Not certain of the credibility of this as no real citation is given, but next Monday the EU may be proposing that by 2050 no fossil fueled vehicles will be tolerated:
here.

Lofty goal, would be nice I suppose if not for the fact that electricity comes from somewhere. Maybe by 2049 the EU will legislate the elusive lighting harness for every electrical device, that oughta do it.

In the Pareto diagram of CO2 problems (if you Believe), cars should rank behind ships, planes, trucks and trains, but heh, at least the EU is bringing the Concern close to the individual.

MSNBC reports on a paper by Serina Diniega of NASA’s JPL.  Diniega compared photos of Martian gullies taken by NASA spacecraft since 1997 and concluded that the Martian gullies were carved out during winter leading to her conclusion that it was the freezing of CO2 and not the melting of water that carved the gullies.

Just one more reason not to waste effort and time on exploring Mars, but to invest in the exploration of Europa and Titan.  The reader is encouraged to use the search feature on the site for ‘Europa’ for more discussion.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is responsible for advising the UN on climate issues.

The reader is asked to look at their name and consider whether or not (no pun intended) this group is likely to conclude that climate is progressing naturally.

Several whitewashes, er studies, have cleared the IPCC of any wrong doing. 

This one does not.  Notably, this is a study by an independent group of scientists from around the world, the InterAcademy Council.

“The IPCC has raised public awareness of climate change, and driven policymakers,” said Harold Shapiro, chair of the IAC Committee to Review IPCC and former president of Princeton University. But the controversies that have erupted, and revelations of errors, have put the group under the microscope. “We recommend some significant reforms,” he told the U.N.

These scientists did not argue the validity of the climate models or the climatologist’s assumptions, rather the IAC scrutinized the scientific practices of the climatologists, and suggested:

“We did not redo the science,” said Shapiro. Instead, the IAC focused its attention on the procedures and methodologies of the IPCC, suggesting many areas for improvement.

The rate of melt of the Himalayan glaciers was one touchstone among skeptics of manmade global warming that the group addressed. Shapiro explained that many reviewers noted the lack of substance behind the claim, but their criticism didn’t make it into the final report. 

It appears that editors “didn’t follow through carefully enough on what review editors commented,” said Shapiro. 

And:

“We found in the summary for policymakers that there were two kinds of errors that came up — one is the kind where they place high confidence in something where there is very little evidence. The other is the kind where you make a statement … with no substantive value, in our judgment.” 

That seems to me to be a polite way of saying, “you guys aren’t scientists”.

There is a post from a guest blogger on WUWT regarding the contribution of human produced CO2 to the atmosphere.  The guest blogger is Ferdinand Engelbeen and his post is here.

This is the second in a series of posts arguing that ‘excess’ CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of our actions.  I think that cannot be argued, obviously we add quite a bit of CO2 to the atmosphere.

However, Engelbeen then goes on to assert that the temperature record recorded in ice cores establishes the link between CO2 and temperature, once the observed data is corrected to account for the time CO2 and other gases were allowed to escape from fallen snow before the weight of snow compacted snow below into ice, thus trapping the CO2.

So, Engelbeen argues that once proper ‘adjustments’ are made to ‘correct’ the observed data, then the temperature signal aligns nicely with the CO2 signal.  Engelbeen makes no mention of the Sun during this post.

Here was my reply: (the reader may wish to open the above link in a seperate window as I refer to graphs on the WUWT site)

I don’t think there’s any doubt we’ve contributed CO2 to the atmosphere and that any ‘extra’ should be attributed to our activities.

I also don’t think that a scatter plot is a useful mechanism to portray chronological data. Without knowing how each point on the plot was trending, we can’t decide if the variability in the CO2 causes the variability in the temperature record based on this plot. Scatter plots are useful for trending such variables as mortality rate versus toxicity levels, but not for showing a relationship between chronological data points.

What we can see from the scatter plot is that there appears to be no reliable relationship between temperature and CO2. Look at the variability along the T = -6 and T = -4 lines. Clearly a wide range of CO2 concentrations existed for those two temperature points, and without seeing the trend, I have to find that a doubling of CO2 does not raise temperature by 2 degrees. Along T = -6, the amount of CO2 seems to vary between 200 ppmv and 265 ppmv. (take the ratio whichever direction you want, I read enough bickering about it a couple posts ago) Along T = (about) -4, the CO2 concentration seems to vary between 190 ppmv to about 272 ppmv.

What do we get from the chronological data? We do see an apparent relationship between CO2 and temperatures, we see that there is a lag between the two. How is the lag explained by the climate modelers? Well, we have the explanation that the gasses escape from between the ice crystals until sufficient pressure makes that escape impossible.

I accept that, it’s really a good explanation. However, narrowing down when the pressure seals the gasses within the ice is very difficult to say with any certainty.

The statement is made that Al Gore “forgot to tell his audience that the CO2 levels lagged by some 800 years during a deglaciation and many thousands of years at the onset of new glaciations”. This statement seems apologetic to me. I would wonder if the theory of sealing gasses in the ice cores was well established prior to the drilling of the first ice core, or if the theory was developed afterward to explain away the apparent non-fit of the observed data to the climate theories? I expect the latter is true.

When the pressure would have sealed the gasses depends on (as stated in the post) how much snow falls during what period of time. It is the compressive weight of snow that seals the gasses, all very good and reasonable. However, the statement that during colder times there would be less humidity and therefore less precipitation and therefore less snow in a given area is unsupportable. I agree that colder temperature would produce less humidity and therefore less precipitation for water sealed in a lab flask. In the real world though, weather systems drive precipitation around the world, regardless of the temperature at Vostok or the Law Dome, regional or global weather patterns could certainly deliver more precipitation to the area. Freak snow storms occur.

Here is another paper behind many of the ideas in this post: http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5839/793 (requires registration)

Here is a statement given by the authors regarding their conclusions: “Experiments performed with an atmospheric general circulation model including water isotopes support [the paper's] temperature interpretation.”

Modeling past weather is of course impossible. We cannot say with any certainly exactly how much snow fell over a given period of time in a specific location thousands of years ago. We therefore have no reliable method for judging how much gas escape to attribute to each slice of the ice core, and therefore how to ‘correct’ the data. I recognize that we can date modern ice by the signature of recent volcanoes, but we’re talking about ice cores dating back hundreds of thousands of years where the time for volcanic eruption includes error bars that exceed the lag time between CO2 and temperature.

Occam’s razor leaves me with one conclusion: the main driver of temperatures on the Earth is the Sun and the reason that temperature and CO2 seem related but off by varying amounts of time is that the amounts of plants and animals increase under good conditions and decrease under poor conditions, in addition to the heat and gas exchanges occurring between the atmosphere and the oceans. CO2 and temperatures are generally related to one another through solar activity and biomass, with periodic disruptions in the relationship caused by volcanoes, meteor strikes, earthquakes, forest fires, and other natural occurrences. The relationship is impossible to predict or model with any degree of certainty.

Engelbeen has been thoughtfully and politely responding to the other posters’ objections to his assertions, so he seems to be a stand up guy.  I don’t care that he takes the time to respond to me, as he already has quite a few replies to make, I just wanted to record my thoughts here.

Watts Up With That is reporting on a story I first saw in the comments to one of the posts there.

A group is suing to have the New Zealand temperature record declared unfit for scientific purposes, and therefore not usable to set public policy.

If accepted by the court system, the methods used to drive down early 20th century temps and drive up recent temps will have to be presented and defended.

I’ll get the popcorn…

Russia is burning, Pakistan is flooded, icebergs are melting, and so many are pointing the finger at “global warming”, or “climate change” which both have their underpinnings in the belief that human produced CO2 is having disastrous effects to the Earth’s climate.  The cyclical reasoned justification for this is that Russia is burning, Pakistan is flooded, and icebergs are melting.

Rest assured dear reader, so-called extreme weather happens all the time, it is quite natural, and therefore not extreme whatsoever.

This naturally occurring cyclical chaos does not have any basis in the CO2 concentration present in the atmosphere, but rather in the concepts of constructive and destructive interference.

A visual lesson on constructive and destructive interference will follow, but first I would like to submit three pieces of evidence in this trial of CO2.  Firstly, I will submit an historical record of fires in Russia, and secondly an historical account of a horrible cyclone in Pakistan, and lastly a discussion of the history of Arctic icebergs calving.

First, as to the current fires in some parts of Russia:

I would like to thank “oakwood” on the Watts Up With That blog for providing a translation created by “Trofim” and posted in an article on the Guardian’s website.  The translation of historical accounts by Trofim and provided by oakwood is presented following.

1298: There was a wholesale death of animals. In the same year there was a drought, and the woods and peat bogs burnt.

1364: Halfway through summer there was a complete smoke haze, the heat was dreadful, the forests, bogs and earth were burning, rivers dried up. The same thing happened the following year . . .

1431: following a blotting out of the sky, and pillars of fire, there was a drought – “the earth and the bogs smouldered, there was no clear sky for 6 weeks, nobody saw the sun, fishes, animals and birds died of the smoke.

1735: Empress Anna wrote to General Ushakov: “Andrei Ivanovich, here in St Petersburg it is so smoky that one cannot open the windows, and all because, just like last year, the forests are burning. We are surprised that no-one has thought about how to stem the fires, which are burning for the second year in a row”.

1831: Summer was unbearably hot, and as a consequence of numerous fires in the forests, there was a constant haze of smoke in the air, through which the sun appeared a red hot ball; the smell of burning was so strong, that it was difficult to breathe.

The years of 1839-1841 were known as the “hungry years”. In the spring of 1840, the spring sowings of corn disappeared in many places. From midway through April until the end of August not a drop of rain fell. From the beginning of summer the fields were covered with a dirty grey film of dust. All the plants wilted, dying from the heat and lack of water. It was extraordinarily hot and close, even though the sun, being covered in haze, shone very weakly through the haze of smoke. Here and there in various regions of Russia the forests and peat bogs were burning (the firest had begun already in 1939). there was a reddish haze, partially covering the sun, and there were dark, menacing clouds on the horizon. There was a choking stench of smoke which penetrated everywhere, even into houses where the windows remained closed.

1868: the weather was murderous. It rained once during the summer. There was a drought. The sun, like a red hot cinder, glowed through the clouds of smoke from the peat bogs. Near Peterhoff the forests and peat workings burnt, and troops dug trenches and flooded the subterranean fire. It was 40 centigrade in the open, and 28 in the shade.

1868: a prolonged drought in the northern regions was accompanied by devastating fires in various regions. Apart from the cities and villages affected by this catastrophe, the forests, peat workings and dried-up marshes were burning. In St Petersburg region smoke filled the city and its outlying districts for several weeks.

1875: While in western europe there is continual rain and they complain about the cold summer, here in Russia there is a terrible drought. In southern Russia all the cereal and fruit crops have died, and around St Petersburg the forest fires are such that in the city itself, especially in the evening, there is a thick haze of smoke and a smell of burning. Yesterday, the burning woods and peat bogs threatened the ammunitiion stores of the artillery range and even Okhtensk gunpowder factory.

1885: (in a letter from Peter Tchaikovsky, composer): I’m writing to you at three oclock in the afternoon in such darkness, you would think it was nine oclock at night. For several days, the horizon has been enveloped in a smoke haze, arising, they say, from fires in the forest and peat bogs. Visibility is diminishing by the day, and I’m starting to fear that we might even die of suffocation.

1917 (diary of Aleksandr Blok, poet): There is a smell of burning, as it seems, all around the city peat bogs, undergrowth and trees are burning. And no-one can extinguish it. That will be done only by rain and the winter. Yellowish-brown clouds of smoke envelope the villages, wide swaithes of undergrowth are burning, and God sends no rain, and what wheat there is in the fields is burning.

The original source is in Russian here.

It seems obvious that the current fires are not at all unprecedented.

Second, as to the current flooding in Pakistan:

From Wikipedia:

The 1970 Bhola cyclone was a devastating tropical cyclone that struck East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and India’s West Bengal on November 12, 1970. It was the deadliest tropical cyclone ever recorded, and one of the deadliest natural disasters in modern times.  Up to 500,000 people lost their lives in the storm, primarily as a result of the storm surge that flooded much of the low-lying islands of the Ganges Delta. This cyclone was the sixth cyclonic storm of the 1970 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, and also the season’s strongest, reaching a strength equivalent to a Category 3 hurricane.

The cyclone formed over the central Bay of Bengal on November 8 and travelled north, intensifying as it did so. It reached its peak with winds of 185 km/h (115 mph) on November 12, and made landfall on the coast of East Pakistan that night. The storm surge devastated many of the offshore islands, wiping out villages and destroying crops throughout the region. In the most severely affected Thana, Tazumuddin, over 45% of the population of 167,000 was killed by the storm.

Source.

So, it seems the current flooding is not at all unprecedented either, even in modern times, and so what should be recent memory for environmental reporting.

Third, as to the recent calving of the Petermann ice shelf:

We discussed this before, but I wanted to analyze more closely the lack of journalistic integrity in the reporting done by not only CNN, but every account I have read of the event.

In the CNN article we have:

The ice island, which is about half the height of the Empire State Building, is the biggest piece of ice to break away from the Arctic icecap since 1962

However, we have no mention of how the current calf compares to the one calved in 1962.  The current calf is only one fourth the size of the calf in 1962.  This is easily researched and the “reporter” should have thought to do so.

Also, our CNN “reporter” (no idea who this is, as no attribution is made) never thought, “what caused the event in 1962?” while reporting that the recent event was CO2 related.

So the iceberg calving is not only unprecedented, but really unremarkable. As it turns out, iceberg’s calve. They do this because they grow so large and in such irregular shapes that gravity does its magic.

The honorable profession of journalism is dead.  Few investigate or stop to think in a cut-and-paste society that demands deadlines be met at Internet speeds.

Alternatively, we are deliberately being marketed a product, the product being “man made global warming is real and detrimental, listen to us”.

Now to the promised visual lesson on constructive and destructive interference.

We will first discuss destructive interference.

The following graphs were generated using the excellent freeware package MathGV.  Many thanks to Greg VanMullen for both his time and effort, and for making his program free for download!

In the below graph, we have a simple sine wave:

This sine wave gently undulates up and down through its cycles in a repeatable fashion.  Let’s consider this sine wave to represent the distance I am from the Sun during the day.  As the Earth rotates, I move closer and then further from the Sun.  The pattern is predicable and repeatable as is the sine wave.

The next sine wave will represent the distance my friend Ali is from the Sun throughout the day.  My friend Ali is from Pakistan, and for the purposes of the post I will consider Ali’s location to be directly opposite mine on the globe.  (Note to Janet Napolitano: I haven’t seen Ali since K-State nearly 20 years ago.)

Ali’s distance from the Sun would be opposite mine:

Now to the destructive interference.  Suppose we wanted to plot the total distance from the Sun of both Ali and me?  Here are the two sine waves plotted together:

My sine wave is represented as Y=sine(X), and Ali’s is Y=-sine(X), the opposite of mine. The Y axis is the vertical axis and represents the distance from the Sun. The X axis is the horizontal axis and represents the time of day.

Let’s add our two curves together to see the total distance of the two friends from the Sun at any point during the day.  What does sine(X) + -sine(X) equal:

The reader has no doubt guessed it would be a flat curve at zero along the X axis. We have together no motion about the Y axis, no further or nearer the Sun throughout the day.

For each positive point on my curve there was a correspondingly negative point on Ali’s curve, and for each positive point on Ali’s curve there was a correspondingly negative point on my curve.  This is destructive interference, we cancelled each other out.

Now let’s look at constructive interference:

Back to my curve:

Fortunately, Ali and his family and friends were okay during the current flooding, and he has come for a visit.  His curve would now look like mine:

Suppose we want to once again find the total distance of the two friends from the Sun at any point during the day.  What does sin(X) + sin(X) look like:

Here our curves complement each other perfectly, each peak is twice as high and each valley twice as deep.  This is constructive interference.

Now let’s introduce some interplay between the curves we’ve seen so far to see how fast things get complex.

We have seen the curve of sine(X), and the curve of sine(X)-sine(X) and the curve of 2sine(X). These are very simple curves producing simple graphs. Let’s look at another curve. This one is sine(2X)-sine(X). Really similar to what we have looked at thusfar, so we would be right in assuming another very simple graph of this curve. However, here is the graph of the curve sine(2X)-sine(X):

Things get really complicated really fast! Suppose this were a graph of the climate. What one would expect to occur next would really depend on where the observer begins on the graph, that is when the observer was born or otherwise became interested in studying the climate.

Consider each graduation between lines on the X axis as a generation of man. How could anyone be expected to know what would occur to the climate in the next generation?

In almost every generation, an observer would not see the trendline described by their father and would believe their grandfather simply had lost his mind!

And this was a very simple curve, most certainly less complicated than the actual curve that describes the climate (if one can actually be constructed – which I doubt.)

I propose that climate is the sum total of all of the effects on the climate.  Revolutionary, I know, no doubt Nobel Prize winning material there.

Each effect on climate can be plotted as a curve.  Some of the curves would be continuous, such as wind or ocean current flow.  Some of the curves would be single events such as a volcano erupting or a meteor strike.

The total number of contributors to the climate system, and therefore the number of curves necessary to plot a climate curve, that is, to make a prediction, is unknown.

Although climate scientists use super computers, the actual number of variables and their influences through constructive and destructive interference with one another is unknown.

Don’t be fooled dear reader into believing that simply because scientists use super computers the results are therefore accurate.  The results depend entirely on the proper inputs being identified, the proper effect of each input on each other input being identified, the proper climate model being created, and the proper bug free program being written.

Needless to say, I feel this is a hopeless, silly endeavor.  Predicting the weather is important, predicting future climate is unpossible (Simpson’s anyone?)  The climate models we have today do not even predict past climate accurately, why should they be trusted to predict future climate?

What are some of the climate variables a simple man from Kansas is aware of:

• Slight changes in the distance of the Earth from the Sun as the Sun’s gravity well drags the Earth about the cosmos
• Slight changes in Earth’s position within the plane of the ecliptic as the Sun’s gravity well drags the Earth about the cosmos
• Slight changes in the Solar System’s location within the galactic plane as the galaxy’s gravity well drags the Solar System about the cosmos
• Slight changes in the Sun’s intensity
• Slight changes in the relationship between the tilt of the Earth/Moon system’s gravitational axis and the Sun’s equator where the Sun’s magnetic disturbance and thus solar flares are greatest
• Slight changes in cloud cover caused by infrequent cosmic ray activity
• Slight changes in cloud cover caused by precipitation changes
• Slight changes in cloud cover due to changes in the jet stream and other wind patterns
• Slight changes in wind patterns due to slight changes in the height of mountain ranges due to plate tectonics
• Slight changes in wind patterns due to slight changes in the depths of valleys as running rivers erode the Earth
• Slight changes in precipitation on land due to changing wind patterns alternating whether rain is deposit on land or sea
• Slight changes in atmospheric gas concentrations
• The occasional eruption of volcanoes on land
• The occasional eruption of volcanoes under the sea
• The continuous belching forth of our planet’s innards upon itself along the ocean ridges
• Slight changes in the width of the ocean’s ridges, reducing or increasing the resistance to the release of gasses
• Slight changes to the amount of continental plates as they subduct or grow, or perhaps slightly expand the volume of the planet
• Slight changes in magmatic patterns within the mantle
• Slight changes in the drift of the core
• Slight changes in land use patterns (the changes in the amount of land dedicated to farming, forestry, cities, etc.)
• Slight changes in the amount of methane welling up from the ocean’s floors
• Slight changes to the reflectivity of the Earth (albedo) as plants grow and cast shadows and then die, and as buildings are built or destroyed, and as natural occurrences darken or lighten waters
• Slight changes in albedo due to changing ice patterns
• Slight changes in the Earth’s magnetic field that allow or disallow a varying amount of cosmic rays and solar radiation into the atmosphere
• Slight changes to the Sun’s magnetic field
• The occasional earthquake
• The occasional meteor strike
• The continuous depositing on the Earth of the Solar System’s dust that becomes trapped in the gravity well of the Earth
• Slight changes to the ratio between the volume of plant matter (respirators of oxygen) to animal matter (respirators of carbon dioxide)
• Slight changes to the production of energy by mankind

Each of the above, and I am sure there are many more, would have their own curve representing their contribution to Earth’s climate.  None of the curves are likely the simple sine waves this post has presented, and to make the point again: each of the above would have to be evaluated against each of the other to properly account for the constructive and destructive influence each would have on the climate.

Further, and more to the point of this post: each of the above have different times between the repetition of their patterns, for those that are not one-offs. The varying durations (periods) of the curves, the varying shapes of the curves, the varying intensity (amplitudes) of the curves, and the varying amount of interference due to the current presence or non-presence of each of the above plus all the actual climatic influences makes for a natural yet chaotic climate system.

Super computer or not, I just simply cannot accept that human produced CO2 is the driving factor of the Earth’s climate, or really, that it is of much concern at all.

As “all” climatologists and “everybody” knows, human generated carbon dioxide has already passed the threshold of doom, the point at which a positive loopback is encountered and every breath we exhale warms the planet with a multiplying effect.

Not so, says (among many others) the head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory, Habibullo Abdussavatov.

Remarkably, NatGeo is running with the observation.

Dr. Abdussavatov (I’m assuming the title hear dear reader, if Mr. Abdussavatov isn’t an actual PhD, I will bestow upon him the title of Honorary tCotCC PhD), Dr. Abdussavatov has made the remarkable observation that Mars has also warmed these last three years, so the cause of Earth’s slight warming recently is likely extraplanetary.

I say Dr. Abdussavatov’s observation is remarkable because not only has he put his professional credibility on the line, but Nat Geo actually printed it!  Obviously many people have made this observation and blogged about it (myself included in one of my first posts), but this is the first time I’ve seen this simple observation made in what is generally a very pro-green website/journal.

Perhaps someone at Nat Geo realizes how over the top they and other alarmist/Believers rags have been and is attempting to restore credibility to their reputation.

Pretty remarkable in my opinion.  Hats off to Dr. Abdussavatov.  He’s willing to state this at a time when parts of his country are burning due to being dried out from excessive heating. (Perhaps he’s been saying it for years, I wouldn’t know one way or the other.)

“Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov said.

In addition to an honorary (possibly unnecessary) tCotCC PhD, I’m giving Dr. Abdussavatov an Internet High Five:

The reader is invited to read “What the Earth Knows”, an article by PhD and Noble Prize wining physicist Robert B. Laughlin.

I doubt this is World Cup related, but perhaps some in Argentina would consider it so.

Argentina is having a colder winter than Antarctica, Bloomberg writes here.

La Nina has started and the Pacific water temps have been very cold, see What’s Up With That for full discussion and details. 

The reason I mention this disastrous phenomenon is the time frame, it’s Argentina’s coldest winter in 40 years, that takes us back to the early 1970′s.  The period of the last cold dip, before temps started to rise again globally.

Climate is cyclical, ups and downs in temps follow the Atlantic Multiyear Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the El Ninos, the La Ninas, and the Solar Cycles, as well as all the other factors we do not yet understand or fail to attribute properly, such as the Milankovitch cycles, the eruptions of undersea volcanoes, and who knows what else.

Human produced CO2 has no influence over such forces, the influence of human produced CO2 pales in comparison to the influence of natural planetary cycles.

To be clear:

1. The world has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age
2. Greenhouse gases is a bad analogy, but gases do blanket the Earth, containing heat
3. Human produced CO2 matters not

Most of South America is having a very harsh winter, let’s wish them the best.  It’s unfortunate that we’ve burned much of our corn crops lately in the ridiculous production of federally subsidized ethanol, the people of South America are going to need food.

The UN wants to impose a carbon tax to raise monies to help developing nations “deal with climate change”.  I say, “No”.

I am all for helping developing nations deal with a lack of food, a lack of medicine, a lack of educational opportunities, and deal with the suppression of dissent that comes from living in brutal dictatorships.  I am against masking this aid in the guise of helping developing nations cope with the fiction of climate change, most notably because the monies often go to brutal dictators.

There is no climate change, climate is the accumulation of weather over time and has always been variable, climate has always changed, therefore there is no climate change today.  If climate change were real, then weather would become static.  It’s just a moronic phrase to use intended to elicit an emotional reaction, that is all.  The phrase is not at all valid or indicative of what climate actually is.  The term is used as a tool against those with more pressing issues in life than studying the issue.  The term is a marketing ploy, same as putting a bikini babe into a commercial, but certainly not as appealing to the author.

Of course the world has warmed slightly since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid 1800′s, and a good thing too, as otherwise we would not be producing the amount of food we are today.  No, this does not mean that climate change has occured.

Let me explain my position in Economics 101 terms.  If we all understand that a supply and demand curve indicates the amount of a particular good that can be sold at which price points for a given demand, let’s equate that idea to the concept of climate change.

At a low price point, many units of the good would be sold as many consumers would consider the price a good value.  As the price raises the number of the good sold decreases as the cost passes the threshold of what the average consumer believes to be a good value.  Although the amount of the good sold varies, and the cost varies, we are still on the same demand curve, the same consumption model.

The same analogy holds true for the concept of climate change.  Whatever the relationship between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature, increasing one or the other continues on the same relationship curve.  Granted this curve does not have the shape of the supply vs demand curve from basic economics, this curve would be rotated counter clockwise 90 degrees according to the AGW alarmists. 

However, we are still on the same curve.  To actually change the climate, and induce “climate change”, we would have to move to a new curve.  We would have to introduce a fundamental shift in atomospheric physics, and there is no proof that we have done so.  And I suggest it would be impossible for us to do so as natural relationships and interactions are as they are, we aren’t free to alter the fundamental principles of physics and chemistry.

Therefore, I do not support the following UN suggested taxes for the suggested purpose:

Potential revenue sources include auctioning the right to pollute, taxes on carbon production, an international travel tax, and a tax on international financial transactions, as well as government grants and loans.

Just make the case at the UN that the developing nations need continued support, or increased support, but stop with the hyperbolic suggestion that the monies are to be spent to battle against the armageddon of human created CO2.

It’s just stupid to continue to do so, just stupid.

Regardless of whether human contributed CO2 is detrimental, the taxes are clearly for aid, not for combating climate change.

The UN should stop putting the wrong labels on their actions, just present the facts, and make the requests, and you’ll find the American public willing to aid.  We’ve always aided everyone.  We even gave medical supplies to Iran after the Bam earthquake tragedy, which no doubt very few Iranians are aware.  Whatever our military and government might do, and despite whatever strong emotions my statements in this paragraph might invoke, there is no denying that the American people are the most generous on Earth.  We give and give and give, we donate more to NGOs than any other people on Earth.  Your good author included, dear reader.

Just present your case to us and you’ll receive assistance, we’re nice people.  Continue to lie and obfuscate and you’ll meet resistance.

And stop labelling everything that occurs a result of CO2, the habit is an affront to the intellect.

More and more evidence is piling up suggesting that solar activity greatly outweighs any influence man made CO2 has on the temperature of the climate.

In this article El’ Reg paraphrases new research by German and Russian paleoclimatologists who provide evidence of two indisputable (imho) facts: the world began to warm after the Little Ice Age, years before the industrial revolution was in full swing churning out CO2, and the warming has since ceased.  Their conclusion is that the ups and downs match the natural variances of solar activity.

As the researchers used tree ring data in their study, same as Briffa and Mann, I’ll serve up two paragraphs of what should be humble pie from the article for the alarmists:

New research by German and Russian scientists indicates that summer temperatures in the Arctic actually fell for much of the later 20th century, plunging to the levels seen at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

The new results are said by their authors to indicate that solar activity exerted a powerful influence over Arctic climate until the 1990s, an assertion which will cause some irritation among academics who contend that atmospheric carbon is the main factor in climate change.

Following up on my post I Feel So Broke Up, I Wanna Go Home, congratulations to the banking brat David Rothschild, he and his crew, completed their journey on the Plastiki.

Now, what to do with the artificially manufactured CO2 used to promote the four month, composting toilet journey?

In the article above he’s described as an ‘environmentalist’ and an ‘explorer’.  Great, please explore the environmental benefits from chartering a boat to clean up the Pacific Gyre rather than building a plastic boat, which is of course the source of the problem, filling it with manufactured CO2 for buoyancy, and then sailing through the problem to ‘raise awareness’?

You misspent your money, ‘environmentalist’.

The thermosphere contracted recently.  Big deal, it does this.  The thermosphere is the last bit of atmosphere before space, as such the thermosphere is subjected to extreme conditions.

When the Sun is active, more energy is dumped into the thermosphere and it predictably expands.  When the Sun is inactive, the thermosphere predictably cools and contracts.  The Sun is currently comparitively inactive.

PV/T is a constant, basic chemistry/physics, the pressure of a gas in a system times the volume of the gas in a system divided by the temperature of the gas in a system is a constant.

Derrick Ho from CNN reports (ahem) that anthropogenic global warming as a result of CO2 causes a reduction in the Sun’s activity, apparently.

I’ve been reading about the thermosphere contraction for several days now, and only Derrick Ho from CNN attributes the effect so directly with CO2.  His retarded article uses the phrase “carbon dioxide” no less than 8 times.

Some gems from the article “as carbon dioxide levels build up on Earth”, umm: FAIL, and after going on about how CO2 has caused this issue, Derrick Ho from CNN writes:

Emmert said there were still other possibilities unaccounted for that could have contributed to this phenomenon.

Followed immediately by:

It could be that we’re underestimating the effects [of carbon dioxide] somehow.

FAIL#2

Derrick Ho from CNN, this logical fallacy of yours is evident to everyone who isn’t a simple minded media studies graduate.

Just as PV/T is a constant (that means PV/T at time 1 is equal to PV/T at time 2 Derrick Ho from CNN, they’re equivalent), it is also equivalent to spend several paragraphs saying CO2 is the problem and then saying “underestimating the effects of CO2 somehow” is the problem, joining the two with the suggestion that there are “other possibilities” is just retarded.

They’re the same thing Derrick Ho from CNN, you’re right, CO2 does everything, and CO2 killed Kennedy.

Derrick Ho from CNN, please tell me how man made CO2 affects the solar output?!?

bullshiat

Why do I subscribe to Discover Magazine again?  Oh wait, I don’t, they send it to me because I subscribed for so long and apparently are hoping I give them more money.  Nope, won’t happen.

As discussed previously, Laurie David has profited off the AGW scare with a children’s book.

It seems that the Millard Public school system in Omaha agrees with myself and many others.  The book will not be allowed until the hockey stick properly reflects the cause and effect relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide.

Also, a companion video was deemed ‘propaganda’ and therefore unsuitable for young minds completely.