct then we have only a few years to prepare before 20-30 years of lasting and possibly dangerous cold arrive.”
When asked about what this will mean to the average person on the street, Casey was firm.
“The last time this particular cycle regenerated was over 200 years ago. I call it the “Bi-Centennial Cycle” solar cycle. It took place between 1793 and 1830, the so-called Dalton Minimum, a period of extreme cold that resulted in what historian John D. Post called the ‘last great subsistence crisis.’ With that cold came massive crops losses, food riots, famine and disease. I believe this next climate change will be much stronger and has the potential to once more cause widespread crop losses globally with the resultant ill effects. The key difference for this next Bi-Centennial Cycle’s impact versus the last is that we will have over 8 billion mouths to feed in the next coldest years where as we had only 1 billion the last time. Among other effects like social and economic disruption, we are facing the real prospect of the ‘perfect storm of global food shortages’ in the next climate change. In answer to the question, everyone on the street will be affected.”
Given the importance of the next climate change Casey was asked whether the government has been notified.
“Yes, as soon as my research revealed these solar cycles and the prediction of the coming cold era with the next climate change, I notified all the key offices in the Bush administration including both parties in the Senate and House science committees as well as most of the nation’s media outlets. Unfortunately, because of the intensity of coverage of the UN IPCC and man made global warming during 2007, the full story about climate change is very slow in getting told. These changes in the sun have begun. They are unstoppable. With the word finally starting to get out about the next climate change, hopefully we will have time to prepare. Right now, the newly organized SSRC is the leading independent research center in the US and possibly worldwide, that is focused on the next climate change. Some of the world’s brightest scientists, also experts in solar physics and the next climate change have joined with me. In the meantime we will do our best to spread the word along with NASA and others who can see what is about to take place for the Earth’s climate. Soon, I believe this will be recognized as the most important climate story of this century.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
http://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/PressReleaseSSRC1-2008.doc
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
http://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/PressReleaseSSRC1-2008.doc
Farmers Almanac climatologist concurs with the findings of the SSRC
USA Today has one heck of a story this morning:
The Old Farmer’s Almanac is going further out on a limb than usual this year, not only forecasting a cooler winter, but looking ahead decades to suggest we are in for global cooling, not warming.
Based on the same time-honored, complex calculations it uses to predict weather, the Almanac hits the newsstands on Tuesday saying a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate point to a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.
“We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes,” writes meteorologist and climatologist Joseph D’Aleo. “Studying these and other factor suggests that cold, not warm, climate may be our future.”
It’s just one voice, but it’s a voice that should get peoples’ attention.
The Old Farmer’s Almanac is going further out on a limb than usual this year, not only forecasting a cooler winter, but looking ahead decades to suggest we are in for global cooling, not warming.
Based on the same time-honored, complex calculations it uses to predict weather, the Almanac hits the newsstands on Tuesday saying a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate point to a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.
“We at the Almanac are among those who believe that sunspot cycles and their effects on oceans correlate with climate changes,” writes meteorologist and climatologist Joseph D’Aleo. “Studying these and other factor suggests that cold, not warm, climate may be our future.”
It’s just one voice, but it’s a voice that should get peoples’ attention.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Should BIG ENERGY be allowed to influence how NC handles the climate change debate?
In what I would call a stunning amount of audacity the NC Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change has two voting members from big energy:
Dr. George T. Everett
Director of Environmental and Legislative Affairs
Duke Power
225 Hillsborough Place, Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 235-0955
E-mail: gteverett@duke-energy.com
and
Ms. Caroline Choi
Director – Energy Policy & Strategy Progress Energy
410 South Wilmington Street
Suite 1505
Raleigh, NC 27601
(919)-546-3775
E-mail: caroline.choi@pgnmail.com
Now call me paranoid, but isn't that equivalent to letting The Cookie Monster guard the cookie jar?
I have had no correspondence with Mr Everett.
When I point blank asked Ms. Choi if her having a vote on the LCGCC would represent a clear conflict of interest, while working for an up-and-coming "green energy" utility company which has everything to gain should c02 become a government mandated pollutant,she did not respond. Shocking isn't it.
The following is taken directly from Progress Energy's website:
Progress Energy, headquartered in Raleigh, N.C., is a Fortune 250 energy company with more than 21,000 megawatts of generation capacity and $9 billion in annual revenues. The company will observe its 100th anniversary in 2008. Progress Energy includes two major utilities that serve 3.1 million customers in the Carolinas and Florida. The company is the 2006 recipient of the Edison Electric Institute's Edison Award, the industry's highest honor, in recognition of its operational excellence. The company also is the first utility to receive the prestigious J.D. Power and Associates Founder's Award for customer service. Progress Energy serves two fast-growing areas of the country, and the company is pursuing a balanced strategy for a secure energy future. That balance includes aggressive energy efficiency programs, investments in renewable energy technologies and a state-of-the-art electricity system. For more information about Progress Energy, visit the company's Web site at www.progress-energy.com.
A little old Nine Billion Dollar, Fourtune 250 company, poised to "help" NC get out of Duke Energy's frying pan, and right into a Progress Energy fire! Write to your NC elected representatives today and tell them you want to see this issue debated before it is too late!
Dr. George T. Everett
Director of Environmental and Legislative Affairs
Duke Power
225 Hillsborough Place, Suite 160
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 235-0955
E-mail: gteverett@duke-energy.com
and
Ms. Caroline Choi
Director – Energy Policy & Strategy Progress Energy
410 South Wilmington Street
Suite 1505
Raleigh, NC 27601
(919)-546-3775
E-mail: caroline.choi@pgnmail.com
Now call me paranoid, but isn't that equivalent to letting The Cookie Monster guard the cookie jar?
I have had no correspondence with Mr Everett.
When I point blank asked Ms. Choi if her having a vote on the LCGCC would represent a clear conflict of interest, while working for an up-and-coming "green energy" utility company which has everything to gain should c02 become a government mandated pollutant,she did not respond. Shocking isn't it.
The following is taken directly from Progress Energy's website:
Progress Energy, headquartered in Raleigh, N.C., is a Fortune 250 energy company with more than 21,000 megawatts of generation capacity and $9 billion in annual revenues. The company will observe its 100th anniversary in 2008. Progress Energy includes two major utilities that serve 3.1 million customers in the Carolinas and Florida. The company is the 2006 recipient of the Edison Electric Institute's Edison Award, the industry's highest honor, in recognition of its operational excellence. The company also is the first utility to receive the prestigious J.D. Power and Associates Founder's Award for customer service. Progress Energy serves two fast-growing areas of the country, and the company is pursuing a balanced strategy for a secure energy future. That balance includes aggressive energy efficiency programs, investments in renewable energy technologies and a state-of-the-art electricity system. For more information about Progress Energy, visit the company's Web site at www.progress-energy.com.
A little old Nine Billion Dollar, Fourtune 250 company, poised to "help" NC get out of Duke Energy's frying pan, and right into a Progress Energy fire! Write to your NC elected representatives today and tell them you want to see this issue debated before it is too late!
Two Atmospheric Sciences professors confirm the Northwest has had the coldest Spring since 1917.
Jun 10, 2008
By Scott Sistek
Is your barbecue collecting dust? It wouldn't be surprising...
We've used all sorts of statistics to come up with how chilly a spring it's been, but now two Atmospheric Sciences professors at the University of Washington, Cliff Mass and Mark Albright, have come up with a new way to measure the gloom: The "Barbecue Index."
And sure enough, it confirms what you've known all along -- it's been a bit cooler than average this spring.
Mass and Albright defined this index as the number of times since March 11 (the average date they consider the unofficial start to spring-like weather in the Northwest) it has been 60 degrees or warmer.
Why 60? They concluded that most people are comfortable outside once the temperature gets to 60 or better.
They went back to 1894 -- the farthest back they could get records for Seattle. Their conclusion? This is the worst Barbecue Index since 1917!
So far this year since March 11, Seattle has only reached 60 degrees or warmer 23 times. That is second-worst all-time, coming in runner-up to 1917's 18 score on the index. (At least you haven't had to spend much time cleaning the grills!)
The median number is 42 days. The best years were 1934 (74 out of days) and 1992 (62 days).
I've pasted below at the bottom of this entry the entire scoreboard of the Barbecue Index.
Good Illustration Of Why Our "BI" Is So Low
E-mail continues to pour in asking about why we've been stuck in such a cool pattern for so long. I've touched on this on previous blog entries (check the archives in the center column there to your right).
Generally speaking, our big ridge of high pressure that normally parks just offshore this time of year is parked father west, sending the jet stream up into Alaska, then down southeast right into the Pacific Northwest. That's tapping into some much cooler air in the northern latitudes and sending it our way. Sort of like opening a big door to our north and letting that Alaska air just blow right in.
As to why, it can be La Nina, or a host of other climate factors. Note that it's been cool in spring before -- this is not unprecedented. While we are looking at possibly setting a record for coldest June ever recorded, there have been other years with cool springs. It's just been a while. It just hasn't been this cold in the past 20 or 30 or so years, and memories fade :)
Anyway, here is the forecast chart of the next 8 days, showing the progression of yet another cool system from Alaska that is forecast to head our way for the middle of next week (although this one looks much weaker than the one we just went through):
Let's begin with Wednesday. I superimposed a red "L" on the approximate center of the low. The black lines are isobars / lines of constant pressure. The red and blue-dotted lines are atmospheric thickness -- a measure of temperature. (The '540' line changes from red to blue because over most of the nation, that line signifies the rain/snow line. However, out here, 540 is more of a 3,000 foot snow level line, or "Snow at Snoqualmie Pass" line. For lowland snow, we need to get down to about 516-522). The brown lines are the geographic boundaries to get your bearings. If it helps, Washington is at the bottom there near the date stamp.
And then watch over the next week as the low drops south of out Alaska toward the Northwest:
So yes, the forecast for middle of next week is a return to cool and showery weather. Guess that means another trip to Dicks for burgers :)
All time BBQ Index List:
Here is the "BBQ Index" All Time List for the 92 days between March 11 to June 10:
1. 1934 74
2. 1992 69
3. 1941 69
4. 1947 66
5. 1940 63
6. 1926 61
7. 2004 60
8. 1994 60
9. 1915 58
10. 1989 58
11. 1979 57
12. 1939 57
13. 1995 56
14. 1900 56
15. 1935 55
16. 2005 54
17. 1987 53
18. 1906 52
19. 1914 51
20. 1942 51
21. 1907 50
22. 1951 50
23. 1936 50
24. 1983 50
25. 1949 49
26. 1990 49
27. 1993 49
28. 1977 49
29. 1897 48
30. 1958 48
31. 1956 48
32. 2007 48
33. 1944 48
34. 1931 48
35. 2006 48
36. 1938 47
37. 1910 47
38. 1978 47
39. 1976 47
40. 1943 47
41. 1946 47
42. 1930 47
43. 1997 46
44. 1969 46
45. 1973 45
46. 1957 45
47. 1898 45
48. 1952 45
49. 1968 45
50. 1904 45
51. 1945 44
52. 1905 44
53. 1988 44
54. 1928 44
55. 1980 43
56. 2000 43
57. 1924 42
58. 1895 42
59. 1972 42
60. 1937 41
61. 1981 41
62. 1966 41
63. 1960 41
64. 1963 41
65. 1991 41
66. 1965 41
67. 1998 40
68. 1925 40
69. 1919 40
70. 1923 39
71. 1974 39
72. 1996 39
73. 1982 39
74. 1918 39
75. 1932 39
76. 1902 39
77. 1901 38
78. 1986 38
79. 2003 38
80. 1912 38
81. 1985 38
82. 1903 36
83. 1950 36
84. 1970 36
85. 2001 36
86. 1967 35
87. 1975 35
88. 2002 35
89. 1948 34
90. 1933 34
91. 1962 34
92. 1971 34
93. 1954 34
94. 1896 33
95. 1961 33
96. 1929 33
97. 1913 33
98. 1959 33
99. 1964 32
100. 1953 32
101. 1927 32
102. 1909 31
103. 1916 31
104. 1999 31
105. 1984 31
106. 1894 30
107. 1921 30
108. 1922 29
109. 1911 29
110. 1955 27
111. 1899 27
112. 1920 26
113. 1908 23
114. 2008 23
115. 1917 18
By Scott Sistek
Is your barbecue collecting dust? It wouldn't be surprising...
We've used all sorts of statistics to come up with how chilly a spring it's been, but now two Atmospheric Sciences professors at the University of Washington, Cliff Mass and Mark Albright, have come up with a new way to measure the gloom: The "Barbecue Index."
And sure enough, it confirms what you've known all along -- it's been a bit cooler than average this spring.
Mass and Albright defined this index as the number of times since March 11 (the average date they consider the unofficial start to spring-like weather in the Northwest) it has been 60 degrees or warmer.
Why 60? They concluded that most people are comfortable outside once the temperature gets to 60 or better.
They went back to 1894 -- the farthest back they could get records for Seattle. Their conclusion? This is the worst Barbecue Index since 1917!
So far this year since March 11, Seattle has only reached 60 degrees or warmer 23 times. That is second-worst all-time, coming in runner-up to 1917's 18 score on the index. (At least you haven't had to spend much time cleaning the grills!)
The median number is 42 days. The best years were 1934 (74 out of days) and 1992 (62 days).
I've pasted below at the bottom of this entry the entire scoreboard of the Barbecue Index.
Good Illustration Of Why Our "BI" Is So Low
E-mail continues to pour in asking about why we've been stuck in such a cool pattern for so long. I've touched on this on previous blog entries (check the archives in the center column there to your right).
Generally speaking, our big ridge of high pressure that normally parks just offshore this time of year is parked father west, sending the jet stream up into Alaska, then down southeast right into the Pacific Northwest. That's tapping into some much cooler air in the northern latitudes and sending it our way. Sort of like opening a big door to our north and letting that Alaska air just blow right in.
As to why, it can be La Nina, or a host of other climate factors. Note that it's been cool in spring before -- this is not unprecedented. While we are looking at possibly setting a record for coldest June ever recorded, there have been other years with cool springs. It's just been a while. It just hasn't been this cold in the past 20 or 30 or so years, and memories fade :)
Anyway, here is the forecast chart of the next 8 days, showing the progression of yet another cool system from Alaska that is forecast to head our way for the middle of next week (although this one looks much weaker than the one we just went through):
Let's begin with Wednesday. I superimposed a red "L" on the approximate center of the low. The black lines are isobars / lines of constant pressure. The red and blue-dotted lines are atmospheric thickness -- a measure of temperature. (The '540' line changes from red to blue because over most of the nation, that line signifies the rain/snow line. However, out here, 540 is more of a 3,000 foot snow level line, or "Snow at Snoqualmie Pass" line. For lowland snow, we need to get down to about 516-522). The brown lines are the geographic boundaries to get your bearings. If it helps, Washington is at the bottom there near the date stamp.
And then watch over the next week as the low drops south of out Alaska toward the Northwest:
So yes, the forecast for middle of next week is a return to cool and showery weather. Guess that means another trip to Dicks for burgers :)
All time BBQ Index List:
Here is the "BBQ Index" All Time List for the 92 days between March 11 to June 10:
1. 1934 74
2. 1992 69
3. 1941 69
4. 1947 66
5. 1940 63
6. 1926 61
7. 2004 60
8. 1994 60
9. 1915 58
10. 1989 58
11. 1979 57
12. 1939 57
13. 1995 56
14. 1900 56
15. 1935 55
16. 2005 54
17. 1987 53
18. 1906 52
19. 1914 51
20. 1942 51
21. 1907 50
22. 1951 50
23. 1936 50
24. 1983 50
25. 1949 49
26. 1990 49
27. 1993 49
28. 1977 49
29. 1897 48
30. 1958 48
31. 1956 48
32. 2007 48
33. 1944 48
34. 1931 48
35. 2006 48
36. 1938 47
37. 1910 47
38. 1978 47
39. 1976 47
40. 1943 47
41. 1946 47
42. 1930 47
43. 1997 46
44. 1969 46
45. 1973 45
46. 1957 45
47. 1898 45
48. 1952 45
49. 1968 45
50. 1904 45
51. 1945 44
52. 1905 44
53. 1988 44
54. 1928 44
55. 1980 43
56. 2000 43
57. 1924 42
58. 1895 42
59. 1972 42
60. 1937 41
61. 1981 41
62. 1966 41
63. 1960 41
64. 1963 41
65. 1991 41
66. 1965 41
67. 1998 40
68. 1925 40
69. 1919 40
70. 1923 39
71. 1974 39
72. 1996 39
73. 1982 39
74. 1918 39
75. 1932 39
76. 1902 39
77. 1901 38
78. 1986 38
79. 2003 38
80. 1912 38
81. 1985 38
82. 1903 36
83. 1950 36
84. 1970 36
85. 2001 36
86. 1967 35
87. 1975 35
88. 2002 35
89. 1948 34
90. 1933 34
91. 1962 34
92. 1971 34
93. 1954 34
94. 1896 33
95. 1961 33
96. 1929 33
97. 1913 33
98. 1959 33
99. 1964 32
100. 1953 32
101. 1927 32
102. 1909 31
103. 1916 31
104. 1999 31
105. 1984 31
106. 1894 30
107. 1921 30
108. 1922 29
109. 1911 29
110. 1955 27
111. 1899 27
112. 1920 26
113. 1908 23
114. 2008 23
115. 1917 18
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Part of South Africa had the coldest day in September in RECORDED HISTORY!
Surprise spring snowfalls blanket KZN, South Africa
September 21 2008 at 10:23AM
Parts of KwaZulu-Natal were transformed into a "winter wonderland" after snowfalls blanketed several areas of the province [of South Africa]. Temperatures plummeted into the low teens, with residents of Kokstad and Giants Castle waking up to 0C.
Durban experienced its coldest September night in recorded history on Friday night. Snowfalls were reported in Kokstad, Matatiele, Underberg, Mooi River, Bulwer, Himeville and Nottingham Road. Several roads in the province were closed and people were advised not to go snow hunting, as they risked becoming stuck in traffic and not being able to keep themselves warm. The road between Harding and Kokstad was closed for most of yesterday, but has since been reopened.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Why will Al Gore NOT debate his views on Global Warming?
This is a great article by The Heartland Institute.CHICAGO, IL: In recent months, former vice president Al Gore has become the world’s most recognized advocate of the theory that human greenhouse gas emissions are altering the world’s climate and could cause catastrophic damage if not arrested and reduced. He is getting hundreds of millions of dollars in free publicity from the press and from environmental groups that echo his warning.
But Al Gore refuses to debate those who say global warming is not a crisis.
Maybe it’s because climate alarmists tend to lose when they debate climate realists. Or because most scientists do not support climate alarmism.
Maybe it’s because climate alarmists tend to lose when they debate climate realists. Or because most scientists do not support climate alarmism.
Dennis Avery, coauthor of the best-selling book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, is still waiting for Gore to respond to his April 16 formal debate challenge:
[Our two] books represent the two leading explanations for the earth’s recent temperature changes—and they conflict. If global warming truly is the most important public policy issue of our day, then it is high time the public got to hear the arguments from both sides matched up against each other. How else can people make informed decisions? Therefore, I formally challenge you to debate me at a public event, preferably to be televised or carried by a radio station, sometime in the coming months.
[Our two] books represent the two leading explanations for the earth’s recent temperature changes—and they conflict. If global warming truly is the most important public policy issue of our day, then it is high time the public got to hear the arguments from both sides matched up against each other. How else can people make informed decisions? Therefore, I formally challenge you to debate me at a public event, preferably to be televised or carried by a radio station, sometime in the coming months.
Avery is director of the Center for Global Food Issues and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He holds awards for outstanding performance from three different government agencies and was awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement in 1983. He travels the world as a speaker, has testified before Congress, and has appeared on most of the nation's major television networks. He is well-qualified to debate Gore ... and certainly at least merits the decency of a response to his challenge, which he has yet to receive.
Avery is not the only person to challenge Gore to debate. Lord Monckton of Brenchley, a former advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, issued the following challenge on March 14:
Avery is not the only person to challenge Gore to debate. Lord Monckton of Brenchley, a former advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, issued the following challenge on March 14:
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley presents his compliments to Vice-President Albert Gore and by these presents challenges the said former Vice-President to a head-to-head, internationally-televised debate upon the question “That our effect on climate is not dangerous,” to be held in the Library of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History at a date of the Vice-President’s choosing.
Forasmuch as it is His Lordship who now flings down the gauntlet to the Vice-President, it shall be the Vice-President’s prerogative and right to choose his weapons by specifying the form of the Great Debate. May the Truth win! Magna est veritas, et praevalet.
Like Avery, Lord Monckton is eminently qualified to debate Gore—see here and here for his recent writing on global warming—and Gore thought highly enough of him to respond to one of his essays. Like Gore, Lord Monckton is a prominent figure in the global warming debate who is not a scientist or professional economist. He would seem to be an appropriate and worthy opponent.
But Gore refuses to debate Lord Monckton, just as he refuses to debate Dennis Avery and a growing list of prominent scientists, economists, novelists, and policy experts.
If the scientific debate over global warming is over, as Gore and other climate alarmists so often claim, why is Al Gore afraid to debate?
If the scientific debate over global warming is over, as Gore and other climate alarmists so often claim, why is Al Gore afraid to debate?
Is it because there is no scientific consensus on the causes or effects of global warming? Is it because a growing number of experts believe we should invest in adapting to global warming—whether it is due to natural or human causes—rather than spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to stabilize or reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Whatever the reason, we believe Al Gore should debate his critics. If you agree, please ask Al Gore to accept Dennis Avery's challenge.
Dennis Avery can be contacted directly via email at cgfi@hughes.net.
For more information about Lord Monckton’s challenge to Al Gore, go to the Web site of the Center for Environment and Public Policy.
Lord Monckton can be contacted directly via email at monckton@mail.com.
The Heartland Institute is a 23-year-old national nonprofit research organization devoted to discovering, developing, and promoting free-market solutions to public policy problems. For more information, please call Thomas Swiss at 312/377-4000 or contact him by email at tswiss@heartland.org, or visit our Web sites at http://www.heartland.org/ or http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Sydney's Coolest Summer in 50 Years Leaves Empty Cafes, Gloom
Well I guess "Global Warming" is not so global?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ae6GlcvBtldY&refer=home
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ae6GlcvBtldY&refer=home
Friday, August 15, 2008
Climate change we can believe in! Artic Ice grows by 30%!
Arctic Ice Grows, Refuses To Conform With Liberal Meme
By Bryan McAffee
The Register has a great story about the growth of the Arctic Ice this summer. Apparently, despite all computer assisted weather models and Global warming climate change hyperbole, there was an actual net gain in the arctic ice of about 30%:
Just a few weeks ago, predictions of Arctic ice collapse were buzzing all over the internet. Some scientists were predicting that the “North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer”.
Others predicted that the entire “polar ice cap would disappear this summer”.The Arctic melt season is nearly done for this year. The sun is now very low above the horizon and will set for the winter at the North Pole in five weeks. And none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Yet there is, however, something odd going on with the ice data.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado released an alarming graph on August 11, showing that Arctic ice was rapidly disappearing, back towards last year’s record minimum. Their data shows Arctic sea ice extent only 10 per cent greater than this date in 2007, and the second lowest on record….
The problem is that this graph does not appear to be correct. Other data sources show Arctic ice having made a nice recovery this summer. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006. Maps of Arctic ice extent are readily available from several sources, including the University of Illinois, which keeps a daily archive for the last 30 years
So, according to the data liberals would have us believe (I mean, the NSIDC is located in Boulder, I’m sure they are not on the take) the increase was only 10%, but according to other data the increase in ice is about 30%.
So, who to believe? That is the problem with the Al Gore crowd and anyone else who believes this hoax, the data is absolutely all over the map on climate change. Computer models predict one thing and something else entirely happens. The whole point of science is to try to make predictions about the natural world. If you predictions never are correct, why even try? Of course, the answer to that is you keep trying to induce more panic, thereby increasing university grants, which spews out more false models, thus perpetuating the cycle.
http://www.rightpundits.com
By Bryan McAffee
The Register has a great story about the growth of the Arctic Ice this summer. Apparently, despite all computer assisted weather models and Global warming climate change hyperbole, there was an actual net gain in the arctic ice of about 30%:
Just a few weeks ago, predictions of Arctic ice collapse were buzzing all over the internet. Some scientists were predicting that the “North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer”.
Others predicted that the entire “polar ice cap would disappear this summer”.The Arctic melt season is nearly done for this year. The sun is now very low above the horizon and will set for the winter at the North Pole in five weeks. And none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Yet there is, however, something odd going on with the ice data.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado released an alarming graph on August 11, showing that Arctic ice was rapidly disappearing, back towards last year’s record minimum. Their data shows Arctic sea ice extent only 10 per cent greater than this date in 2007, and the second lowest on record….
The problem is that this graph does not appear to be correct. Other data sources show Arctic ice having made a nice recovery this summer. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006. Maps of Arctic ice extent are readily available from several sources, including the University of Illinois, which keeps a daily archive for the last 30 years
So, according to the data liberals would have us believe (I mean, the NSIDC is located in Boulder, I’m sure they are not on the take) the increase was only 10%, but according to other data the increase in ice is about 30%.
So, who to believe? That is the problem with the Al Gore crowd and anyone else who believes this hoax, the data is absolutely all over the map on climate change. Computer models predict one thing and something else entirely happens. The whole point of science is to try to make predictions about the natural world. If you predictions never are correct, why even try? Of course, the answer to that is you keep trying to induce more panic, thereby increasing university grants, which spews out more false models, thus perpetuating the cycle.
http://www.rightpundits.com
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Man-Made climate change math, 1% equals a consensus!
Scientific consensus on man-made climate change... well that depends on what you mean by consensus.
How many times a day do we read or hear from the “un-biased” media that the case for man-made global warming (caused by our SUV’s and factories spewing CO2 into the atmosphere) is closed. As our very own US Senator Dole says in a letter to NCCO2Debate there is a “scientific consensus” on the issue and no further debate or study needs to be done, but that it is time to begin spending millions of our NC tax dollars regulating CO2. This post is to provide another resource to North Carolinian’s that will expose this environmentalist propaganda talking point turned climate change urban legend.
Not surprisingly based off of the actual number of scientists involved with the IPCC, the “scientific consensus” term was NOT even coined by a scientist. The phrase was actually quoted from a science historian in 2004. Like most of you when I hear the phrase scientific consensus I envision 1000’s of peer-reviewed papers, published in reputable scientific journals, by hundred’s of different scientists, at least a hundred pages each, with enough charts and graphs to make your eyes cross, that all come to the same conclusions, independently, using repeatable experimental data. This post, taken from a report by Christopher Walter with the Science and Public Policy Institute, clearly demonstrates that instead, sadly, "consensus" was reached from a one page essay by science historian Naomi Oreskes.
In 2004 Oreskes ran a key word search in the ISI Science Web database (a tool used by scientists to research previously published data in varying scientific fields of study) using “climate change”, or at least that is what her essay stated she did. The results of her key word search were:
“928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003,
and listed in the ISI database with the keywords ‘climate change’.”
In her analysis of the 928 abstracts she concluded that, 75% of the 928 abstracts either explicitly or implicitly accepted the “consensus” view that climate change is indeed man-made….AND that the remaining 25% took NO position, being concerned with palaeoclimate rather than today’s climate.
That’s math even I can do.
If 75% of ALL the scientific literature that existed from 1993 to 2003 held a view that climate change is indeed man-made, or caused by man, and the remaining 25% contained not one dissenting opinion, then yes, one would be foolish not to support immediate, drastic counter measures to reduce CO2 emissions! And indeed Oreskes leads us to believe in her essay that none of the 928 abstracts contain any dissenting opinions. She states:
“Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. … This
analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree
with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their
professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have
the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists,
but that impression is incorrect. … Our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. … There is a consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.”
AND thus the “scientific consensus” of man made climate change environmentalist/liberal talking point is born! As the Big Foot urban legend started off with two guys, a camera, and a monkey suit, this urban legend started with a computer, a historian, and a one page essay in a scientific journal.
You would be tempted to assume that Oreske’s one-page essay was peer-reviewed before it could possibly be published in such a prestigious scientific journal as Science. But, as usual, when it comes to man made climate change alarmist claims, to make that assumption would be a very expensive mistake for North Carolina, America, and the World. Why…. because Oreske lied!
Christopher Walter, with the Science and Public Policy Institute states,
“It is not clear whether Oreskes’ analysis was peer-reviewed, since it was presented as an essay and not as a scientific paper. However, there were numerous serious errors, effectively negating her conclusion, which suggest that the essay was either not reviewed at all or reviewed with undue indulgence by scientists who agreed with Oreskes’ declared prejudice – shared by the editors of Science - in favour of the alarmist position.”
Dr. Benny Peiser conducting true science by attempting to duplicate Oreskes’ “experiment” searched the ISI Science Web database using “climate change” for the same time frame and he simply could not duplicate Oreskes’ results. Walter states,
“Dr.Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in the UK, conducted a search of the peer-reviewed literature on the ISI Web of Science database between 1993 and 2003. He found not 928 but more than 12,000 papers mentioning the phrase “climate change". When he pointed this out, the editors of Science were compelled to publish anerratum to the effect that the search term which Oreskes had used was not, as stated in her essay, “climate change” but rather “global climate change”. Accordingly, Oreskes’ essay had covered not the entire corpus of scientific papers on climate change over the stateddecade but fewer than one-thirteenth of them."
When Dr. Peiser ran the search “global climate change” which is actually the same search that Oreskes used, he found 1117 documents not 928. But what is more important, when he reviewed the 1117 only 13 draw hard conclusions that climate change is man-made, and/or catastrophic in nature.
That is 1%!
Webster’s online defines consensus as:
“general agreement or the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned.”
The only consensus I see in the scientific literature is that man made climate change does not exist.
Please visit http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ and read this article “Consensus”? What “Consensus”? Among Climate Scientists, the Debate Is Not Over". I strongly encourage all of my fellow North Carolinian’s to forward it on to your elected officials and inform them that there is a 1% consensus that they will be re-elected if they continue to remain silent about this hoax. Also, tell them you want to see this issue debated publicly, with scientists from both points of view, presenting and defending the evidence for man-made climate change before one dollar of our taxes is spent regulating CO2 in our great state.
How many times a day do we read or hear from the “un-biased” media that the case for man-made global warming (caused by our SUV’s and factories spewing CO2 into the atmosphere) is closed. As our very own US Senator Dole says in a letter to NCCO2Debate there is a “scientific consensus” on the issue and no further debate or study needs to be done, but that it is time to begin spending millions of our NC tax dollars regulating CO2. This post is to provide another resource to North Carolinian’s that will expose this environmentalist propaganda talking point turned climate change urban legend.
Not surprisingly based off of the actual number of scientists involved with the IPCC, the “scientific consensus” term was NOT even coined by a scientist. The phrase was actually quoted from a science historian in 2004. Like most of you when I hear the phrase scientific consensus I envision 1000’s of peer-reviewed papers, published in reputable scientific journals, by hundred’s of different scientists, at least a hundred pages each, with enough charts and graphs to make your eyes cross, that all come to the same conclusions, independently, using repeatable experimental data. This post, taken from a report by Christopher Walter with the Science and Public Policy Institute, clearly demonstrates that instead, sadly, "consensus" was reached from a one page essay by science historian Naomi Oreskes.
In 2004 Oreskes ran a key word search in the ISI Science Web database (a tool used by scientists to research previously published data in varying scientific fields of study) using “climate change”, or at least that is what her essay stated she did. The results of her key word search were:
“928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003,
and listed in the ISI database with the keywords ‘climate change’.”
In her analysis of the 928 abstracts she concluded that, 75% of the 928 abstracts either explicitly or implicitly accepted the “consensus” view that climate change is indeed man-made….AND that the remaining 25% took NO position, being concerned with palaeoclimate rather than today’s climate.
That’s math even I can do.
If 75% of ALL the scientific literature that existed from 1993 to 2003 held a view that climate change is indeed man-made, or caused by man, and the remaining 25% contained not one dissenting opinion, then yes, one would be foolish not to support immediate, drastic counter measures to reduce CO2 emissions! And indeed Oreskes leads us to believe in her essay that none of the 928 abstracts contain any dissenting opinions. She states:
“Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. … This
analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree
with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their
professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have
the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists,
but that impression is incorrect. … Our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. … There is a consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.”
AND thus the “scientific consensus” of man made climate change environmentalist/liberal talking point is born! As the Big Foot urban legend started off with two guys, a camera, and a monkey suit, this urban legend started with a computer, a historian, and a one page essay in a scientific journal.
You would be tempted to assume that Oreske’s one-page essay was peer-reviewed before it could possibly be published in such a prestigious scientific journal as Science. But, as usual, when it comes to man made climate change alarmist claims, to make that assumption would be a very expensive mistake for North Carolina, America, and the World. Why…. because Oreske lied!
Christopher Walter, with the Science and Public Policy Institute states,
“It is not clear whether Oreskes’ analysis was peer-reviewed, since it was presented as an essay and not as a scientific paper. However, there were numerous serious errors, effectively negating her conclusion, which suggest that the essay was either not reviewed at all or reviewed with undue indulgence by scientists who agreed with Oreskes’ declared prejudice – shared by the editors of Science - in favour of the alarmist position.”
Dr. Benny Peiser conducting true science by attempting to duplicate Oreskes’ “experiment” searched the ISI Science Web database using “climate change” for the same time frame and he simply could not duplicate Oreskes’ results. Walter states,
“Dr.Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in the UK, conducted a search of the peer-reviewed literature on the ISI Web of Science database between 1993 and 2003. He found not 928 but more than 12,000 papers mentioning the phrase “climate change". When he pointed this out, the editors of Science were compelled to publish anerratum to the effect that the search term which Oreskes had used was not, as stated in her essay, “climate change” but rather “global climate change”. Accordingly, Oreskes’ essay had covered not the entire corpus of scientific papers on climate change over the stateddecade but fewer than one-thirteenth of them."
When Dr. Peiser ran the search “global climate change” which is actually the same search that Oreskes used, he found 1117 documents not 928. But what is more important, when he reviewed the 1117 only 13 draw hard conclusions that climate change is man-made, and/or catastrophic in nature.
That is 1%!
Webster’s online defines consensus as:
“general agreement or the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned.”
The only consensus I see in the scientific literature is that man made climate change does not exist.
Please visit http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ and read this article “Consensus”? What “Consensus”? Among Climate Scientists, the Debate Is Not Over". I strongly encourage all of my fellow North Carolinian’s to forward it on to your elected officials and inform them that there is a 1% consensus that they will be re-elected if they continue to remain silent about this hoax. Also, tell them you want to see this issue debated publicly, with scientists from both points of view, presenting and defending the evidence for man-made climate change before one dollar of our taxes is spent regulating CO2 in our great state.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Al Gore refuses to debate his man made climate change views
The following is a copy of a petition that already has approx 8000 signatures demanding that Al Gore admit that his man made climate change views are faulty since he has continuously refused to debate his views publically.
"To: Al Gore
Mr. Gore, Numerous scientists claim that the global warming experienced in the 20th century has nothing to do with man-made carbon dioxide, as you claim. Their arguments are compelling, and a debate would allow you to address these issues and prove that your arguments are based on science, rather than politics. On March 14, 2007 Lord Monckton of Brenchley challenged you to debate your position on global warming, but your refusal only strengthens their position. We urge you to debate Lord Monckton of Brenchley, or otherwise admit that the causal link between man and global warming is spurious."
Here is a link to sign the petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/agdgw/petition-sign.html
"To: Al Gore
Mr. Gore, Numerous scientists claim that the global warming experienced in the 20th century has nothing to do with man-made carbon dioxide, as you claim. Their arguments are compelling, and a debate would allow you to address these issues and prove that your arguments are based on science, rather than politics. On March 14, 2007 Lord Monckton of Brenchley challenged you to debate your position on global warming, but your refusal only strengthens their position. We urge you to debate Lord Monckton of Brenchley, or otherwise admit that the causal link between man and global warming is spurious."
Here is a link to sign the petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/agdgw/petition-sign.html
Dr Roy Spencer, former climate change researcher with NASA testifies for the Senate Environment and PublicWorks Committee
Yet another world renowned scientist/meterologist testifies before congress that...
"the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural."
The following link will take you to a transcript of Dr. Spencer's testimony:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/roy_w_spencer_testimoney.pdf
"the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural."
The following link will take you to a transcript of Dr. Spencer's testimony:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/roy_w_spencer_testimoney.pdf
Saturday, August 2, 2008
I sent the following letter to my US and State congressional leaders requesting a NC Climate Change Summit
"My name is Neal Thomas and I reside in Shelby, North Carolina. I am sending this letter to all of my elected officials to strongly urge you all to unite together and confront the issue of “man-made” global warming for what it is; a hoax.
I am requesting that my North Carolina and U.S. Congressional leaders call for a Climate Change Summit. It would be composed strictly of scientific experts from both sides of the global warming debate, and would be designed to allow equal time for each panel of experts to publicly present and defend the scientific evidence for and against man-made global warming.
The assertion that there is 100% consensus within the scientific community that global warming is “man-made” is absolutely, positively, and categorically false. The Petition Project has grown considerably since Gore’s movie was released.
“More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.” May 19, 2008, Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily.
A movie soon to be released entitled Not Evil Just Wrong; The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria, is designed as a rebuttal to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”.
The original founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, asserts that Al Gore and all others selling carbon credits should be sued for fraud:
“Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose… That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention… as the experts went to the witness stand and testified, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.” Jeff Poor, Business & Media Institute, 3/5/2008.
The original founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, asserts that Al Gore and all others selling carbon credits should be sued for fraud:
“Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose… That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention… as the experts went to the witness stand and testified, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.” Jeff Poor, Business & Media Institute, 3/5/2008.
Democrats in congress are working very hard to pass legislation that would as stated in their climate principles letter,
“Reduce emissions to avoid dangerous global warming…”
“Progressive Democrats of America has endorsed a science-based global warming bill now in the House of Representatives, The Safe Climate Act (H.R. 1590, Henry Waxman, D-CA-30). Now three House leaders, including Rep. Waxman, are circulating a climate principles letter among their colleagues which clearly defines the goals and elements a final law must contain to be successful. Speaker Pelosi supports the letter, and a large number of signatures from House members will help her to press for the best possible global warming bill.” Progressive Democrats of America, Action Alerts, http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=11569301
And Democrats in congress are not the only concern. Now it would seem the EPA will step in and mandate CO2 regulations single-handedly.
“The Wall Street Journal reports today that the Environmental Protection Agency will release a document later this week that could become “the legal roadmap for regulating greenhouse-gas emissions in the U.S.” Using the Clean Air Act, lawyers at the EPA claim they have the authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. Such a decision would unleash a regulatory Pandora’s Box, vesting the EPA with vast control over the entire economy. Worse yet, when regulating pursuant to the Clean Air Act, the EPA is forbidden to take into account the economic costs of their regulations.” Heritage Foundation, Morning Bell, June 30th 2008.
Insurance companies are also beginning to cash in on the hysteria:
“Scientists say the jury is still out on whether rising sea temperatures will cause more hurricanes to hit U.S. coastlines. Yet some insurance companies are boosting premiums based on assumptions that they will. Helping to drive these developments is a little-known tool of the insurance world: Computerized catastrophe modeling. Crafted by several independent firms and used by most insurers, so-called cat models rely on complex data to estimate probable losses from hurricanes. But regulators and other critics contend that the latest cat models -- which include assumptions about various climate changes -- are triggering higher insurance rates.” WSJ.com July 1, 2008 HURRICANE WATCH Insurers Criticized For New Rate Models, M.P. MCQUEEN
I believe very strongly in being a good steward of our planet, but if man-made greenhouse gases are NOT causing global warming which many world renowned scientists believe, then it needs to be exposed for the hoax it is. I for one think a Climate Change Summit would be an acceptable expenditure of our tax dollars due to the huge amount of taxes we will face if the EPA is allowed to proceed unchecked. It is time to stand!"
All responses have been posted on the blog towards the bottom. I scanned them in so I apologize if they are a little difficult to read.
I am in the 10th US Congressional district so I sent this letter to Rep. Patrick McHenry. I was somewhat encouraged by Rep. McHenry's response. He in a round-about way admits that there is no "scientific consensus" that climate change is man-made. On the other hand, it is quite obvious to me that this is a form letter response because Rep. McHenry does not even mention or comment at all on my request for the Summit.
Being in NC I sent this letter to Senator's Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr who sent almost identical responses which I will post below. Sen. Dole and Burr also sent form letters, and I wonder if Sen. Dole's letter is pre-2006? Based on the letter the Sen. sent in response to mine, it makes me wonder if she even read mine? How could she possibly believe there is a "scientific consensus" about man made climate change when there are 31,000 US scientists who have gone on the public record to say that it is not? The IPCC claims to have less than 3000 scientists backing up their data. I will admit that before Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick dropped the equivalent of an atom bomb on Mann's "hockey-stick fraud", there may very well have been a scientific consensus. But there certainly is not a consensus now other than within the media, and the IPCC. I plan on engaging Sen. Dole and Burr in more conversation to clarify their opinion's about the 31,000 amoung other things.
I reside in Cleveland county NC so that places me in the 111th district for the House of Representatives, which is Rep. Tim Moore. Unfortunately I have misplaced his response. However his response about man made climate change left no doubt that he believes this issue needs much more debate, and so far he is the only elected official that penned a personal response to my letter. He is in favor of having the issue debated publically. Thank you Rep. Moore for taking the time to read and respond to my letter.
My state senate district is 46 so my state senator is Walter Dalton and he has NOT sent a response to my letter. I plan on sending my original letter to Rep. Debbie Clary and allowing her to comment. I am pretty sure she is running against Sen. Dalton for his seat in the NC Senate.
And lastly I sent this letter to the Governor of North Carolina, Michael Easley. His was by far the poorest of all. He did not comment on my request for a Summit, but from his coldish response I do believe he at least read my letter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![Senator Dole's [and Sen. Burr concur's] response to request for NC Climate Change Summit](http://bp2.blogger.com/_uDvGXGS4O0Q/SJWzFOwXy5I/AAAAAAAAAG0/_CmMAgXUt7g/S660-s0-d/Elizabeth+Dole.jpg)
