|
Audio Links: May 2018 - Former professor Ian Plimer takes aim at Climate Change Science Sept 2017 - Australia's dangerous journey down the path of renewables June 2019 Alan Jones interview with Nils-Axel Morner, a former head of the Paleo-Geophysics and Geodynamics Department in Stockholm, says a new solar-driven cooling period for the Earth is not far off: 2019 Sun-driven cooling period and Co2 sea level rise truth
|
|||||||
CLIMATE CHANGE , EU and the truth Brian Wilshire 2gb radio host interview with Lord Christopher Monckton. |
|||||||
One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time You iterate towards the truth. You dont know it. The problem is we dont know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books mine included because it looked clear-cut, but it hasnt happened, Lovelock said. The climate is doing its usual tricks. Theres nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now, he said. The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that, he added. He pointed to Gores An Inconvenient Truth and Tim Flannerys The Weather Makers as other examples of alarmist forecasts of the future.
Australias Heat waves are nothing new going back as far 1790 and 1896
Dec 2019 - Can the Northern Territory cope with a transition to 50 per cent renewables? Link to article: Cloud cover causes major solar power outages in Alice Springs NT Australia
2gb Radio Alan Jones interviews Malcolm Roberts on climate change.
UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' By Noel Sheppard | November 18, 2010 If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago: (NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies. (OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all. (NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know. (EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11,000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil. (NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy. (EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole. For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.
SYDNEY MORNING HERALD - April 2009 by Paul Sheehan What I am about to write questions much of what I have written in this space, in numerous columns, over the past five years. Perhaps what I have written can withstand this questioning. Perhaps not. The greater question is, am I and you capable of questioning our own orthodoxies and intellectual habits? Lets see. The subject of this column is not small. It is a book entitled Heaven And Earth, which will be published tomorrow. It has been written by one of Australia's foremost Earth scientists, Professor Ian Plimer. He is a confronting sort of individual, polite but gruff, courteous but combative. He can write extremely well, and Heaven And Earth is a brilliantly argued book by someone not intimidated by hostile majorities or intellectual fashions. The books 500 pages and 230,000 words and 2311 footnotes are the product of 40 years research and a depth and breadth of scholarship. As Plimer writes: "An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geo-chemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, palaeoecology, glaci-ology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history. The most important point to remember about Plimer is that he is Australia's most eminent geologist. As such, he thinks about time very differently from most of us. He takes the long, long view. He looks at climate over geological, archaeological, historical and modern time. He writes: "Past climate changes, sea-level changes and catastrophes are written in stone." Much of what we have read about climate change, he argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modelling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive". Errors and distortions in computer modelling will be exposed in time. (As if on cue, the United Nations peak scientific body on climate change was obliged to make an embarrassing admission last week that some of its computers models were wrong.) Plimer does not dispute the dramatic flux of climate change - and this column is not about Australias water debate but he fundamentally disputes most of the assumptions and projections being made about the current causes, mostly led by atmospheric scientists, who have a different perspective on time. "lt is little wonder that catastrophist views of the future of the planet fall on fertile pastures. The history of time shows us that depopulation, social disruption, extinctions, disease and catastrophic droughts take place in cold times . .. and life blossoms and economies boom in warm times. Planet Earth is dynamic. It always changes and evolves. It is currently in an ice age." lf we look at the last 6 million years, the Earth was warmer than it is now for 3 million years. The ice caps of the Arctic, Antarctica and Greenland are geologically unusual. Polar ice has only been present for less than 20 per cent of geological time. What follows is an intense compression of the books 500 pages and all their provocative arguments and conclusions: Is dangerous warming occurring? No. Is the temperature range observed in the 20th century outside the range of normal variability? No. The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earths climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy. "To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable human-induced CO is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly. Yet when astronomers have the temerity to show that climate is driven by solar activities rather than CO2 emissions, they are dismissed as dinosaurs undertaking the methods of old-fashioned science." Over time, the history of CO2 content in the atmosphere has been far higher than at present for most of time. Atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rise. It does not create a temperature rise. CO2 is not a pollutant. Global warming and a high CO2 content bring prosperity and longer life. The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology. "But evidence no longer matters. And any contrary work published in peer reviewed journals is just ignored. We are told that the science on human induced global warming is settled. Yet the claim by some scientists that the threat of human-induced global warming is 90 per cent certain (or even 99 per cent) is a figure of speech. lt has no mathematical or evidential basis. Observations in nature differ markedly from the results generated by nearly two dozen computer generated climate models. These climate models exaggerate the effects of human CO2 emissions into the atmosphere because few of the natural variables are considered. Natural systems are far more complex than computer models. The setting up by the UN of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988 gave an opportunity to make global warming the main theme of environmental groups. "The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism. It is unrelated to science. Current zeal around human-induced climate change is comparable to the certainty professed by Creationists or religious fundamentalists." Ian Plimer is not some isolated gad-fly. He is a prize-winning scientist and professor. The back cover of Heaven And Earth carries a glowing endorsement from the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, who now holds the rotating presidency of the European Union. Numerous rigorous scientists have joined Plimer in dissenting from the prevailing orthodoxy. Heaven and Earth is an evidence based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder ` to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence. Ian Plimer is Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne where he was Professor and Head (1991-2005). He has won many international awards for science and has twice won the Eureka Prize. He is the author of Heaven and Earth: Global Warming - The Missing Science, published by Connor Court Publishing.
13 August 2009 - Professor Ian PlimerToday the Australian Senate voted on the government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Even the name of this bill should have rung warning bells as carbon is the foundation of life and is not a pollutant. It is claimed that there is a scientific consensus about human-induced climate change. There is no consensus and consensus is a process of politics not science. Science is married to evidence no matter how uncomfortable. To argue that temperature has increased 0.8C since 1850 is misleading because the Little Ice Age ended in 1850 and it is absolutely no surprise that temperature increases after a long cold period. Since 1850, there has been temperature increase (1860-1880, 1910-1940, 1976-1998) and decrease (1880-1910, 1940-1976,1998-present) and the rate of the three periods of temperature increase has been the same. A simple question does not get asked: what part of warming and cooling since 1850 is natural? The first two warmings could not be related to human additions of CO2 from industry hence why wouldn't the 1976-1998 warming also be due to natural processes? It is claimed that, since 1950, human additions of CO2 has been the dominant cause of warming. The scales and rates of temperature change in the past have been far greater than when humans emitted CO2 from industry. What has caused the coolings (1940-1976 and 1998-present) or, by some tortured logic, is global cooling this century actually global warming cunningly disguised? At present, atmospheric temperature is decreasing and CO2 is increasing again showing that CO2 is not the principal driver of climate change. Planet Earth is a warm wet greenhouse volcanic planet. The planet is dynamic, change is normal. Five of the six major ice ages occurred when the atmospheric CO2 content was up to 1,000 times higher than at present and for half of Earth history CO2 has been sequestered naturally into algal reefs, coral reefs, sediments, altered rocks, bacteria, plants, soils and oceans. This process is still taking place. The hypothesis that high atmospheric CO2 drives global warming is therefore invalid. The Earth's atmospheric CO2 initially derived from volcanic degassing. Much of it still does and the rest is recycled CO2 from the oceans, rocks and life. The claim that warming will increase in the future has been disproved by the climate modelers' own data. Climate models of the 1990s did not predict the El Nino of 1998 or the cooling in the 21st Century. If such models are inaccurate only 10 years into the future, how can they be accurate for longer term predictions? Furthermore, when these models are run backwards they cannot be used to identify climate-driving processes involving a huge transfer of energy (eg El Nino), volcanoes, solar changes and supernovae. Models tell us more about the climatologists than they do about Nature. Another claim is that climate cannot be reversed. This invokes a non-dynamic planet. The fact that previous warmings with an atmospheric temperature some five degrees Celcius higher than now (eg Minoan, Roman, Medieval) were reversed is conveniently ignored as are the great climate cycles driven by the Sun, the Earth's orbit, tectonics and tides seen on modern, archaeological and geological time scales. 'Tipping points are another sensationalist unsubstantiated claim. In past times when atmospheric CO2 and temperature were far higher, there were no tipping points, climate disasters or runaway greenhouse. The climate catastrophists attempt to create fear by mentioning the carbon cycle but just happen to omit that significant oxygenation of the atmosphere took place when the planet was in middle age and this process of photosynthesis resulted the recycling and sequestration of carbon. The atmosphere now contains 800 billion tonnes (Gt) of carbon as CO2, soils vegetation and humus contain 2,000 Gt carbon in various compounds, the oceans contain 39,000 Gt and limestone, a rock that contains 44 per cent CO2, contains 65,000,000 Gt carbon. The atmosphere contains only 0.001 per cent of all carbon at the surface of the Earth and far greater quantities are present in the lower crust and mantle of the Earth. Human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere must be taken into perspective. Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day. Climate chestnuts about polar ice are commonly raised. What is not raised is that ice is dynamic, it advances and retreats, while the Arctic is warming the Antarctic is cooling and vice versa and if ice did not retreat, then the planet would be covered in ice. For less than 20 per cent of time Earth has had ice. The Antarctic ice sheet has been with us for 37 million years during which time there were extended periods of warmth and the ice sheet did not disappear. So too with the Greenland ice sheet which has enjoyed nearly three million years of expansion and contraction yet did not disappear in extended times far warmer than at present. Sea level is also dynamic and has risen and fallen over time by at least 600 metres. Since the end of the glaciation 14,000 years ago, sea level has risen some 130 metres at almost one centimetre per year. It is now at about one milimetre per year. This sea level rise has flooded Bass Strait, the English Channel and destabilised the west Antarctic Ice Sheet. It is this sea level rise that has stimulated coral growth, created larger shallow water ecologies and changed the shape of landmasses. The fear mongering suggestion that oceans will become acid is also misleading. The oceans are buffered by sediments and volcanic rocks on the sea floor and even in past times when atmospheric temperature and CO2 were far higher than at present, there were no acid oceans. If there had been, there would be no fossils with calcium carbonate shells. Although industrial aerosols are decreasing, the climate catastrophists omit to state that volcanic aerosols kill. At least three of the five major mass extinctions of complex life on Earth were probably due to aerosols. If our climate catastrophists want to twiddle the dials and stop climate change, they need to play God and change radiation in the galaxy, the Sun, the Earth's orbit, tidal cycles and plate tectonics. Once they have mastered volcanoes, then we can let them loose on climate change. Today Australia faced the biggest financial decision since Federation. There still has not been an independent scientific and financial due diligence on an emissions trading scheme. It is this legislative time bomb that will destroy productive industries in rural and industrial Australia. Novermber 12 , 2009 The Sydney Morning Heraldby Miranda Devine Against the apocalyptic rhetoric pushed by Rudd comes a cool-minded new book which unpicks the science underpinning the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Changes reports. Global Warming, False Alarm by Ralph Alexander, an Australian-born US scientist with a PhD in physics from Oxford, is subtitled The bad science behind the United Nations' assertion that man-made CO2 causes global warming". Alexander wrote the book, "because I m a scientist. Because Im offended that science has been perverted in the name of global warming." He became a sceptic when he taught a course on physical science and found the textbook presented the "alarmist line on man-made global warming without question". To me that made a mockery of the history of science presented in the course, which featured several examples of how mainstream scientific thinking has been wrong in the past." The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change says the earth has effectively developed an allergy to CO2. The effect of a tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is amplified by water vapour and clouds in a positive feedback loop which enhances the climates sensitivity to extra CO2 and causes runaway global warming". That is the big Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change hypothesis. Alexander explains the three problems with the hypothesis. First, recent satellite observations show cloud feedback to be a negative loop, that is, clouds reduce global warming, rather than amplify it in a positive feed back loop, as the panel's models predict. Second, the panel has used flawed data. It "stooped to trickery and rewrote history" to make the temperature and CO2 records correlate over the past 2000 years, creating the notorious hockey stick" graph that wiped out the well documented Medieval Warming Period (a warm spell about the year 1000) and Little ice Age (cool period in about 1650). The graph relied on data from a few tree rings to estimate historic temperatures, which have since been shown to be inaccurate. The third problem for the panel hypothesis is that CO2 lags behind temperature in the Ice Age era, which has been explained by the delayed release of stored CO2 from oceans, but the panel model has CO2 and temperature rising together since 1850. Either temperature and CO2 go up and down at the same time or they dont . . . You can't have it one way during the ice ages and another way today. " Alexander says data manipulation has been the panels main tool of deception. For instance, it has ignored the bias in the modern temperature record caused by the "urban heat island effect" that inflates warming near cities. The panel has also ignored the bias in its temperature data caused by the shutting down of weather stations in cold parts of the world in the 1990s from about 5000 to 2000 or so most notably in the former Soviet Union. Again, this artificially increases the recent warming rate. Alexander says the panel has "cherry-picked" 19th century CO2 data to exaggerate the rise in CO2 levels since pre-industrial times, and has trivialised the suns contribution to the present warming trend. Don't get him started on computer climate models which he says are "full of unfounded assumptions". He points to the drop in the earths temperature since 2001 which wasnt predicted by the models. Ultimately, "trillions of dollars could be wasted to fix a problem that doesnt exist". Alexanders book is a useful tool to make sense of climate change As they did in the republic debate, regardless of elite consensus, Australians make up their own minds, and are probably turned off by official attempts to stifle dissent.
15 December 2009by Professor Ian Plimer Two Copenhagen climate conferences took place last week. The UN Copenhagen conference was attended by politicians, 16,500 bureaucrats, thousands of journalists, activists and NGOs. Hundreds of limos, over 100 private jets and huge amounts of energy were expended by more than 30,000 attendees. Many of the attendees were scientific agitators with a political agenda. Australia's prime minister had a Copenhagen photo opportunity whistle stop in his dedicated jet and expended more fuel on this trip than the Arkaroola Wilderness Resort does in a year. Your taxes payed for 114 Australian bureaucrats to attend this junket yet some 71 UK delegates attended. The UK Taxpayers' Alliance calculated the conference cost as much as the GDP of Malawi. If such funds were used to provide electricity and drinking water to Malawian families, then land clearing, wood and dung burning and disease would decrease. Now, that would have been true environmentalism! The carbon footprint of these moralising folk, most of whom are self-appointed, is astronomical. Never fear, their great sacrifices are saving the planet. Saving us from wanton energy expenditure,hypocrisy, blackmail and irrationality at Copenhagen would be a good start. I attended the Copenhagen Climate Challenge Conference. It was about the science of climate. Speakers were scientists, lawyers and environmentalists. World sea level expert Professor Nils-Axel Mörner presented data from his 40 years of research on island states. In the Maldives, sea level rose 50cm in the 17th Century, dropped below the present level in the 18th Century, rose 20cm between 1790 and 1970, dropped 20cm in the 1970s and has been stable for the past 30 years. I showed that there have been six major ice ages in the history of time and each commenced when carbon dioxide was far higher than now. Why was it cold and not warm in past times of high carbon dioxide? Professor Cliff Ollier, from the University of Western Australia, showed that glaciers flow uphill and wax and wane. Adjacent glaciers in Alaska advance and retreat showing that ice sheet changes are complex. Furthermore, the evaporation of steam from ice at African and South American glaciers has resulted in the retreat of glaciers yet temperatures are less than zero. Again, retreat and advance of ice is very complicated and, in some places, may be related to changing land use. Other papers dealt with the Sun, cosmic rays and energy. The challenge from the Copenhagen scientific conference is: Prove that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive modern climate change. This has never been done. And while you are about it, please explain why there was a 600 year Roman Warming and a 400 year Medieval Warming at times of no major industry and when temperature was much higher than the most sensationalist IPCC future temperature speculations. Why do records from 89 per cent of the US climate monitoring stations not even meet the US reporting requirements? And why has the keeper of the records, the UN's IPCC scientists at the University of East Anglia, just happened to have "lost" records, amended data, created data ex nihilo and engaged in mafia-type thuggery to avoid contrary science being heard? It is this non-robust science that underpins the Copenhagen climate conference charade. The conference I attended used science to understand the past, present environments and pollution. This was essentially unreported because journalists are scientific illiterates and this is not sensational news. The other conference, the UN's political conference, is about the redistribution of your money through sticky fingers.
Monday 29 March 2010 Leo Hickman from the guardian.co.uk interviews James Lovelock. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock James Lovelock, is an independent scientist, environmentalist and futurologist who lives in Devon, England. He is best known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the biosphere is a self-regulating entity with the capacity to keep our planet healthy by controlling the chemical and physical environment. During this discussion, Lovelock recalls the "corruption of science" that occurred during the attempts to link chlorofluorocarbons with the hole in the ozone layer in the 1980s. "Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I'm not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It's the one thing you do not ever do." I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done. I remember when the Americans sent up a satellite to measure ozone and it started saying that a hole was developing over the South Pole. But the damn fool scientists were so mad on the models that they said the satellite must have a fault. We tend to now get carried away by our giant computer models. But they're not complete models. They're based more or less entirely on geophysics. They don't take into account the climate of the oceans to any great extent, or the responses of the living stuff on the planet. Lovelock says the events of the past few months have seen him warm to the efforts of some climate skeptics: "What I like about skeptics is that in good science you need critics that make you think: 'Crumbs, have I made a mistake here?' If you don't have that continuously, you really are up the creek. But you need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. And the skeptics are right, he says, to be deeply distrustful of scientists who are overly reliant on computer models, particularly when it comes to predicting future climate scenarios: "We're not that bright an animal. We stumble along very nicely and it's amazing what we do do sometimes, but we tend to be too hubristic to notice the limitations. If you make a model, after a while you get suckered into it. You begin to forget that it's a model and think of it as the real world." The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they're scared stiff of the fact that they don't really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven't got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn't got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They've employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear. The Germans and the Danes are making a fortune out of renewable energy. I'm puzzled why politicians are not a bit more pragmatic about all this. I've always said that adaptation is the most serious thing we can do. Are our sea defences adequate? Can we prevent London from flooding? This is where we should be spending our billions. If wind turbines really worked, I wouldn't object to them. To hell with the aesthetics, we might need them to save ourselves. But they don't work – the Germans have admitted it.
01 March 2011, Professor Robert Carter 2GB radio host Chris Smith speaks to Professor Robert Carter, author of 'Climate: The Counter Consensus' about the carbon tax. It is not demonstrated that there is any measurable global warming due to human induced carbon dioxide emissions. It is true carbon dioxide is a greenhouse has, it is true we are emitting some into the atmosphere. The western world has spent more than a 100 billion dollars since The IPCC was setup in 1988 to look for this human signal on climate change. Scientists cannot isolate and measure this human impact. That doesnt mean it isnt there.. The question is how much warming is being caused by human carbon dioxide emissions. Australias portion of these emissions is about 1% or the worlds emissions. How much warming would be precluded if we stopped our industrial activity. The answer is 1/1000th of a degree Celsius. The idea that Carbon dioxide which is colourless odorless tasteless gas which also comes out of power station chimneys that it is a pollutant is an abuse of logic , abuse of language and abuse of science . Carbon dioxide is the basis for the planetary food chain.
Daily Mail UK - By David Rose 29 January 2012 Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years The supposed consensus on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years. The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century. Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997. Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a grand minimum in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food. Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak. We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call Cycle 24 which is why last week a solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century. Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the suns surface suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still. According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the Dalton minimum of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C. However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the Maunder minimum (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the Little Ice Age when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid. Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Offices confident prediction of a negligible impact difficult to understand. The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists are not surprised. She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate, said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle flipped back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years. Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.
FEB-13 2013 2gb radio - Andrew Bolt with Steve Price interviewing Professor Bob Carter. BOLT: Over the last 30-40 years when global warming is supposed to have existed there has been no increase in cyclones - infact the reverse.
2UE Radio Station - 23/9/2013 Professor Bob Carter Geologist and environmental scientist
Now the IPCC is due to produce its fifth assessment report at the end of September on Sept 27th- but in the mean time yesterday in Chicago the NIPCC released its latest report... - that the advise is that the changes we are are seeing if it were 1.2 degrees per century fall well in the bounds of normal climatic variation. There is no evidence that the change is driven by human activity and anyway its magnitude is not sufficient to be worried about. 27th Sept. This is the final draft which has what you've just stated. This is all over the news services as though it were news. The only news about is that the IPCC has finally conceded that point - that point being that their climate models are inaccurate and unable to predict future temperature. Other independent scientists including the NIPCC have been telling the world this for 10 years but the media will not carry that message. So the news in all this is not that the computer models aren't any good- we've known that for 10 years. The news is that the main stream media are now reporting that view from the IPCC themselves.
Monday 31 March 2014 The Guardian by Adam Vaughan James Lovelock: Environmentalism has become a religion Scientist behind the Gaia hypothesis says environment movement does not pay enough attention to facts and he was too certain in the past about rising temperatures Environmentalism has "become a religion" and does not pay enough attention to facts, according to James Lovelock. The 94 year-old scientist, famous for his Gaia hypothesis that Earth is a self-regulating, single organism, also said that he had been too certain about the rate of global warming in his past book, that "its just as silly to be a [climate] denier as it is to be a believer and that fracking and nuclear power should power the UK, not renewable sources such as windfarms. Speaking to the Guardian for an an interview ahead of a landmark UN climate science report on Monday on the impacts of climate change, Lovelock said of the warnings of climate catastrophe in his 2006 book, Revenge of Gaia: "I was a little too certain in that book. You just cant tell whats going to happen." It [the impact from climate change] could be terrible within a few years, though thats very unlikely, or it could be hundreds of years before the climate becomes unbearable," he said. Asked if his remarks would give ammunition to climate change sceptics, he said: "Its just as silly to be a denier as it is to be a believer. You cant be certain. Talking about the environmental movement, Lovelock says: "Its become a religion, and religions dont worry too much about facts." The government is too frightened to use nuclear, renewables wont work because we dont have enough sun and we cant go on burning coal because it produces so much CO2, so that leaves fracking. It produces only a fraction of the amount of CO2 that coal does, and will make Britain secure in energy for quite a few years. We dont have much choice," he said.
BBC Hardtalk show interview with Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey, 2014. Joe hockey the treasurer has been in the UK and among other things appeared on a BBC program called hard talk where he was hammered about climate change and about this old chestnut that Australia is supposedly the worst carbon polluter per capita in the world.
18-10-2014 2GB Radio - Miranda Devine interviews Canadian Ecologist Doctor Patrick Moore (Greenpeace co-founder) Amanda Devine: When people say emissions- now today they are talking about carbon dioxide. Emissions and pollution to me are soot, mercury, grime and poison going into the air. And you also are a major energy producing country like Canada. Canada has a high per capita CO2 emissions but then we're also only double your population - we're a very small country. So it doesnt make much sense to blame Australia for "The Problem" which I don't really believe exists myself. Amanda Devine: Doctor Patrick Moore: Advantage of higher CO2 levels The first long-term study comparing tillage practices under high CO2 levels showed that elevated CO2 caused soybean and sorghum plants to increase photosynthesis while reducing transpiration-the amount of water the plants release. This resulted in increased water use efficiency, whether the crops were grown with no-till or conventional tillage.
Please go to link for more info :http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2010/100914.htm Thermohaline current (THC), a crucial global current Thermohaline current (THC), a crucial global current that moves surface water to the ocean depths. The THC is created by cold and salty water sinking at the poles. This current drags carbon dioxide rich water deep into the ocean and brings carbon dioxide poor water to the surface where it can in turn, absorb more carbon dioxide. A slowing of this current will again result in less atmospheric carbon dioxide being removed by the oceans.
|
|||||||
[Home] [UFO/UAP] [Science?] [Climate Change?] [Wind Power?] [News] [OBE Research] [Anomalous objects] |
silent enigma Copyright 2021 by dTh Australia V 2.1 |