Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
BFB

Global warming at a standstill

183 posts in this topic

GLOBAL WARMING - WHY THE PENDULUM IS SWINGING As the world approaches the close of a decade of stable temperatures, with recent hints of cooling, in New Zealand and elsewhere, ordinary citizens are starting to realise that there is no substance to the hysteria about human-induced "global warming" created by their governments for political reasons, fanned by news media more interested in attracting readers and viewers with doom and gloom reports of impending catastrophe than presenting the simple facts. Take a few minutes to read this item, to see how you have been misled.

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

Hon Secretary, Terry Dunleavy MBE, 14A Bayview Road, Hauraki, North Shore City 0622

Phone (09) 486 3859 - Mobile 0274 836688 - Email - \n terry.dunleavy@nzclimatescience.org.nz This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

http://www.climatescience.org.nz

Want to know why the

pendulum has swung on global warming hysteria?

Take a few minutes to read this:

It has become commonplace knowledge, and is unchallenged, that global average temperature has not increased since 1998. This corresponds to a 9-year period during which the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast, did increase, and that by almost 5%.

The greenhouse hypothesis - which asserts that carbon dioxide increases of human origin will cause dangerous global warming - is clearly invalidated by these data.

As if that were not enough, a leading computer modelling team has recently published a paper in Nature

http://www.nytimes.c....=1&oref=slogin which acknowledges what climate realists (the so-called “sceptics”) have always asserted. Which is that, contrary to IPCC assessments, any human influence on global temperature is so small that it cannot be differentiated from natural cycles of climate change. The same modellers have even predicted (after the start of the event, of course) that cooling will now occur for at least the next few years. Mortal strike two against dangerous, human-caused warming.

At this news, the rare balanced commentaries that hitherto have been but a trickle through cracks in the monolithic dam of climate alarmism have coalesced into a steady, fissured flow, and there is an imminent likelihood of total dam collapse. Interestingly, at the same time, the fierce discussion about the pros and cons of dangerous human-caused change that has formerly been conducted almost exclusively on the internet (including particularly blogs and video outlets like YouTube) is starting to spread to the more mainstream press.

For instance, critical analyses of global warming science reality and policy options have recently been provided by two leading articles in the National Business Review ;

http://www.nbr.co.nz....ming-cancelled

http://nzclimatescie....id=265Itemid=1

and others on Muriel Newman’s Centre for Political Research website

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest92.htm

and in the New Zealand Herald

http://www.nzherald.....ectid=10508067

Christchurch Press

http://www.stuff.co....0160a12735.html

and U.K. Daily Telegraph

http://www.telegraph....climate130.xml

and NZ Farmers Weekly

http://www.farmerswe...ticle/7384.html

Finally, and most belatedly of all, even radio and TV commentators are now starting to provide a broader and better balanced perspective on the global warming issue.

Nzone Tonight is a nightly news and current affairs programme broadcast by Shine TV, a NZ Christian broadcaster that aims to provide a balanced and truthful review of all the day's news suitable for family viewing. In mid-April, Nzone broadcast a current affairs discussion about global warming between host Alan Lee and Australian Professor Bob Carter. Since being posted on YouTube

[media=]

[/media]

this video has attracted 15,000 worldwide viewers, and during its first three weeks has become the most viewed, most discussed and most favoured - and the number two top rated - New Zealand News and Politics video clip of the month. Amongst other supportive comment, one US viewer noted that “I did enjoy the respectful nature of the interview. I do wish this interview was shown on every network in this country, and at every school!”

http://newsbusters.o....limate-realism

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Antarctic Ice volume is on the increase because there has been an increase in precipitation/snowfall due to a change in the prevailing weather patterns around the continent. This change is because more moist WARM air is been carried into the Antarctic interior where due to the high mountain ranges it is forced out of the clouds due to the lapse rate.

The growth of Antarctic land ice is directly caused by Global warming. Many areas of Antarctic sea ice are in fact on the retreat due to rising antarctic sea surface temperatures.

Global warming = Climate change. Not all climate change is in a predictable direction ie warmer.

Br Cornelius

I saw an article last night (I think it was in a back-issue of "Science.") that explains that Antarctica's lack of warming everywhere except the Antarctic Peninsula, is due to the ozone hole (which still exists) affecting polar atmospheric circulation. I was planning to bring it with me today, but forgot it. It also explained the warm-up of the Antarctic Peninsula.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw an article last night (I think it was in a back-issue of "Science.") that explains that Antarctica's lack of warming everywhere except the Antarctic Peninsula, is due to the ozone hole (which still exists) affecting polar atmospheric circulation. I was planning to bring it with me today, but forgot it. It also explained the warm-up of the Antarctic Peninsula.

Doug

A few years back that was reported in several journals, and makes perfect sense: Ozone is also a greenhouse gas, therefore the lack of it (ozone hole) must lead to cooling...or at least to lesser warming than there where the ozone is still intact. And it is precisely that what leads the argument carbon dioxide (also a greenhouse gas) has nothing to do with it ad absurdum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GLOBAL WARMING - WHY THE PENDULUM IS SWINGING As the world approaches the close of a decade of stable temperatures, with recent hints of cooling, in New Zhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/science/earth/01climate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin which acknowledges what climate realists (the so-called “sceptics”) have always asserted. Which is that, contrary to IPCC assessmealand

The article I mentioned in Post 178 also had a couple paragraphs on why New Zealand isn't warming. I can see I need to remember to bring it with me so I can post the reference.

and elsewhere, ordinary citizens are starting to realise that there is no substance to the hysteria about human-induced "global warming" created by their governments for political reasons, fanned by news media more interested in attracting readers and viewers with doom and gloom reports of impending catastrophe than presenting the simple facts.

I provided you with two references to the best datasets, in fact, two of the only six datasets that exist on the subject of global warming. They both say it's getting warmer - still. Instead of hype, why not present some evidence?

I'll answer that question: there isn't any evidence to support a hypothesis of cooling. In fact, the evidence won't even support the contention that warming has stopped.

It has become commonplace knowledge, and is unchallenged, that global average temperature has not increased since 1998. This corresponds to a 9-year period during which the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast, did increase, and that by almost 5%.

According to NCDC's list of globally averaged temperature anomalies, 2012 was 0.11 degrees C. warmer than 1997. You need to do some fact-checking before you repeat this hype.

The increase in CO2 concentration from 1998 to 2008 was 5.6%; between 1998 and 2012 it was 6.1% (366.63 ppmbv in 1998 to 390.50 ppmbv in 2012). CO2 is not the only thing affecting warming. So what happens when some of the things that are now depressing temperature (sunspot cycle, sulfur pollution in China, etc.) are no longer operating? The solar cycle will peak out late this year. And the Chinese are adding scrubbers to their power plants. Guess we're gonna find out.

At any rate, Oklahoma just got an inch of rain. That makes a little over three inches since last July (Our normal annual rainfall is a little over 30 inches.). In another month, several of our small local towns will run out of water - you turn on the tap and nothing comes out. None for cooking; none for drinking; none for anything. The larger towns will start running out in July. The Weather Service is predicting 100-degree weather for April! It's getting real easy to believe in global warming/climate change around here. And the US govt is predicting that Lake Mead will be dry by 2021!

Guess what the climate models predict for this area: it will become a desert. Here's how we tell if they're right: "normal" drought cycles have severe freezes during late January and February every other year. We had such a freeze in 2011. This is January 30 and the temperature is 70 degrees outside. If this is a "normal" drought cycle, we should see a hard freeze (<10 degrees F. for at least two days) within the next month. The Gay Nineties Drought had two consecutive years without this hard freeze (1897 and 1898). That's one out of the last nine cycles, so it's not an iron-clad test. Either way, the drought will continue for another three or so years, even if it is "normal," so we'll find out.

The greenhouse hypothesis - which asserts that carbon dioxide increases of human origin will cause dangerous global warming - is clearly invalidated by these data.

The greenhouse hypothesis says that warming will be greatest in the dryest areas. That's exactly what we see. The Arctic has warmed over four degrees since 1976. Here, it's less pronounced, but still 0.7 degrees C. since then. Again, global temps have actually INCREASED about 0.05 degrees C. since 1998. So, warming continues.

You also need 30 years of data before you can produce an estimate of the "current" situation. That means you start your dataset in 1982 or before.

Regarding that list of articles you referenced: couldn't find an actual scientific article, eh? They are all popular press items, written by anybody EXCEPT climate scientists. The New York times is well-known for its pro-big business, pro-pollution, anti-regulation editorial policies. Try to find a reputable source.

I'm running out of time. I'm rewriting a paper on the Ouachita Regional (tree ring) Chronology which I just got back from the reviewer. He promises to have my ice storm paper back to me on Friday. I don't have to read about climate change written by know-nothing newspapermen. I can read it directly from the rings of pine trees. And they say there has been a reduction in ice storms in the central US over the last 30 years. I don't even have to look at Weather Service data; though, it says the same thing. I am hoping to have these papers (three of them) accepted for publication by summer, hopefully, in "Tree Ring Research." I'll post the references when that happens.

In the meantime, try posting some references that actually support your claims. Not one of those articles referenced a dataset - any dataset - that could support what they were saying. They're just blowing smoke. Try to refute the science, but be warned that you will need science to do that.

Doug

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years back that was reported in several journals, and makes perfect sense: Ozone is also a greenhouse gas, therefore the lack of it (ozone hole) must lead to cooling...or at least to lesser warming than there where the ozone is still intact. And it is precisely that what leads the argument carbon dioxide (also a greenhouse gas) has nothing to do with it ad absurdum.

The ozone hole is actually the reason why Antarctica been "protected" by GW. What Doug means by "polar atmospheric circulation" is that the polar vortex has intensified and therefore affected Antarctica weather patterns. When the ozone hole disappear the polar vortex intensity will reduce and Antarctica will warm.

Edited by BFB
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ozone hole is actually the reason why Antarctica been "protected" by GW. What Doug means by "polar atmospheric circulation" is that the polar vortex has intensified and therefore affected Antarctica weather patterns. When the ozone hole disappear the polar vortex intensity will reduce and Antarctica will warm.

there is an ozone "hole" over the arctic too. so why would the arctic be warming and the antarctic be cooling when both have seen a reduction is ozone. this looks to me like speculation to protect a faulty theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is an ozone "hole" over the arctic too. so why would the arctic be warming and the antarctic be cooling when both have seen a reduction is ozone. this looks to me like speculation to protect a faulty theory.

"In the northern polar regions, ozone levels in the early 1990s measured ten percent lower than those estimated in the late 1970s. The Arctic does experience ozone depletion, but to a lesser degree than the Antarctic. Unlike the Antarctic, large-scale weather systems disturb the wind flow in the Arctic and prevent the temperature in the stratosphere from being as cold. Therefore fewer stratospheric clouds are formed to provide surfaces for the production of ozone-depleting compounds. Some clouds do form, however, and allow the chemical reactions that deplete ozone. Ozone depletion has a direct effect on human inhabitants, but research has only just begun on the effects of increased ultraviolet radiation on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and societies and settlements in the Arctic."

http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/arctic/ozonehole.htm

Different place different prevailing conditions - simple.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More explanation for why the cooling effects of ozone depletion are unique to the antarctic

The comparisons show that the two polar regions display fundamentally different character. Observations of the ozone abundance at 70 mbar (≈18 km) show that some local ozone depletion has occurred in the Arctic. However, the extreme anomalies associated with the springtime Antarctic ozone hole as observed in many records (frequent removal of >90% of the ozone at this level and sometimes >99%) are not observed in any of the available long-term Arctic records.

http://www.pnas.org/.../104/2/445.full

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.