Tag Archives: Global Warming

What are they smoking at the MET?

The MET’s latest prediction from this article in the Times is hysterical.  I have to wonder what they’re smoking.

The number of sweltering nights when the temperature in cities stays above 20C (68F) and the elderly become vulnerable to heat exhaustion will increase fivefold because of climate change, a Met Office study has found.

Looks like quilt manufacturers will soon be going out of business according to them.

Opening the windows will make no difference because the outside temperature will be too warm for the heat in homes to escape. The “urban heat island effect”, in which buildings and roads absorb heat during the day and release it at night, could result in the temperature on the hottest nights remaining above 25C.

So better get that air conditioner installed now before the price goes up.

During the 2003 heatwave, which killed 2,000 people in Britain, the hottest nights were around 20C. Daytime temperatures reached 30C for 10 days in a row, but it was the hot, airless nights that proved fatal because people were unable to cool down and recover from the stress of the daytime heat before the sun rose again.

I guess the poor British have never heard of taking a cold shower to cool off?

The Met Office study found that, by 2040, it could need to issue heatwave warnings for urban areas four times more frequently. The warning system was established after the 2003 heatwave to help people to protect those at risk, including the elderly, young children and those suffering with poor health caused by respiratory diseases.

By 2040? Wow they must have some crystal ball, or perhaps some screwy computer or perhaps some screwy scientists? Or, perhaps all of the aforementioned?

Using computer models, the researchers found that the number of very hot nights in London would increase from two to ten a year.

Uh oh!  There’s those computer models again. You know how those work? It’s called lets play plug in some silly figures and see what the silly results are and then lets scare the crap out of everyone for the 5,000th time and perhaps they may start to believe in our predictions and in global warming.

Ahh….here we go with the silly solutions for the silly problem created by the silly scientist with the silly computer model.

Vicky Pope, head of climate advice at the Met Office, said cities would need to adapt to cope with more frequent heatwaves. The amount of shade would be a key consideration and new urban developments and buildings could be painted white to reflect the sun’s radiation.

What? No giant umbrella over London?  How about one of those plastic domes and a gigantic air conditioning unit for it?

Let’s see,  the MET Office….aren’t they that wonderful bunch who said last winter in Britain would be the warmest in recorded history, then had to back off that and admit that it was the coldest winter in Britain in the past 30 years?  What about their infamous “barbeque summer” predicted just before that? What about their great prediction about the ash cloud from the Iceland volcano that shut down the airways in Europe needlessly?

How about their wonderful computer that evidently even though it cost 30 million pounds evidently isn’t much better than using an Atari game? You can read about that here.

The Met Office unveiled Britain’s most powerful super computer today, which is capable of 1,000 billion calculations every second

However, they admitted despite the £30million system being more powerful than 100,000 PCs it could still get the forecast WRONG.

Well, like the man said….”if you believe that, I have a big golden colored bridge I’ll sell you in San Francisco.” I wonder how many people at the MET would buy it?

Source: Times Online

Comments Off on What are they smoking at the MET?

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Comedy Relief, Stranger than Truth

If it’s hot….it must be global warming!

My rant today is about all the alarm over a heat-wave in Pakistan.  It’s all over the internet, that there’s a new record of 53.5° C (128.3° F) set.  We’re all going to die! Where’s my sunscreen?

Here we go with the one of the “warmer’s” favorite tricks.  If there is a heat-wave anywhere on the planet, it just absolutely, positively, no doubt about it, gotta be global warming! Funny how when it’s cold, it’s either merely weather or that cold wave is caused by global warming, too! According to this article in the Guardian.

Mohenjo-daro, a ruined city in what is now Pakistan that contains the last traces of a 4,000-year-old civilisation that flourished on the banks of the river Indus, today entered the modern history books after government meteorologists recorded a temperature of 53.7C (129F). Only Al ‘Aziziyah, in Libya (57.8C in 1922), Death valley in California (56.7 in 1913) and Tirat Zvi in Israel (53.9 in 1942) are thought to have been hotter.

Yes so it’s hot.  Big deal, that happens sometimes.  But here’s the kicker.

Some scientists have suggested that the warming experienced around the world this year is strongly linked to warmer than usual currents in the Pacific Ocean, a regular phenomenon known as El Niño. Others say that it is consistent with long-term climate change.

I’ll vote for El Niño myself.  It’s been a pretty big El Niño this time.  Big enough to where California’s reservoirs are all pretty much full from the rain this season and we have a huge snowpack averaging 143% of normal.  Certainly large enough to cause some heat.

You can see more drama here at Climate Progress.

“Hellish heatwave” in Pakistan sets hottest temperature in Asia’s history, 53.5°C (128.3°F); in India, hundreds die, death toll expected to rise as record temperatures soar up to 122°F

UPDATE:  Brutal heatwave in India and Asia discussed at the end.

Wow!  “Hellish-hottest-hundreds die-brutal” sounds like this is so terrible and that it’s never happened before.  Remember the words “hottest temperature in Asia’s history” as I’ll show you this perhaps is a stretch later on.

Isn’t it funny how this works? If you go to the right page here at NASA’s Earth Observatory you’ll see an item about a heat wave in Pakistan dated June 10, 2007. What? 2007? Read on please.  Here’s a snippet to go with the charts.

On June 10, air temperatures in parts of Pakistan reached above 50 degrees Celsius (120 Fahrenheit), and this image indicates that ground temperatures climbed to about 70 degrees Celsius (160 Fahrenheit) in rocky desert regions. By June 13, the heat wave had caused 232 heat-related deaths in Pakistan, said news reports, with additional deaths in neighboring India.

Pakistan Amo

So it’s a mere 3.5° C warmer today and 53.5° C is a big fat hairy deal? A “record?” Hell, it gets hotter than that in Death Valley. As you can see below from the Pakistan Weather Service as of today it’s not that hot all over the country. Those temperatures are a far cry from the 53.5° C they cite. But we got a big temperature, so we have to scream and holler about global warming.


Min. Temp. Recorded on Wednesday in (oC)

Max. Temp. Recorded on Tuesday in (oC)

Rain in mm
Islamabad 27 41 NIL
Karachi 28 36
Lahore 29 45 NIL
Peshawar 28 40 NIL
Quetta 21 34 NIL
Gilgit 14 33 NIL
Muzaffarabad 22 39 NIL
Murree 13 28 NIL
Multan 31 42
Faisalabad 30 43

The highest recorded temperature in Indio, California was 123° F in 1970. That’s only 5° F cooler than this temperature they’re all worried about. Funny I didn’t hear any screaming about global warming back then, they were worried about global cooling and how we were going to have icebergs in the pool in Death Valley or some such nonsense.

It’s amusing that Mohenjo-daro is only 154 feet above sea-level, very low like Death Valley, not to mention it’s climate is, ummm, well……per this little item I came across from here and it’s, well it’s a desert. As you can see below it’s sure not a tropical rain forest.

Mohenjo Daro

Here’s some interesting temperature information that kind of makes this drama out to be what it is.

Although official estimates rarely place the temperature above 46° C, newspaper sources claim that it reaches 51° C and regularly carry reports about people who have succumbed to the heat. Heat records were broken in Multan in June 1993, when the mercury was reported to have risen to 54° C. In August the oppressive heat is punctuated by the rainy season, referred to asbarsat, which brings relief in its wake. The hardest part of the summer is then over, but cooler weather does not come until late October.

54° C? Isn’t that higher than 53.5° C or the 53.7° reported? (They can’t even agree on the temperature depending on which “warmers” you read about it from). Regardless it appears they missed the Asian record mark by 0.5° C to 0.3° C based upon the information I found.

So,  perhaps this isn’t a new record they’re ranting about? Perhaps this isn’t unusual weather for Pakistan and the region?

But it certainly is more global warming bullshit designed to make you pee your pants, send money to Al Gore and his buddies, agree to cow-tow to the UN warmers and let your government carbon tax the snot out of you. Isn’t it?

Source: The Guardian

Comments Off on If it’s hot….it must be global warming!

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Science, Weather

Earth Burps

How do you spell relief?

Did the Earth need Alka Seltzer 18,000 years ago?  According to this article from Science Daily there might have been a need (snicker-snicker). Must have been a “plop plop fizz fizz” moment.

Scientists have found the possible source of a huge carbon dioxide ‘burp’ that happened some 18,000 years ago and which helped to end the last ice age.

Note the word “possible,” which always seems to be one of the key words in these scare-a-rama reports we get.

If there was a large carbon burp 18,00o years ago, I’d like to know where it is, because I sure don’t see one on the below graph of carbon and temperature taken from the Antarctic Ice Core. Sure there’s an increase in CO2,  but a burp? I think not. I see a gradual rise, not a sudden burp.

The results provide the first concrete evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) was more efficiently locked away in the deep ocean during the last ice age, turning the deep sea into a more ‘stagnant’ carbon repository — something scientists have long suspected but lacked data to support.

Yet, they tout “concrete evidence” as being in this alleged “proof” they’re providing.  So how did they arrive at this conclusion?

By measuring how much carbon-14 (14C) was in the bottom-dwelling forams’ shells, and comparing this with the amount of 14C in the atmosphere at the time, they were able to work out how long the CO2 had been locked in the ocean.

By linking their marine core to the Antarctic ice-cores using the temperature signal recorded in both archives, the team were also able compare their results directly with the ice-core record of past atmospheric CO2 variability.

Sorry but I still don’t see a burp in that graph of the Antarctic Ice Core sample. Here is further explanation from the article.

Throughout the past two million years (the Quaternary), the Earth has alternated between ice ages and warmer interglacials. These changes are mainly driven by alterations in the Earth’s orbit around the sun (the Milankovic theory).

But changes in Earth’s orbit could only have acted as the ‘pace-maker of the ice ages’ with help from large, positive feedbacks that turned this solar ‘nudge’ into a significant global energy imbalance.

Changes in atmospheric CO2 were one of the most important of these positive feedbacks, but what drove these changes in CO2has remained uncertain.

Excuse me? “Uncertain?” I thought this was “CONCRETE?” Talk about bi-polar science. Note how they highlight the importance of CO2 and try to minimize the solar effect. Just couldn’t be some other reason, could there be? Has to be CO2.  They state “These changes are mainly driven by alterations in the Earth’s orbit around the sun” then turn around and claim CO2 was more of a cause and the orbit change was only a “pace-maker” more bi-polar science.

Let’s read some more and see what else they have to say.

Scientists think more CO2 was locked up in the deep ocean during ice ages, and that pulses or ‘burps’ of CO2 from the deep Southern Ocean helped trigger a global thaw every 100,000 years or so. The size of these pulses was roughly equivalent to the change in CO2 experienced since the start of the industrial revolution.

So they “think.”  I guess that’s “concrete” evidence, too. Note how they try and tie this in with the CO2 increase since the 1850’s. My how convenient is that?

I never would have guessed the Earth was a serial burper.  So, if we have a large burp every 100,000 years, and our last burp was 18,000 years ago, doesn’t that mean we won’t have another one for about 82,000 years? So why worry? (It’s their theory, not mine!)

Here’s some other comments on the subject, this one from this article on ABC Australia.

Geolgist Professor Mike Standiford, director of the Melbourne Energy Institute at the University of Melbourne says the result is “interesting but controversial.”

Recent radiocarbon analyses from Chilean sites failed to find evidence of the missing Southern Ocean CO2, he says.

This comment makes it rather obvious that only using the limited data they did and have doesn’t seem to really be “concrete evidence” does it? So why the “alarmist” scare again?  Sounds like more desperation to prove there’s anthropogenic global warming to me.

By measuring how much carbon-14 (14C) was in the bottom-dwelling forams’ shells, and comparing this with the amount of 14C in the atmosphere at the time, they were able to work out how long the CO2 had been locked in the ocean.

Sorry but I have to question this process because there are other sources of -14 such as soil and plants for example.  So how can one tell what the source is? It could have come from elsewhere. (If you can find the “burp” they refer to, sure isn’t in the graph!)

If this theory is correct, we would expect to see large transfers of carbon from the ocean to the atmosphere at the end of each ice age. This should be most obvious in the relative concentrations of radiocarbon (14C) in the ocean and atmosphere; 14C decays over time and so the longer carbon is locked up in the deep sea, the less 14C it contains.

I find this interesting, too.  The highlighted above reads to me like the claim is that it only decays in the ocean, or perhaps infers that it decays faster in the ocean.  I can’t fathom either one because it’s going to decay at the same rate regardless of where it’s located.  I’ve seen information that environmental factors will cause 0.1% or less variation on decay rates.  So, what’s the deal?

Sounds like another episode of CO2 Insanity to me. That’s the deal.

Source:  Science Daily

Comments Off on Earth Burps

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

    Geico Gecko Going Extinct!

    I love global warming!!

    I love global warming!!

    I was going to hop on the bandwagon the other day and do the “now global warming is going to kill lizards” or something on that order, but everyone else beat me to the punch, so I didn’t bother. It has been on the back of my mind but I’ve been otherwise occupied. When I came across this item from the Daily Mail titled “Lizards ‘face extinction as global warming forces them to stay in the shade,” that got me thinking about how silly the whole premise is, which prompted this post. The Daily Mail starts out with.

    Lizards are in danger of dying out on a large scale as rising global temperatures force them to spend more time staying cool in the shade and less time tending to basic needs like eating and mating.

    If the planet continues to heat up at current rates, 20 per cent of all lizard species could become extinct by 2080, scientists warned in a research paper published yesterday.

    Scientist Barry Sinervo, from the University of California, Santa Cruz, said: ‘The numbers are actually pretty scary.’

    My initial questions/responses to the above, in order are:

    • Don’t most lizards live in desert and tropical regions that are hot?  I don’t remember seeing anyone mentioning lizards jumping around at the North Pole.
    • Don’t they normally stay in the shade when it’s too hot?
    • Can they only mate and eat in the sun?
    • What heat?  There’s been little to no warming for the previous 15 years.
    • Weren’t there dead iguanas all over Florida as they result of last winters extreme cold? Being cold-blooded, isn’t the cold worse for them than heat?
    • 20% extinct by 2080? Reminds me of no glaciers in the Himalayas by 2035.
    • Research paper? OK, no doubt not peer-reviewed.
    • “Scary?”  Here we go with another global warming terror-athon.

    The scare-mongering gets even more shrill.  I mean you can’t have an article about global warming without trying to scare the crap out of everyone can you?

    He added: ‘We’ve got to try to limit climate change impacts right now or we are sending a whole bunch of species into oblivion.’

    A mass extinction of lizards, which eat insects and are eaten by birds, could have devastating effects up and down the food chain, but the extent is difficult to predict.

    Oh? So now it’s going to cause a chain-reaction that’s going to be “devastating”. It gets better, below we get a statement of the silly combined with the already obvious.

    Dr Sinervo made models of lizards with thermal monitors and left them in the searing sun of southern  to measure how the reptiles would react to temperatures at different altitudes. (So these little model lizards got up and moved into the shade when it was too hot? Moved into the sun when too cold? Ate? Mated?  What did they have? Baby plastic lizards?)

    Lizards bask in the sun not to relax but for self-preservation. As ‘ectotherms’ they depend on the external environment to control their body temperature. Unlike mammals, when the reptiles overheat they cannot sweat or pant and they have to retreat to the shade or burrow under a rock to cool down. (Is this one of the answers from Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? It’s like duh!)

    This biological quirk has already led to the extinction of 5 per cent of lizard populations around the world, Dr Sinervo said, as the creatures spend more time scrambling to find  shade and less time doing what they need to do to survive. (So, you’re saying they can’t do anything unless it’s in the sun?)

    He’s actually watched “models” that don’t move unless someone picks them up!  Does he have a Ken and Barbie or GI Joe? Has he ever actually sat around watching what real lizards do world-wide to see if they’re all really spending more time in the shade?  I’d seriously doubt it.  Moreover, do they actually think lizards only hunt, eat, mate  on top of warm rocks in the sun at exactly the right temperature? Like they can’t do all this in the shade when it’s too hot during mid-day, or at night?  Based upon what he’s saying he’s acting like lizards only do this stuff at high noon every day and the rest of the time they’re hiding out under rocks or in caves or looking for a rock or a cave. Silly!

    They did study lizards, but only in one place in Mexico.  Not very reflective of what’s going on globally is it? Again we seem to get a statement of the obvious.

    Elizabeth Bastiaans, a doctoral student in Dr Sinervo’s lab, started studying lizards in a wilderness outside  near the Aztec pyramids of Teotihuacan where tourists huff and puff up hundreds of stairs in the blazing sun. (Has to be “blazing” more drama you know).

    ‘I’ve been out there doing a lot of sampling over the past few years and you see the lizards in the morning and you see them in the evening. But in the hottest part of day, it’s just too hot, you don’t see them at all,’ Ms Bastiaans said. (So the lizards must be smart enough to find shade when it’s hot at mid-day while you run around out in the “blazing” sun all day roasting? I hope you have some SPF 1000 lotion).

    Funny they have lizards in Death Valley, too, one of the hottest, driest places on Earth, (not to mention the Sahara, Gobi, etc), yet they manage to adapt, reproduce and survive. I hope they don’t hear about global warming or it may be all over for them, because they’ll die of fright when they hear about this! (Or, perhaps laugh themselves to death).

    Thinking more about lizards, how long they’ve been around? What temperatures have they survived in the past?

    I found this article on Science Daily titled The Oldest Gecko Fossil Ever Found. Know what? That fossil is about 100 million years old!  I found an article here on what is perhaps the first lizard, found in Scotland, estimated to be 340 million year old. What this establishes is that lizards have been around a long time and they’ve survived all the temperature swings, the asteroid collision 65 million years ago that killed off the dinosaurs, volcanic eruptions, etc. The little buggers are still with us in spite of it all.

    Why do I mention this? Well, since temperature from global warming is supposedly going to cause all these problems for the lizards I wondered what kind of temperatures they’ve survived for the past 340 million years since lizard #1 appeard.  As you can see per the below graph, they’ve survived some pretty good swings.  340 million years ago when lizard #1 appeared, it was about 20 degrees Celsius, 100,000 years ago we had Gecko and it was about 21 degrees Celsius. From what I can pickup the Earth’s average temperature now is between 13 to 17 degrees Celsius depending upon who you believe.


    If you take the lowest of 13 degrees Celsius as current, we’re 8 degrees Celsius lower than the highest of 21 degrees, if you take the highest of 17 degrees Celsius, we’re still 4 degrees Celsius below the high that lizards have survived.

    I really have to ask why all the drama and hysterics about lizards?  They’ve been around a lot longer than us, they’ve survived higher temperatures (not to mention all the ice ages!), so what’s the problem? They need funding in Santa Cruz to keep them in pot?

    Source: Daily Mail Online

    1 Comment

    Filed under Co2 Insanity, Science

    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
                         NOAA Paleoclimatology Program
    NAME OF DATA SET: Lake Malawi TEX86 Surface Temperature Reconstruction
    LAST UPDATE: 4/2005 (Original receipt by WDC Paleo)
    Lindsay A. Powers, Thomas C. Johnson, Josef P. Werne, Isla S. Castañeda,
    Ellen C. Hopmans, Jaap S. Sinninghe Damsté and Stefan Schouten
    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.
    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.
    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
    National Science Foundation (USA) grants ATM-9709291 and ATM-0081776 (to TCJ),
    and a European Association of Organic Geochemists travel scholarship to LAP.
    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.
    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

    Legitmate Earth Day News Straight from NASA?

    Here is an oxymoron for you….”Here is some legitimate Earth Day news straight from NASA.  Ummmmmm…hmmmmmm. More CO2 Insanity.

    Here’s your link to it.

    Comments Off on Legitmate Earth Day News Straight from NASA?

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

    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

    Will California Tell the "Warmistas" to Drop Dead?

    Do it now! We can bankrupt everyone. I don't care - I'm rich!

    Well it looks like AB32, California’s attempt to cure anthropogenic global warming all by itself, may have it’s head on the chopping block.  Unemployment is bad, many businesses are leaving he state or thinking about it, yet the “Governator,” Arnold Schwarznegger, our buffoons in the state legislature and the imbeciles at CARB apparently think we can cure global warming all by ourselves.  They even base their “stuff” on studies done my some dude with a phony degree (talk about weird science).

    People must be really ticked-off about this.  It got double, yes double, the signatures required to place this on the state ballot this coming November.  People obviously see though Jerry Brown’s feeble attempt to quash this by naming the initiative “Suspends Air Pollution Control Laws Requiring Major Polluters to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level for Full Year.” (Now that’s a mouth full).  Please remember “Governor Moonbeam” (his nickname last time he was governor) at election time.  He should retire from what amounts to about a lifetime on the government tit.

    It would appear that no one in the Senate or House of Representatives in Washington, DC will be doing anything anytime soon, the Australian Government has dropped the issue (a little thing called I want to be re-elected), there are serious doubts that the United Nations will be getting any kind of agreements for years, but good old California keeps on plugging along, we’re going to stop global warming all by ourselves, even if it bankrupts the state and drives up unemployment. This sounds like Alfred Hitchcock’s take on the “can do” attitude to me.

    Just never you mind that on some days 25% of Los Angeles’ smog comes from China (read here). Nothing we do will change that.  I’m not going over it all again, but CO2 driven global warming isn’t proven. It’s not even likely it causes much, if any warming at all. You can read it all over the internet if you’re so inclined.  If you’re not you’re probably a “warmer” anyway.

    If you want to read more here’s some links.

    Kill Carb has a lot of information on the smog Nazis in Kalifornia.

    The Sacramento Bee has an interesting article on unemployment plus a chart you can play with and see how it’s been growing.

    I hope this passes, or California is going to be DOA so bad it will make the situation in Greece look like they’re rolling in money.

    Comments Off on Will California Tell the "Warmistas" to Drop Dead?

    Filed under AB32 California, Co2 Insanity

    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