Tag Archives: anthropogenic global warming

Maldives Not The Next Atlantis

Al Gore's Home in 20,000 Years?

Sorry to disappoint everyone but the Maldives aren’t sinking and won’t be underwater anytime soon, and shouldn’t get one damn penny of money under the guise of “we’re a poor little country suffering from anthropogenic global warming and all you big rich countries need to deposit money in our national treasury so we can get filthy rich, buy mansions, new Rolls Royce’s and have hookers 24 x 7 oops, I mean so we can fight this massive sea-level rise from global warming that will soon have my house under water.”

Here’s the reality of the situation in an open letter from Nils-Axel Mörner (a sea-level specialist) to the President of the Maldives, who’s been squawking like a baby buzzard waiting for its mommy to feed it some putrid dead rat meat.

Open Letter

October 20, 2009

To: President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives

From: Nils-Axel Mörner, Stockholm, Sweden

Mr. President,

You have recently held an undersea Cabinet meeting to raise awareness of the idea that global sea level is rising and hence threatens to drown the Maldives. This proposition is not founded in observational facts and true scientific judgments.

Therefore, I am most surprised at your action and must protest its intended message.

In 2001, when our research group found overwhelming evidence that sea level was by no means in a rising mode in the Maldives, but had remained quite stable for the last 30 years, I thought it would not be respectful to the fine people of the Maldives if I were to return home and present our results in international fora. Therefore, I announced this happy news during an interview for your local TV station. However, your predecessor as president censored and stopped the broadcast.

When you became president, I was hoping both for democracy and for dialogue. However, I have written to you twice without reply. Your people ought not to have to suffer a constant claim that there is no future for them on their own islands. This terrible message is deeply inappropriate, since it is founded not upon reality but upon an imported concept, which lacks scientific justification and is thus untenable. There is simply no rational basis for it.

Let me summarize a few facts.

(1) In the last 2000 years, sea level has oscillated with 5 peaks reaching 0.6 to 1.2 m above the present sea level.

(2) From 1790 to 1970 sea level was about 20 cm higher than today

(3) In the 1970s, sea level fell by about 20 cm to its present level

(4) Sea level has remained stable for the last 30 years, implying that there are no traces of any alarming on-going sea level rise.

(5) Therefore, we are able to free the Maldives (and the rest of low-lying coasts and island around the globe) from the condemnation of becoming flooded in the near future.

When I was president for the INQUA commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, we spent much effort on the question of present-to-future sea level changes. After intensive field studies, deliberation within the commission and discussions at five international meetings, we agreed on a “best estimate” for possible sea level changes by the year 2100. Our figure was +10 cm ±10 cm. This figure was later revised at +5 cm ±15cm (as given in Fig. 1). Such changes would imply small to negligible effects.

Such a small rise would pose no threat for the Maldives. Rather, it would be a natural return to the conditions existing from 1790 to 1970; i.e. to the position before the sea level fall in the 1970s.

So, Mr. President, when you ignore available observational facts, refuse a normal democratic dialogue, and continue to menace your people with the imaginary threat of a disastrous flooding already in progress, I think you are doing a serious mistake.

Let us, for Heaven’s sake, lift the terrible psychological burden that you and your predecessor have placed upon the shoulders of all people in the Maldives, who are now living with the imagined threat that flooding will soon drive them from their homes, a wholly false notion that is nothing but an armchair fiction artificially constructed by mere computer modeling constantly proven wrong by meticulous real-world observations.

Your cabinet meeting under the water is nothing but a misdirected gimmick or PR stunt. Al Gore is a master in such cheap techniques. But such misconduct is dishonest, unproductive and certainly most un-scientific.

Nils-Axel Mörner

Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University, Sweden (1991-2005); President of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003); Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project (2000 on); Chairman of the INTAS project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997-2003).

Source: Financial Post

Sounds to me like they need to find a new schtick to get some of that money they’re so greedy for.


Comments Off on Maldives Not The Next Atlantis

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Science

Global Warming Now Causes "Montezuma’s Revenge"

Yes, you read right, global warming is now the cause of “Montezuma’s Revenge” also known as diarrhea. The list keeps getting longer!  Almost every day something new is caused by global warming! More CO2 Insanity coming faster than a speeding bullet.

Incidences of food poisoning are likely to rise with increased global temperatures, according to a report from the WHO and Malta’s Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Unit.  According to the report, a study on the health effects of climate change in the Maltese islands warns that rising temperatures increase the likelihood of food-borne diseases like salmonella.

The study found 450 cases of diarrheal illness in Malta occurring each day, at a cost of 16 million Euros.  It was also reported that cases of diarrheal illness increase in May, with the rise in temperature, peaking in the summer months. The study looked at an 18 year period of illnesses from 1990-2008.  Part of the increase was blamed on increased outdoor activities involving food such as barbecues.

In view of the increased risks caused by climate change the study calls for “increased public awareness on food safety, hygiene and food preparation.”

The study was authored by Dr Anthony Gatt from the Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Unit and Dr Neville Calleja director of the Health Information and Research Directorate. Results found here.

Really now? I don’t suppose they looked at anything like how food it stored (or not as the case may be – like in refrigerators????) if proper hand washing techniques are used (Pass the soap!), etc.  It’s just gotta be caused by anthropogenic global warming! I guess these geniuses don’t get it.  It gets hotter during the summer (duh!), so when people increase their outdoor activities and leave food out in the heat it spoils (duh!).  Don’t you think if we had global warming a better indication might just be an increase in outdoor activities and food poisoning during the winter?

From EMedicineHealth we get the causes of food poisoning.

Food Poisoning Causes

More than 250 known diseases can be transmitted through food. The CDC estimates unknown or undiscovered agents cause 81% of all food-borne illnesses and related hospitalizations. Many cases of food poisoning are not reported because people suffer mild symptoms and recover quickly. Also, doctors do not test for a cause in every suspected case because it does not change the treatment or the outcome.

  • The known causes of food poisoning can be divided into two categories: infectious agents and toxic agents.
    • Infectious agents include viruses,bacteria, and parasites.
    • Toxic agents include poisonous mushrooms, improperly prepared exotic foods (such as barracuda), or pesticides on fruits and vegetables.
  • Food usually becomes contaminated from poor sanitation or preparation. Food handlers who do not wash their hands after using the bathroom or have infections themselves often cause contamination. Improperly packaged food stored at the wrong temperature also promotes contamination.
  • Interesting and funny that they don’t mention global warming as a cause.

    This is one idea I think I’ll flush. Or, perhaps I’ll get rich by stocking up on toilet paper and selling it at a premium when global warming hits my neighborhood.

    Source:  Food Poison Journal

    Comments Off on Global Warming Now Causes "Montezuma’s Revenge"

    Filed under Co2 Insanity, Editor, Stranger than Truth

    Lake Tanganyika Warming – "Unprecedented" BS

    It’s amazing how the “warmer” press and blogs latch on to silliness. They’ll hop on anything about global warming faster than the Lone Ranger jumps on his horse “Silver.” I did a Google search on “Africa’s Lake Tanganyika, Warming Fast Life Dying” the result shows as of now there are 66,600 search results on this headline and it hasn’t even been up but about 3 days. If it sounds like doom and gloom and it’s blamed upon global warming it really gets out there fast. What it really amounts to appears to be much ado about nothing, which is business as usual with the “warmer” crowd.

    This is what happens when you send people from liberal Brown University, who conveniently come up with another scare-a-rama about global warming, in what appears to be another feeble “alarmist” attempt to counter climategate and all the other “gates” since. I originally found this article from Reuters  about how Lake Tanganyika has warmed while perusing things on the net.

    Africa’s lake Tanganyika has heated up sharply over the past 90 years and is now warmer than at any time for at least 1,500 years, a scientific paper said on Sunday, adding that fish and wildlife are threatened.

    Of course we have to tie this in with global warming and CO2.

    Lead scientist on the project Jessica Tierney told Reuters the sharp rise in temperature coincided with rises in human emissions of greenhouse gases seen in the past century, so the study added to evidence that emissions are warming the planet.

    And of course we have to use the warmista’s favorite word “unprecedented.”  “Coincided” seems odd, too, like they’re saying it could be mere coincidence, but it’s got to be caused by CO2 because it goes along with the CO2 Insanity agenda.

    The results were published in Nature Geoscience on Sunday. (Link)

    “Lake Tanganyika has experienced unprecedented warming in the last century,” a press release accompanying the paper said. “The warming likely is affecting valuable fish stocks upon which millions of people depend.”

    The paper argues that recent rises in temperature are correlated with a loss of biological productivity in the lake, suggesting higher temperatures may be killing life.

    “Lake Tanganyika has become warmer, increasingly stratified and less productive over the past 90 years,” the paper says.

    Unprecedented temperatures and a … decrease in productivity can be attributed to (human) … global warming.”

    See, they use words like “suggesting” and even use “unprecedented” twice. Note they link it to “human” (anthropogenic) global warming, too.  That’s a mighty big conclusion in my humble opinion, not to mention mighty convenient. So how much is this “unprecedented” temperature rise?

    The rise in temperature over the past 90 years was about 0.9 degrees Celsius and was accompanied by a drop in algae volumes.

    Note, I’m not questioning the temperature rise, or the algae drop, but I do question what’s causing it and if it’s “unprecedented” or not. I find the next line interesting as it makes it obvious they don’t really know what’s causing it.

    But the paper admits that other factors, like overfishing, may be doing more harm than any warming.

    What I simply can’t fathom about some scientist is why they publish things and act like they have proof positive when the reality is they don’t have all the facts to back up what they’re stating?  I really don’t have a problem with the facts of this paper, but I do have a big problem with them claiming it’s due to AGW. Now back to the “overfishing.”

    Yes, “overfishing” could be an excellent reason there’s less fish.  Perhaps not the whole reason, but certainly a large factor, especially when you see the below on the population increase in the region over the previous 90 years, which explains why overfishing would be one of my top choices on why there are less fish.

    Another factor would be the resulting pollution from the dramatic increase in population of the region.  This would lend itself handily in explaining problems with the lake. The reality is that what they’re actually saying is that they don’t know what the cause is.  I have to wonder if this was even peer-reviewed?

    To start laying things out and get somewhat of a handle on what was gong on in Africa 90 years ago (1920), I find the following about population.  This is certainly not exact science, but I think it provides a good idea of what the population increase in this region has been since 1920. It’s dramatic enough that it should not be necessary to be splitting hairs over what the real increase was.  A few million people plus or minus wouldn’t make much of a difference considering the magnitude.

    The country “Tanganyika” (a country in 1919), comprised of what is known today as Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi, had a population of 3,500,000  in 1919, per this website. If you want a better idea of the population explosion in the region around Lake Tanganyika, the original “Tanganyika” was comprised of only part of the countries surrounding Lake Tanganyika.  In addition you have to add the Congo, Malawi and Zambia. For the sake of argument, lets say those additional three countries add another 3,500,000 people and make it an estimated total in 1919 of 7,00,000 people in the region surrounding Lake Tanganyika.

    Total populations today, per the World Bank (as of 2008) are, Congo: 6,425,635, Tanzania: 42,483,923, Malawi: 14,846,182, Zambia: 12,620,219, Burundi: 8,074,254. The total is: 84,450,213, roughly 77,450,000 more people in the region surrounding Lake Tanganyika in the past 90 years. Now you can see the magnitude I referred to.  While not all this population lives immediately adjacent to the lake, I’d be willing to bet the increase in population around the lake was probably at least proportionate to the population increase in the entire region.

    Please don’t tell me this is not going to be a gigantic factor regarding the quantity of fish in this lake. I’m sure you can easily imagine the increased fishing and the increased pollution resulting from an additional 77.5 million or so people in the region.  I read one item noting that the water in Lake Tanganyika is no longer potable, which is another indication of problems not caused by CO2 over the past 90 years.  Problems no doubt caused by pollution from runoff of things like fertilizers, animal waste, human waste, sewage, and the dumping of chemicals that could also be causing fish decline. To go back to the “unprecedented” warming. I can’t find anything on Lake Tanganyika, but I did find this from NOAA about the surface temperatures in Lake Malawi, which is in the same region of Africa, just South of Lake Tanganyika.

    Lake Malawi TEX86 Surface Temperature Reconstruction
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
                   World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder
    
                                      and
    
                         NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    NOTE: PLEASE CITE CONTRIBUTORS WHEN USING THIS DATA!!!!!
    
    NAME OF DATA SET: Lake Malawi TEX86 Surface Temperature Reconstruction
    
    LAST UPDATE: 4/2005 (Original receipt by WDC Paleo)
    
    CONTRIBUTORS:
    
    Lindsay A. Powers, Thomas C. Johnson, Josef P. Werne, Isla S. Castañeda,
    
    Ellen C. Hopmans, Jaap S. Sinninghe Damsté and Stefan Schouten
    
    IGBP PAGES/WDCA CONTRIBUTION SERIES NUMBER: 2005-038
    
    SUGGESTED DATA CITATION: Powers, L.A., et al..  2005.
    
    Lake Malawi TEX86 Surface Temperature Reconstruction.
    
    IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
    
    Data Contribution Series # 2005-038.
    
    NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
    
    ORIGINAL REFERENCE:
    
    Powers, L.A., T.C. Johnson, J.P. Werne, I.S. Castañeda, E.C. Hopmans,
    
    J.S. Sinninghe Damsté, and S. Schouten.  2005.
    
    Large temperature variability in the southern African tropics since
    
    the Last Glacial Maximum.
    
    Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L08706, doi:10.1029/2004GL022014.
    
    ABSTRACT:
    
    The role of the tropics in global climate change is actively debated,
    
    particularly in regard to  the timing and magnitude of thermal and
    
    hydrological response. Continuous, high-resolution temperature records
    
    through the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) from tropical oceans have
    
    provided much insight but surface temperature reconstructions do not
    
    exist from tropical continental environments. Here we used the TEX86
    
    paleotemperature proxy to reconstruct mean annual lake surface
    
    temperatures through the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) in Lake Malawi,
    
    East Africa (9º-14ºS). We find a ~3.5ºC overall warming since the LGM,
    
    
    with temperature reversals of ~ 2ºC during the Younger Dryas (12.5 ka BP)
    
    and at 8.2 ka BP.  Maximum Holocene temperatures of ~29ºC were found
    
    at 5 ka BP, a period preceding severe drought in Africa. These results
    
    suggest a substantial thermal response of southeastern tropical Africa
    
    to deglaciation and to varying conditions during the Holocene.
    
    GEOGRAPHIC REGION: Tropical East Africa
    
    PERIOD OF RECORD: 24 KYrBP - present
    
    FUNDING SOURCES:
    
    National Science Foundation (USA) grants ATM-9709291 and ATM-0081776 (to TCJ),
    
    and a European Association of Organic Geochemists travel scholarship to LAP.
    
    DESCRIPTION:
    
    The dataset is a paleotemperature reconstruction of mean annual surface
    
    temperature from the north basin of Lake Malawi, East Africa using the
    
    TEX86 paleothermometer. (TetraEther indeX of tetraethers with 86 carbon atoms).
    
    The age model for these cores is already available for previous Lake Malawi MP98
    
    data sets on this website.
    
    TEX86 values are means of replicate analyses. All samples were measured at least
    
    in duplicate, half of samples were measured at least in triplicate.  The calibration
    
    equation used to calculate mean annual lake surface temperatures (LST) is
    
    LST=(TEX86-0.25)/0.017 with a calibration error of +/- 2 degrees C.
    
    Lake Malawi core M98-1P: 10º15.9'S, 34º19.1'E, water depth 403m.
    
    Lake Malawi core M98-2P:  9º58.6'S, 34º13.8'E, water depth 363m.
    
    Lake surface elevation 474m.
    
    DATA:
    
    Lake Malawi TEX86 Surface Temperature Reconstruction
    
    Column 1:  Age, cal kYBP
    
    Column 2:  TEX86, means of replicate analyses
    
    Column 3:  Mean Temperature
    
    Column 4:  Standard Deviation
    
      Age      TEX86     Temp        SD
    
      0.25      0.69     25.88      0.86
    
      0.57      0.69     26.17      0.19
    
      1.75      0.71     26.87      0.76
    
      2.96      0.69     26.16      0.71
    
      3.32       0.7      26.6      0.21
    
      3.54       0.7     26.71      0.43
    
      4.23      0.72     27.79      0.45
    
      4.45      0.72     27.49      0.56
    
      4.77      0.73     28.52      0.46
    
      5.05      0.74     28.93      0.58
    
      5.46      0.74     28.61      0.02
    
      6.22      0.72      27.6      0.11
    
      6.72      0.72     27.58      0.22
    
      7.45      0.68     25.06      0.78
    
      7.58      0.69     25.91      0.56
    
      7.79      0.68     25.09      0.25
    
      8.02      0.69     25.81      0.02
    
      8.23      0.66     24.35      0.23
    
      8.92      0.69     26.17      0.67
    
     10.23      0.69     25.85      0.71
    
      10.9      0.68     25.52      0.49
    
     11.46       0.7     26.44      0.78
    
     11.94       0.7      26.6      0.64
    
      12.2      0.69     25.84      0.12
    
     12.51      0.68      25.3      0.14
    
     12.72      0.68     25.48      0.55
    
     12.98      0.71     27.13      0.28
    
     13.52      0.69     25.64      0.18
    
     13.74      0.72     27.49      0.08
    
     13.84      0.73     28.15      0.55
    
     14.29      0.71        27      0.06
    
     14.51       0.7     26.37      0.65
    
     14.89      0.69     25.86      0.66
    
     15.94      0.67     24.97      0.57
    
     17.58      0.65     23.48      0.77
    
     18.52      0.64     23.09      0.83
    
     19.01      0.64     23.13      0.74
    
     20.01      0.63     22.58      0.58
    
     20.78      0.63     22.52      0.43
    
     21.77      0.66     23.98       0.3
    
     22.43      0.66     24.13      0.01
    
     23.24      0.67     24.48      0.58
    
     23.88      0.66     24.19      0.03

    As noted above they had a 3.5 degree Celsius warming since the last glacial maximum approximately 20-21,000 years ago. Then they had a 2 degree Celsius temperature reversal during the Younger Dryas (12,900-11,500 years ago). I find it amusing that they’re referring to  a .9 degree Celsius warming as being “unprecedented” considering that by comparison, there are larger temperature swings than noted in the study by the Brown University group. You can also see that coming off the last glacial maximum, the lake warmed, as did the rest of the Earth, then when the temperature dropped during the Younger Dryas, so did the temperature of the lake. Also, the Little Ice Age ended about 1850 and we’ve been warming again.  Is it really “unprecedented” the lake is also warming up again? It seems there is a non-CO2 caused pattern that’s merely repeating itself again.

    Since they’re claiming CO2 is the cause, here are some CO2 levels for you to ponder. You can see from the below chart that around the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago CO2 was under 200 ppm. (CO2 is the round dots-middle line). Note the CO2 level stays relatively flat with a little rise until about 17,00o years ago, then starts rising at a faster pace.  Now look at 12,900 years ago (Younger Dryas).  Notice the CO2 level is now about 240 ppm yet the temperature is dropping? Then notice it continues to rise while the temperature is still dropping until 11,500 years ago? (For temperatures during the same periods refer to the second chart. Sorry I didn’t come across one with both). To me it shows there’s no direct correlation between CO2 levels and temperature changes.

    You want more to consider? This study from Science Online from 2008 titled “Northern Hemisphere Controls on Tropical Southeast African Climate During the Past 60,000 Years” also leaves me wondering about the anthropogenic global warming claim and also seems to back up my thought that CO2 is not driving this.

    The processes that control climate in the tropics are poorly understood. We applied compound-specific hydrogen isotopes ({delta}D) and the TEX86 (tetraether index of 86 carbon atoms) temperature proxy to sediment cores from Lake Tanganyika to independently reconstruct precipitation and temperature variations during the past 60,000 years. TTanganyika temperatures follow Northern Hemisphere insolation and indicate that warming in tropical southeast Africa during the last glacial termination began to increase ~3000 years before atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

    Note they show warming FOLLOWS Northern Hemisphere insolation, and INCREASED 3,000 years BEFORE CO2 increased. More doubt about CO2 causing this regardless if the source is natural or anthropogenic.

    They also note the temperature fluctuations in the lake over the past 60,000 years, again perhaps this .9 Celsius warming isn’t all that unusual or man caused.

    Our TEX86 and {delta}Dleaf wax reconstructions show that temperature and hydrology in the Tanganyika basin were extremely variable throughout the past 60,000 years (Fig. 2). Holocene lake surface temperature (LST) fluctuated between ~27° and 29°C, whereas temperatures during the LGM were ~4°C cooler. The magnitude and timing of this temperature shift are similar to those of nearby Lake Malawi (14), indicating that our TEX86 record captures regional temperature change in tropical southeast Africa during deglaciation.

    Again, more fluctuation than .9 degrees Celsius.  They then proceed to state the surface temperature changes in these lakes are not CO2 related!

    In particular, Tanganyika LST at the end of the LGM follows rising Northern Hemisphere summer insolation, a potential trigger for deglaciation (20). Temperatures rise at 20,000 ± 380 yr B.P., just as they do in a TEX86 LST record from Lake Malawi (14) (Fig. 3). This timing is consistent with rising temperatures at ~20,000 yr B.P. in Antarctica, yet leads the deglacial CO2 rise recorded in Antarctic ice cores (21) by about 3,000 years, a difference that is outside the chronological errors of the ice core and the LST records. Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations are therefore not responsible for the initial transmission of warming from the high latitudes to the southeast African tropics.

    “Not responsible.” I don’ t know how you can get clearer than that. More CO2 Insanity. Will it ever end?

    Initial Source: Reuters

    Comments Off on Lake Tanganyika Warming – "Unprecedented" BS

    Filed under Co2 Insanity, Editor, Science

    Coal Stays On in UK or Blackouts will Occur

    Well, so much for all that wonderful wind and solar that’s going to save us all from non-existent anthropogenic global warming, or man-made climate change, or whatever term you prefer to use. Seems the UK can’t shut down it’s coal-fired plants or they’ll have a gigantic power shortage.  Per this article from Telegraph.co.uk

    A number of old coal combustion stations were due to close in 2014, putting the UK in danger of running out of power in the second half of this decade.

    Experts had warned that taking this back-up generation off the system before nuclear power plants are built would risk an “energy gap” and potential black-outs.

    Of course they try and place the blame on the power company lobbyists, but the reality is no coal generated power means you’re not going to be watching TV, heating your house, playing on your PC and perhaps not even working, unless you’re a grave-digger with a shovel and pick.

    But furious lobbying by UK energy companies forced the EU to back down on its directive on Tuesday, with MEPs on the body’s environmental committee voting to recommend that the power stations another four years of life.

    One regulatory source said British lobbyists had put by far the most pressure on the EU to re-think its rules, warning that the UK would simply have to flout the law if no changes were made.

    Ian Parrett, an energy consultant at Inenco, welcomed the decision, saying that the previous timescale “simply wasn’t realistic and threatened the UK’s energy security.

    But he warned against complacency about the UK’s energy needs, with around £200bn of investment in new generation and networks needed by 2020.

    “A postponement will at least provide breathing time,” he said. “But even with the delay, any new Government will face energy as one of its top priorities to avoid a looming energy gap casting a shadow over any economic recovery.”

    It isn’t the easy task to convert things as some who desperately want to believe.  It takes planning and time.  You can’t put millions of people in the dark or you’re going to have some massive problems as they will justifiably be pissed-off.

    It isn’t cheap either, it’s estimated the UK needs to invest $200 billion pounds by 2020 just to keep up with the demand.  There go your taxes up…up…and…away, not to mention your power bill.

    Source: Telegraph.co.uk

    Comments Off on Coal Stays On in UK or Blackouts will Occur

    Filed under Co2 Insanity, Financial, Politics, Renewable Energy, Science

    3 Minute Rain in Arctic is Evidence of Global Warming?

    Here we have more CO2 Insanity. Now a “freak” 3 minute period of rain in the Arctic is considered to be proof of global warming, or at least is is in Jim Hoggan’s DESMOGBLOG.COM in the article “Freak April Rain Showers Hit Arctic.” Your first clue should be the word “freak.”

    While the Gulf of Mexico continues to choke on oil from a man-made disaster, the Arctic is experiencing another form of man-made onslaught thanks to climate change.

    Late last month, British explorers hiking in the Canadian Arctic reported that their ice base off Ellef Ringnes Island had been hit by a three-minute rain shower.  A team of Canadian scientists camped about 145 km west also reported being hit by rain at the same time.

    Pen Hadow, the British team’s expedition director, told Reuters, “It’s definitely a shocker … the general feeling within the polar community is that rainfall in the high Canadian Arctic in April is a freak event.”

    So, now “freak” events are living proof of global warming?  “Man-made onslaught?”  Hysteria over 3 minutes of rain?  This is caused by global warming?  Has this happened before? Is it rare or not? Read on, the silliness persists. (Some of my comments in blue after the quotes).

    Hadow, whose team is gathering data on the effects of climate change on the Arctic Ocean in the Catlin Arctic Survey, said that “scientists would tell us that we can expect increasingly to experience these sorts of outcomes as the climate warms.” “Expect” sounds like scientific proof positive to me.

    But the group was not expecting such a sudden reminder of the consequences of a warming Arctic. Yes the “warming arctic” that has more ice this year than since 1980, not to mention it kept increasing past the normal date where it starts decreasing.  Sounds like proof-positive of those “consequences. (Not!).

    More large words like “consequences” designed to scare the “consequences” out of you and soil your undies.  Now lets throw in some more drama-queen stuff.

    “We have been told there will be more unpredicted events like this as the climate of the region warms. Our team up there have already reported many locals people at Resolute have also been commenting on the unusual warmth of the winter this year,” Pen Hadow added.

    Doesn’t it strike you as funny that “this year” seems to constitute proof of global warming?  Why is it that when the “deniers” mention the unusually cold winter in the Northeast US and in the UK in 2009-2010 that it’s only “weather” and doesn’t mean there isn’t global warming. Some would even have you belive that the unusually cold weather is caused by global warming. Again, no matter what, its global warming related. I suppose I can blame my lousy dinner tonight on global warming, too.  Must have affected the noodles.  Also if it’s “unusually warm” then why all the sea-ice?

    The Arctic is heating up three times more quickly than the rest of the Earth, and scientists have linked the higher temperatures to global warming pollution.  Yes, again, that’s why we have more sea ice this year since 1980.  Must be all that heat.

    Scientists working in the Arctic say the thick multi-year ice covering the Arctic Ocean has essentially vanished, and U.S. data shows the 2009 ice cover was the third-lowest on record, after 2007 and 2008.

    Notice we don’t mention the 2009-2010, that is because (again!) the sea-ice is now back up to levels not seen since 1980, but you’re not supposed to be made aware of that or you won’t soil your underwear and send money to Al Gore and his Carbon Cartel.

    Now, let’s get real.  It does occasionally rain in the Arctic, and it is unusual, but it isn’t completely uncommon either.  Here’s some snippets from a National Geographic article titled “Mysterious Rain on Snow” from March 4, 2008.

    That’s because a mysterious phenomenon known as “rain on snow,” when sudden warm air turns northern snows to rain or slush, can cause animals to starve.

    Sounds like perhaps this has happened before and it’s not a sure-fire sign of global warming? Sudden warm air. Let’s see, didn’t we have a strong El Nino in 2009-2010, could it just possibly be that warm air was caused by that?

    In October 2003 on Banks Island in Canada’s Northwest Territories, a rain-on-snow event caused the deaths of more than a quarter of the musk-ox population—20,000 animals.

    So way back to 2003 we had an event. Funny, 2003 was an El Nino year. Not like 2009-2010 but nevertheless. Coincidence? I wonder.

    “When I [first] tried to get more information, there was almost nothing on rain-on-snow events,” he said.

    “They are very elusive, so we don’t know how often they occur, whether they have changed over time, or their spatial distribution.”

    So, they’re “elusive” and “we don’t know” jack about it according to National Geographic.  So far so good.

    Stories told by local people suggest that these events occur in Russia, Sweden, Finland, and Canada, and affect approximately four million Arctic inhabitants.

    Must not be a new phenomenon. It’s happened before, thought apparently it’s not a frequent event. Perhaps it isn’t global warming after all? Perhaps it’s been happening infrequently for a long time?  They do have “freak” snowstorms in the desert, but I don’t run around yelling that’s proof of global cooling, it’s just a rare weather event. So, why should “freak” rainstorms in the Arctic be some sure proof of global warming?

    But, alas, National Geographic does eventually hop on the AGW bandwagon because they have their suspicions this is caused by global warming, not to mention they probably feel a need to keep their “warmer” readers happy or they’ll cancel their subscriptions.

    Based on these models, Grenfell “strongly suspects” the trend of climate change will make rain-on-snow events more common in the Arctic.

    They have no real proof, but everything and anything is either caused by or will cause global warming.  To give you an idea of what they’re talking about, what “proof” they have and how sure they are, read on. (My comments in blue).

    “The next step is to take to all the data that exists to find out how often rain-on-snow events occur, where they happen, and are there special places [where they take place],” Putkonen said. So bascially they haven’t done anything yet, they’re clueless, but it’s global warming, sure thing.

    “We can look back into time because the satellite data has been archived for 25 years, so we can find out if these changed with time and climate, and could they change or drift with future warmer conditions.” Back to a whopping 25 years is going to prove global warming?  Yeah right. Funny if the “deniers’ only go back 25 years it’s “only a blip in time” or something on that order, and doesn’t prove anything.  But, it it’s claimed to prove AGW then 25 years is great science. Even one rare rainfall event in the Arctic is sure positive proof of global warming.

    In fact, Putkonen’s previous climate modeling work suggests that in the next hundred years there could be a 40 percent increase in the area affected by rain-on-snow events. Back to “climate modeling” 2010’s version of the computerized crystal ball.  If they don’t have the actual data to work with, then what good is their “model?” They can’t even tell what the weather is going to be next month.

    Based on these models, Grenfell “strongly suspects” the trend of climate change will make rain-on-snow events more common in the Arctic. Yes, I’m sure scientists worldwide consider “stongly suspects” to be absolute 101% proof positive of anything.  Again, yeah right.  Perhaps if I “strongly suspect” my bank account has 40 billion dollars in it, it will mysteriously appear? I think not.

    “This is one of those fairly rare occasions where there is a very interesting scientific problem to understand natural properties that we know very little about,” Putkonen said, “but [which] have very high societal value.” He even admits it’s a “rare occasion” and “we know little about,” yet this is supposed to lead us down the primrose path of global warming.  I cant’ fathom where these “scientists” come up with this or how they actually expect anybody with an IQ over 60 to believe them.

    In closing, we have a rare event, that barely lasted 3 minutes, that we know very little about, but it’s supposed to be proof of global warming.  Sorry but I can’t fathom how you’d expect anyone to believe this.  It’s like the “warmers” will jump upon the slightest almost unnoticeable thing if they even remotely think it makes their case. As you can see, the desperation is increasing. So is the CO2 Insanity.

    Source:  DESMOGBLOG

    Comments Off on 3 Minute Rain in Arctic is Evidence of Global Warming?

    Filed under Co2 Insanity, Editor, Science, Weather

    Global Desperation – Plants Cause Global Warming?

    Leaf with DewLeaf with Dew

    Now we really are having some CO2 Insanity.  It’s getting desperate out there folks!  With things like the Hockey-Stick, Glaciergate, Pachaurigate, Amazongate, Africagate and all the other “gates” associated with anthropogenic global warming, including global warming causes sex, or sex causes global warming, we now are hitting another new low in desperation!  Now plants cause global warming! Per this from the Carnegie Institute…

    “Plants have a very complex and diverse influence on the climate system,” says study co-author Ken Caldeiraof Carnegie’s Department of Global Ecology. “Plants take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, but they also have other effects, such as changing the amount of evaporation from the land surface. It’s impossible to make good climate predictions without taking all of these factors into account.”

    Plants give off water through tiny pores in their leaves, a process called evapotranspiration that cools the plant, just as perspiration cools our bodies. On a hot day, a tree can release tens of gallons of water into the air, acting as a natural air conditioner for its surroundings. The plants absorb carbon dioxide for photosynthesis through the same pores (called stomata). But when carbon dioxide levels are high, the leaf pores shrink. This causes less water to be released, diminishing the tree’s cooling power.

    The warming effects of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas have been known for a long time, says Caldeira. But he and fellow Carnegie scientist Long Cao were concerned that it is not as widely recognized that carbon dioxide also warms our planet by its direct effects on plants. Previous work by Carnegie’s Chris Field and Joe Berry had indicated that the effects were important. “There is no longer any doubt that carbon dioxide decreases evaporative cooling by plants and that this decreased cooling adds to global warming,” says Cao. “This effect would cause significant warming even if carbon dioxide were not a greenhouse gas.”

    OK, so where do these people get these ideas from?  There’s plenty of places out there who claim they’ll offset your carbon footprint by planting trees.  Last time I heard, trees were plants.  So if plants cause global warming, then why are we planting trees?  Shouldn’t we be clear-cutting and spraying Roundup on everything we can?  That will surely stop global warming in its tracks!  This might explain some of it.

    In their model, the researchers doubled the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide and recorded the magnitude and geographic pattern of warming from different factors. They found that, averaged over the entire globe, the evapotranspiration effects of plants account for 16% of warming of the land surface, with greenhouse effects accounting for the rest. But in some regions, such as parts of North America and eastern Asia, it can be more than 25% of the total warming. “If we think of a doubling of carbon dioxide as causing about four degrees of warming, in many places three of those degrees are coming from the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and one is coming from the direct effect of carbon dioxide on plants.”

    Ahh another goofy computer model that has no basis in reality and probably would even be too much for an episode of the Twilight Zone. Well, ummmm, what about water vapor?  How much does that contribute to global warming?  Per this from Junk Science.com

    In simple terms the bulk of Earth’s greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect — perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth’s total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264)

    Uh oh……the genepool at Carnegie Institute must have forgotten about good old water vapor.  If water vapor contributes 90 to 95% of the greenhouse effect, then don’t you think if the plants are letting less water vapor out that it would have the opposite effect and cause global cooling?  Nah, that just couldn’t be, because it doesn’t fit with the “Inconvenient Truth” of anthropogenic global warming.

    Source:  Carnegie Institution for Science

    Comments Off on Global Desperation – Plants Cause Global Warming?

    Filed under Co2 Insanity, Science

    Munchausen by Proxy and Global Warming

    Here you can read the definition of Munchausen by Proxy…I made some changes to reflect what I’m talking about with respect to global warming fraud, but the basics are there.

    Munchausen by proxy syndrome (MBPS) is a relatively uncommon condition that involves the exaggeration or fabrication of climate illnesses or symptoms by a primary caretaker (scientist). One of the most harmful forms of science abuse, MBPS was named after Baron von Munchausen, an 18th-century German dignitary known for telling outlandish stories.


    Sound familiar?  See the the similarities?  Read on.

    In MBPS, an individual — usually a scientist or warmer — deliberately “makes” the planet appear sick or convinces others that the planet is sick. The scientist or warmer misleads others into thinking that the planet has climate problems by lying and reporting fictitious data. He or she may exaggerate, fabricate, or induce symptoms. As a result, scientists usually order tests, suggest different types of solutions (like carbon taxes and other asinine ideas), and may even hospitalize the planet or perform surgery like drilling ice cores to determine the cause.

    Sound like some warmers  and scientists we know?  Sure does to me.

    Typically, the perpetrator feels satisfied by gaining the attention and sympathy of warmers, greentards, and others who come into contact with him or her and the planet. Some experts believe that it isn’t just the attention that’s gained from the “illness” of the planet that drives this behavior, but also the satisfaction in being able to deceive individuals that they consider to be more important and powerful than themselves. (Like Obama, Gordon Brown, etc).

    Because the scientist or warmer appears to be so caring and attentive, often no one suspects any wrongdoing. A perplexing aspect of the syndrome is the ability of the scientist or warmer to fool and manipulate other scientists and the public. Frequently, the perpetrator is familiar with the science profession and is very good at fooling the scientists and warmers. Even the most experienced scientists can miss the meaning of the inconsistencies in the Earth’s symptoms. It’s common for scientists to overlook the possibility of MBPS because it goes against the belief that a scientist or warmer would never deliberately hurt his or her Earth or fellow human beings.

    Diagnosis is very difficult, but would involve some of the following:

    • a planet that has multiple climate problems that don’t respond to treatment or that follow a persistent and puzzling course
    • physical or laboratory findings that are highly unusual, don’t correspond with the planet’s climate history, or are physically or scientifically impossible
    • a scientist or warmer who isn’t reassured by “good news” when test results find no climate problems exists, but continues to believe that the Earth is ill.

    Other theories say that Munchausen by proxy syndrome is a cry for help on the part of the scientist or warmer, who may be experiencing anxiety or depression or have feelings of inadequacy. Some may feel a sense of acknowledgement when the false science confirms their skills. Or, the scientist or warmer may just enjoy the attention that the sick planet— and, therefore, he or she — gets.

    The things that go on with climate “alarmist” “believers” “warmers” and scientist who continue to advocate anthropogenic global warming, or now “climate change” is amazingly similar to Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome.

    How can it be stopped.  Well here’s some suggestions.

    Most often, Munchausen by proxy syndrome cases are resolved in one of three ways:

    1. the perpetrator is apprehended (Michael Mann vs. The State of Virginia announced today sounds fittingly correct).
    2. the perpetrator moves on to a new crisis when the original crisis gets old or the original crisis gets busted (like we have things popping up on the radar now such as ocean acidification a new problem so they can “save” us – not to mention control us, get their 15 minute of fame, plenty of grant money to continue perpetuating the fraud, and tax the snot our of us).
    3. the crisis “dies” because scientist and warmers finally realize their BS isn’t making and they cease to try to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes.

    Perhaps we’re wrong by making all the efforts to bust the science by showing everyone the
    “tricks”, data manipulation, missing data, unfounded science, data from magazines, peer-reviewed papers that are only peer-reviewed by fellow “warmer” scientists or non-scientists who happen to agree with their position.

    I’d suggest we’d be better off getting the men in the white coats to grab these guys, put them in straight-jackets, and let the psychiatrists work on them until they admit their problems and get therapy.

    Think about it.  What is going on with climategate is eerily similar.

    Source: Me

    6 Comments

    Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Comedy Relief, Stranger than Truth

    Libtard Media Forms Climate Cabal

    From Folio we get the news that some of what I term libtard rags are going to team up to what will no doubt amount to a higher level of propaganda about anthropogenic global warming.

    A major partnership that has been in the works since last year has come to fruition. The Atlantic, Mother Jones and Wired, along with Slate, Grist, the Center for Investigative Reporting and PBS current-affairs program “Need to Know,” have teamed up to launch Climate Desk, a project dedicated to exploring the impact of climate change.

    As usual you can follow the money.

    Hoping to tap into a combined online audience of more than 25 million monthly unique visitors, 1.5 million print readers and an anticipated TV audience of 1.5 million, the group will begin by publishing a series of articles exploring how American businesses are adapting to the liabilities, risks and opportunities surrounding climate change. During the final two weeks of April, two dozen stories on the topic will be posted to partner Web sites as well as totheclimatedesk.org.

    But it isn’t only about making money, evidently they may have a need to save money.  Makes me wonder if some or all of them having financial troubles?

    Back in December, The Atlantic editorial director Bob Cohn told FOLIO: that collaboration between news organizations is one important way content creators to help resolve the difficulty in covering expansive, dynamic topics under dwindling resources.

    I have to wonder if “dwindling resources” is a keyword for less advertisements?

    “Pooling resources, whether it’s money or reporters or technology, can make good sense for outfits that want to remain ambitious in lean times,” he said. “We all still want to beat the other guy, but sometimes the best way to unpack a complex and multi-dimensional story may be to forge ties with like-minded colleagues.”

    Well this should be interesting, time will tell what the deal is with what kind of information they end up putting out, if they’re having financial troubles, and if this is going to be a way out, or a black hole.

    You can go to their website and see for yourself, if I had to make a prediction I’d say it looks like a loser, but there’s no accounting for how many “warmers” will flock here to get further misinformation.

    Sounds like more CO2 Insanity in the making.

    Source: Folio Mag

    Comments Off on Libtard Media Forms Climate Cabal

    Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Financial

    New Study CO2 Only 5-10% of Global Warming

    Quickie from Climate Realists, seems CO2 isn’t that much of a problem per this  article

    I think it’s an outright fabrication Kauppinen says.

    Sounds like what a lot of people have been saying lately -Anthropogenic Global Warming is BS.

    That explains why my BS Meter has been pegged since Climategate started.  CO2 Insanity the gift that keeps on giving.

    Source: Climate Realists

    Comments Off on New Study CO2 Only 5-10% of Global Warming

    Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity

    Newt Defends Commercial with Pelosi…Doesn’t claim it was after 2AM!

    See Newt Gingrich defend making his global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi.  One thing he doesn’t claim is that it was after 2AM and she looked good.

    Newt!  With the gargantuan preponderance of evidence that anthropogenic global warming is a big scam, you can’t figure it out?  Don’t think I don’t appreciate the fact you don’t buy into it 100%, and that you’re trying to insert some reasonableness into the alleged carbon problem, but you should be lining up with James Inhofe to put this thing to bed, permanently.  Or, at least until someone finds some real evidence of AGW.

    Here is the commercial (if you haven’t seen it).

    Comments Off on Newt Defends Commercial with Pelosi…Doesn’t claim it was after 2AM!

    Filed under Co2 Insanity, Comedy Relief, Politics