Al Gore supporters fly into large CB

[Methusala]

The catastrophic melting of the Arctic sea ice and the accelerating loss of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets are predicted to cause sea level rises of 6 meters this century and an ecological catastrophe that will see massive ecocide, species extinctions and the deaths of over 6 billion people (see: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/

 

16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock ; http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/ ).

 

The politicians refuse to lead – so the People must lead. Tell everyone you can – the catastrophe of accelerating polar ice loss demands an immediate Global Declaration of a State of Climate Emergency, the rapid cessation of coal power and NEGATIVE CO2 emissions.

 

Dr Gideon Polya

 

Dear all readers of this thread. I guess that as long as you don't live tooo close to the sea, well just relax. Seriously though, I don't mind discussing political issues on this forum but think that gratuitous sledging of major political parties is a bit too close to the bone. Remember that, even with a split of say 45-55 you still risk an indirect and unasked for slight against a large group of forum members. We the people really must stop holding pitifully weak politicians( of both sides) responsible for our problems. With all good wishes and hope, Don

 

 

[vk3auu]

Perhaps the sceptics should also read

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/27/AR2008082703108.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

 

 

[skybum]

The man from Gaia. Gotta luv him. He and others proclaim the CLAW theory of a sulphide cycle that drives cloud libedo. And the ANTI-Claw theory just for GW. A foot in both doors. Good lad:thumb_up: He also likes the idea of nuclear power. That must cause consternation amongst the deep dark greens:hug:

 

 

[Methusala]

BUT WHERE IS ALL THAT ICE GOING?

 

 

[Captain]

1 The Washington Post's web page should not be considered to be a reference manual to the existance of CC. When have you ever seen the papers get it right?

 

2 I am using lots of ice in my G&T's. Perhaps I am to blame?

 

3 But what about the pirates?

 

 

[Guest J430]

"An inconvenient Lie...........by Al Gore"

 

Oxygen Thief!!!!

 

 

[Ultralights]

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

 

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

 

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

 

MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

 

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

 

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

 

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

 

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

 

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

 

FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".

 

Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.

 

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

 

FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. You cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption - that is circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

 

MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

 

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:

 

1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”

 

2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

 

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

 

MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.

 

FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

 

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

 

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.

 

MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

 

FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

 

MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

 

FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

 

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

 

 

[Guest Murray Scott]

Unattributed "facts"

 

"Ultralight"s collection of "facts" would perhaps be more impressive if they hadn't been endlessly requoted verbatim around the web for years (see Google result below) and if their source was known and acknowledged.

 

Murray Scott.

 

Results 1 - 10 of about 22,800 for FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").. (0.50 seconds)

[Methusala]

Tsk...tsk.... I DO wonder where ALL that ice has gone to....

 

 

[Guest Murray Scott]

Hey wait! I got that wrong. Google finds the exact paragraph only 55 times. I still can't work out the source ( or even earliest web post).

 

Murray Scott

 

"Ultralight"s collection of "facts" would perhaps be more impressive if they hadn't been endlessly requoted verbatim around the web for years (see Google result below) and if their source was known and acknowledged. Murray Scott.

[skybum]

I just beg to differ. because of the ability of the internet. ANY "fact" can be refuted by both sides in short time. Students think they are clever cut and pasting facts into their projects and do not realise how quickly they will come undone.

 

On this whole Anthropogenic Global Warming thing. Because of no shred of even including THE most dominant greenhouse gas in any calculations just shows how foolish these "scientists" are.

 

CO2 represents 0.0032% of global atmosphere. Of which human activity adds just 3% of that OR 0.000096% of total global concentrations (careful with your zeroes, people!) There are even fools who firmly believe that the closing ozone hole forms a vortex which eventualy caused that rotating storm in the Atlantic that hit Brazil.????

 

Look at where ozone forms the protective layer and what partial pressure it produces??? and someone firmly believes atoms cause a vortex??? big enough to cause a rotating storm??? PUULLEASE!

 

Anyway, in the spirit of an opposing argument. Global sea rise? OK that would mean that the inertial mass is moving further away from the centre of the planet. To the lay person. What happens when an ice skater starts to spin and then pulls their arms in toward their sides, and then push their arms above their head. The rotation increases to conserve inertia. Move arms out and the opposite is true. So, with global sea rise the planet is expanding 70% of the earth's surface. NASA has NOT detected ANY slowing of the Earth's rotation due to sea rise. Please explain! Physics doesn't change to suit an argument.

 

 

[Methusala]

I did have to go to the dictionary to get a definition of "anthropogenic",so I guess I can't lay claim to being the most literate of posters. But, the number or rarity of words used in an arguement doesn't count. The facts are that when energy is added to a closed system some effects will be observed. Weather is an observable phenomenum, and the earth, as we learned with the launch of satellite based cameras, is a closed system.

 

I hear reports, through the media that the last 10 years had the 7(or so), hottest summers since records began. Or that the ice sheets covering the west of Greenland are moving at record and accelerating speeds. I hear of polar ice disappearing at record speed and heart rending accounts of polar bears drowning. I hear that the alpine pygmy possums in Oz are in danger because they wake from hibernation too early,(because the winters are too warm), and starve. It's too early for their food source to be ripe. More and more powerful cyclones and hurricanes; longer and deeper droughts; wild fires of huge proportions in Oz, Europe and the US.

 

The climatologists have the capability, through observed deep cores of ice to test the atmosphere's record of co2 content and that it is higher now than at any time in the past 250,000yrs.

 

These are the sort of events that lead the majority of scientists to accept the idea that something is happening and that we should take the threat seriously. This is why Al Gore chooses to call it an inconvenient truth. Regards, Don

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

...WELL, if we're goin to hammer Ultralights for not attributing a reference...

 

heart rending accounts of polar bears drowning

reference please

 

I hear that the alpine pygmy possums in Oz are in danger because they wake from hibernation too early

reference please

 

longer and deeper droughts

reference please

 

wild fires of huge proportions in Oz

I think I'm going to enjoy this one - reference please

 

...the majority of scientists to accept the idea that something is happening...

reference please

 

This is why Al Gore chooses to call it an inconvenient truth

... just before he gets on his personal jet

 

 

[vk3auu]

Students of the current thread might also read

 

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050225_wobbly_planet.html

 

It seems that there are many factors controlling the rate of rotation of the earth.

 

David

 

 

[skybum]

Yep, vk3auu. Good link:thumb_up: Here is another one http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html

 

The whole page is a good read.

 

 

[Ultralights]

i was just thinking, if half the polar ica cap has already melted, why hasnt the sea level risen yet?

 

 

[planedriver]

And I thought there were some sensible, well educated people on these forums.

 

Now i'm a bit disillusioned.

 

7/11 bought it cheap to make slurpees.

 

One final thought, if its already half gone, how come it still only covers the lower half of all the local ducks?:hittinghead::hittinghead::hittinghead:

 

 

[vk3auu]

Ultralights.

 

Try this experiment.

 

Put a large ice cube in a glass and fill it up with water to the brim.

 

Let it stand and watch the ice melt.

 

Not one drop of water will overflow.

 

The same deal is happening with the North polar ice, because it is floating and it has a lower density than the water. See Archimedes' Principle.

 

David

 

David

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

GASP!!!...Greenland floats

 

....................

 

 

[Admin]

GASP!!!...Greenland floats....................

Yep........saw it go past the other day :big_grin:

 

 

[Methusala]

Sea levels will rise when landbound ice( commonly known as glaciers) reaches the sea and melts. The entire land mass of antarctica is depressed under the weight of an ice sheet which is in places kilometres thick. However these things are never as simple as abc. When ice melts, it requires an energy input (enthalpy) sooo... some cooling is the result. This cooling can mask somewhat the effects of a warming trend. This of course means that the full whammy may not arrive until the end stage of this process of which some of us remain gloriously sceptical. Boy, if I had a wish I would wish you are right about this. I saw a doco on oz BC last year where Tuvaluans( hope I got that right!) were wading around, ankle deep in water. Didnt look like trick photography to me( not happy, Maude). Keep up those swimming lessons, Don.

 

 

[octave]

A search of the websites of:

 

CSIRO

 

NASA

 

The British Royal Society

 

American Association for the Advancement of Science

 

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

 

National Research Council (US)

 

Federation of American Scientists

 

World Meteorological Organisation

 

American Meteorological Society

 

to name but a few - support the theory of human induced climate change.

 

So if human induced climate change is so obviously flawed are these respected organisations incompetent or are they all misleading us as part of some conspiracy?

 

 

[Ultralights]

Many have been keeping a watchful eye on solar activity recently. The most popular thing to watch has been sunspots. While not a direct indication of solar activity, they are a proxy for the sun’s internal magnetic dynamo. There have been a number of indicators recently that it has been slowing down.

 

August 2008 has made solar history. As of 00 UTC (5PM PST) we just posted the first spotless calendar month since June 1913. Solar time is measured by Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) so it is now September 1st in UTC time. I’ve determined this to be the first spotless calendar month according to sunspot data from NOAA’s National Geophysical Data Center, which goes back to 1749. In the 95 years since 1913, we’ve had quite an active sun. But that has been changing in the last few years. The sun today is a nearly featureless sphere and has been for many days:

 

 

Image from SOHO

 

And there are other indicators. For example, some solar forecasts have been revised recently because the forecast models haven’t matched the observations. Australia’s space weather agency recently revised their solar cycle 24 forecast, pushing the expected date for a ramping up of cycle 24 sunspots into the future by six months.

 

The net effect of having no sunspots is about 0.1% drop in the TSI (Total Solar Irradiance). My view is that TSI alone isn’t the main factor in modulating Earth’s climate.

 

I think it’s solar magnetism modulating Galactic Cosmic Rays, and hence more cloud nuclei from GCR’s, per Svensmark’s theory. We’ve had indications since October 2005 that the sun’s dynamo is slowing down. It dropped significantly then, and has remained that way since. Seeing no sunpots now is another indicator of that idling dynamo.

 

Graph of solar Geomagnetic Index (Ap):

 

 

Click for a larger image

 

Earth of course is a big heat sink, so it takes awhile to catch up to any changes that originate on the sun, but temperature drops indicated by 4 global temperature metrics (UAH, RSS and to a lesser degree HadCrit and GISS) show a significant and sharp cooling in 2007 and 2008 that has not rebounded.In the 20 years since “global warming†started life as a public issue with Dr. James Hansen’s testimony before congress in June 1988, we are actually cooler.

 

 

Click for a larger image

 

Reference: UAH lower troposphere data

 

Coincidence? Possibly, but nature will be the final arbiter of climate change debate, and I think we would do well to listen to what it’s saying now.

 

Joe D’Aleo of ICECAP also wrote some interesting things which I’ll reprint here.

 

…we have had a 0 sunspot calendar month (there have been more 30 day intervals without sunspots as recent as 1954 but they have crossed months). Following is a plot of the number of months with 0 sunspots by year over the period of record - 23 cycles since 1749.

 

 

See larger image here.

 

Note that cluster of zero month years in the early 1800s (a very cold period called the Dalton minimum - at the time of Charles Dickens and snowy London town and including thanks to Tambora, the Year without a Summer 1816) and again to a lesser degree in the early 1900s. These correspond to the 106 and 213 year cycle minimums. This would suggest that the next cycle minimum around 2020 when both cycles are in phase at a minimum could be especially weak. Even David Hathaway of NASA who has been a believer in the cycle 24 peak being strong, thinks the next minimum and cycle 25 maximum could be the weakest in centuries based on slowdown of the plasma conveyor belt on the sun.

 

In this plot of the cycle lengths and sunspot number at peak of the cycles, assuming this upcoming cycle will begin in 2009 show the similarity of the recent cycles to cycle numbers 2- 4, two centuries ago preceding the Dalton Minimum. This cycle 23 could end up the longest since cycle 4, which had a similar size peak and also similarly, two prior short cycles.

 

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

octave, I just had a look at the web site for the American Association for the Advancement of Science

 

The speil -

 

AAAS seeks at every opportunity to increase the volume of scientific leadership on the issue of global climate change.

 

"A Growing Threat to Society" AAAS Board of Directors Statement on Climate Change: "The scientific evidence is clear," the AAAS Board says in a new statement. "Global climate change caused by human activities...is a growing threat to society."

 

Climate-Change Town Hall

 

"Communicating and Learning About Global Climate Change": An estimated 1,000 educators, students, business leaders and others convened in San Francisco on 18 February 2007 for a half-day, town-hall style event on the challenges of climate change-and possible solutions. The event, geared to teachers, students and science communicators, was held at the AAAS Annual Meeting and featured the debut of AAAS's new 12-minute video on climate change, which can be viewed online as RealVideo or Windows Media.

 

I would recomend a look at the 12 minute video full of pithy maxims. In the video, a Lara Hansen qoutes three major points to worry about; Increasing temps; Altered precipitation; Raising sea levels - there's something about polar bears too.

 

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/

 

...I think they just published something about the raising sea level forecasts, some problems with the expectations aparently.

 

 

[Yenn]

We may have been stuffing up the planet, but nature will win in the end. If we keep increasing in number and having a detrimental effect, we will be reduced in number by nature. All part of evolution, which I happen to believe in.

 

There may be famines or disease outbreaks or we may just all keep killing each other, but our numbers will reduce.

 

Of course if you don't believe in evolution, you must be looking at the weather that God is handing out to the USA and wondering if he/she is trying to tell them something.