Global Warming/Climate Change

[MeanGreenTexan]

Also have no problem here.

The people I completely disagree with are the ones that say this is concrete science, global warming is absolutely occurring and man is the cause, and there are dire consequences right around the corner.

These people are voicing a political opinion, not a scientific opinion.

I think there's some science there. But yes, it can't be conclusive. But it makes complete sense that the earth would get warmer with so many people creating energy (re: heat).

Who's to say that what we are observing *would* be a cooling period in the Earth's normal cycle, but instead, the population growth has modified it to a somewhat normal climate? So the next natural warming cycle will be consequential because of all the aided warming from humans as well? Or, who's to say that despite all of the energy 7 billion people use/emit, not a thing is changing?

~200 yrs isn't really enough to tell.

It used to be just another scientific field of study until Al Gore stepped in and turned it political. Now that it's a political topic (just like with all other political topics), there's no middle ground anymore... Thanks Al.

[UNT90]

I think there's some science there. But yes, it can't be conclusive. But it makes complete sense that the earth would get warmer with so many people creating energy (re: heat).

Who's to say that what we are observing *would* be a cooling period in the Earth's normal cycle, but instead, the population growth has modified it to a somewhat normal climate? So the next natural warming cycle will be consequential because of all the aided warming from humans as well? Or, who's to say that despite all of the energy 7 billion people use/emit, not a thing is changing?

~200 yrs isn't really enough to tell.

It used to be just another scientific field of study until Al Gore stepped in and turned it political. Now that it's a political topic (just like with all other political topics), there's no middle ground anymore... Thanks Al.

Come on, now. It's a small sacrafice for the Internet, don't you think? ;-)

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

You saw decades of research in this thread?

Or are you just repeating what you are told.

You've conducted decades of research to come to your conclusions?

Or are you just repeating what you are told?

[GTWT]

Okay UNT90, I’ve looked up your three climate scientists

Robert Balling

Accepts anthropogenic climate change (Michaels and Balling 2009) but believes it is relatively mild. To follow UNT90’s suggestion let’s follow the money. Dr. Balling has received funding from ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC.

Patrick Michaels

Accepts science behind global warming via greenhouse gases and believes human release of fossil C is responsible for warming but believes changes will be mild and perhaps beneficial.

John Holden (Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy) says of Dr. Michaels, "Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians … He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science.”

Sallie Baliunas

Dr. Baliunas expertise is in astrophysics. She has published on stellar variability which has implications for solar cycles. She’s very skeptical about the role CO2 plays in climate change, preferring to attribute global warming to solar cycles.

Dr. Baliunas coauthored a paper published a paper in 2003 which suggested the climate hasn't changed in the last 2000 years. Several members of the Climate Research journal resigned in protest to the flawed peer-review process allowing Baliunas' paper to be published. Thirteen of the authors cited by Baliunas & Soon in the paper repudiated her interpretation of their work. The Editor of Climate Research later said of the paper, "If it would have been properly reviewed, it would have been rejected on the basis of methodological flaws."

Citation

Patrick Michaels and Robert C. Balling, Climate of extremes: global warming science they don't want you to know, Cato Institute,

There. I’ve investigated the three contrarian climate scientists you recommended. I’m not impressed. Yes, some few individuals with training in climate science deny climate change, or the role of fossil carbon, or the projected outcome of C release. There are thousands of climate scientists and it’s not surprising that a few deny the science for religious, political, or ideological reasons. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that the earth is warming, that man’s release of fossil C is at least partially responsible, and that the consequences may be dire.

I think it’s interesting to note the parallel between climate science denial and creationism. The vast majority of biologists accept evolutionary theory as the best explanation for biodiversity but a few, such as Michael Behe, insist there has to be magic involved. Having a few characters such as Behe doesn’t mean we need to doubt evolution and having a few contrarians such as Balluing, Michaels, and Baliunas doesn’t mean anthropogenic climate change isn’t real and isn’t a threat.

[UNT90]

Okay UNT90, Ive looked up your three climate scientists

Robert Balling

Accepts anthropogenic climate change (Michaels and Balling 2009) but believes it is relatively mild. To follow UNT90s suggestion lets follow the money. Dr. Balling has received funding from ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC.

Patrick Michaels

Accepts science behind global warming via greenhouse gases and believes human release of fossil C is responsible for warming but believes changes will be mild and perhaps beneficial.

John Holden (Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy) says of Dr. Michaels, "Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science.

Sallie Baliunas

Dr. Baliunas expertise is in astrophysics. She has published on stellar variability which has implications for solar cycles. Shes very skeptical about the role CO2 plays in climate change, preferring to attribute global warming to solar cycles.

Dr. Baliunas coauthored a paper published a paper in 2003 which suggested the climate hasn't changed in the last 2000 years. Several members of the Climate Research journal resigned in protest to the flawed peer-review process allowing Baliunas' paper to be published. Thirteen of the authors cited by Baliunas & Soon in the paper repudiated her interpretation of their work. The Editor of Climate Research later said of the paper, "If it would have been properly reviewed, it would have been rejected on the basis of methodological flaws."

Citation

Patrick Michaels and Robert C. Balling, Climate of extremes: global warming science they don't want you to know, Cato Institute,

There. Ive investigated the three contrarian climate scientists you recommended. Im not impressed. Yes, some few individuals with training in climate science deny climate change, or the role of fossil carbon, or the projected outcome of C release. There are thousands of climate scientists and its not surprising that a few deny the science for religious, political, or ideological reasons. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that the earth is warming, that mans release of fossil C is at least partially responsible, and that the consequences may be dire.

I think its interesting to note the parallel between climate science denial and creationism. The vast majority of biologists accept evolutionary theory as the best explanation for biodiversity but a few, such as Michael Behe, insist there has to be magic involved. Having a few characters such as Behe doesnt mean we need to doubt evolution and having a few contrarians such as Balluing, Michaels, and Baliunas doesnt mean anthropogenic climate change isnt real and isnt a threat.

Whoa whoa whoa wait.

People resigned because peer review science is flawed?!?

But only flawed when the paper doesn't say what you want it to say?

Just look John Hopden's personal attack on Balling. Contrarian? Is that a new scientific term used to dispute research? The vitriol is just soooo scientific!

Where does John Holden's funding come from? The US Government. John Kerry has made crystal clear what the US government EXPECTS all science to say. Pretty bold statement for an entity supplying billions of dollars annually for global warming research, don't you think?

Of course these people were attacked. They are attempting to murder the cash cow. That cannot happen.

What about Isdo? No tile to find the character assassination pieces on him?

Edited February 25, 2014 by UNT90

[FirefightnRick]

Annnnndddd we have a Nazi reference...that's the first time I've ever heard that. Congrats on making a connection that no one else here has made.

Would "Climater", "Carboner", or "Cooler" be more appropriate as I see more parallels with the "Birther" movement?

So I guess it's a no from you?

The Conservative Tea Party can't be grassroots, it's Astro-turf. Or, it can't be the Tea Party, it's Tea-Baggers. Now Climate Denier is thrown around to label anyone who questions common sense approaches to the weather. I just asked a question. I didnt come up with the Climate Denier thing but the left has a history with this type of labeling.

Rick

[FirefightnRick]

There is NO DOUBT that climate change is real. Anyone who would ignore that FACT is a denier. ...and not particularly well educated.

What there IS, however LOADS OF DOUBT about, is the conclusion that man's activities are the cause and/or do we have the power to effect change? I don't think there there is good evidence either way. ...and when the wild eyed predictions of the global warming alarmist crowd get blown out of the water (first it was global cooling, the next ice age was coming, then it was warming and the ice caps (the same ones that trapped several ships this winter) would be GONE by 2013 causing world wide floods, a story the BBC recently recanted on, the fact that the record shows cooling rather than warming over the last decade, the credibility of the movement gets called into question.

There is no doubt, when recorded history and the fossil record is studied that the climate changes a lot. It has had wild swings, to far more exaggerated extremes than we have had since the dawn of the industrial age, and that our planet goes through cyclical drought, ice age, wet periods, etc, much of which have to do with solar activity and our position relative to the sun.

...so it REALLY comes down to "are we to blame for a portion of this change, and if we are can we do anything about it? ...and if the answer to that is YES, then how much effect, and SHOULD we? Should we allow the world economy, and thus humanity to suffer for potential and undiscovered gains by making changes? Should we allow local, federal or world governments to impede on individual liberties for these unrealized gains? It isn't "climate change" that is debated, it is really the cause, effect and reaction that is debated.

This is a topic I have studied a great deal, as someone who is very much a scientific mind, someone who doesn't have a religious point of view to cloud my thoughts on this, and even I keep coming back to the absolute irrefutable fact that we don't have all the fact, and most of the theories and predictions have holes in them (usually put there by the climate itself) and then consider the corrupt political movement around the subject and find myself coming down on the side of individual liberties should not be trampled, energy prices should not be artificially inflated in the name of man-made climate change.

We should regulate to keep the air and water clean, you'll get no debate from me on that front. ...and we have made HUGE progress on that front since the 70's when things were at their worst. ...but we should not be making policy that has major economic and liberty limiting consequences based on unsettled science.

Well said as usual.

Rick

[FirefightnRick]

Need a boost up on that cross you just made for yourself?

Well then... "Rise from your knees my son!,...FirehmetJesus forgives you!

Sorry, I know that was blasphmous, just couldn't resist using yet another derogatory label used by the left.

Rick

Edited February 26, 2014 by FirefightnRick

[mattmartin817]

Well then... "Rise from your knees my son!,...FirehmetJesus forgives you!

Sorry, I know that was blasphmist, just couldn't resist using yet another derogatory label used by the left.

Rick

Just a victim of liberal oppression aren't you Rick?

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

Just a victim of liberal oppression aren't you Rick?

Must be hard for him to live in Texas.

[FirefightnRick]

Just a victim of liberal oppression aren't you Rick?

LOL... I am!

Rick

[UNT90]

LOL... I am!

Rick

Everyone is. Even liberals. They are just too drunk on the punch to get it.

[mattmartin817]

Everyone is. Even liberals. They are just too drunk on the punch to get it.

All of the eye rolls to this. Unless you are kidding, and in that case, good one?

[GTWT]

Climate change isn't, or shouldn't be, a conservative/liberal issue. The consequences will be the same for all of us.

[GTWT]

YYZ28,

What there IS, however LOADS OF DOUBT about, is the conclusion that man's activities are the cause

Funny, the leading science organizations beg to differ:

American Association for the Advancement of Science

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)

American Geophysical Union

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)

American Physical Society "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)

I can post lots more if you want.

the fact that the record shows cooling rather than warming over the last decade

False, the last decade was the warmest on record according to NOAA

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html

first it was global cooling, the next ice age was coming

False, either you’re ignorant of the truth about that old canard or you’re consciously lying.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/

Edited February 26, 2014 by GTWT

[yyz28]

I find it rather telling when someone who disagrees with you jumps in with name calling and proclamations that the opponent is ignorant. ...very telling indeed. ...but, since you seem to be game, Ok. Here are some folks who obviously disagree with your assertion that there is NO DOUBT about what is going on with our climate (cooling or warming, or man's role in it all)...

Professor Judith Curry of, the chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, on June 14, 2013: “Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002 (note: I am receiving inquiries about this from journalists). This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr ‘pause’.”

Note:

Many scientists in recent years have noted the recent global cooling and predicted many years to decades to centuries of more global cooling. Below is a sampling of scientists and studies on global cooling.

UW-Milwaukee Professor’s Peer-Reviewed Study Predicts 50 Years of Global Cooling – January 2010: ‘A University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professor is making headlines for his work suggesting the world is entering a period of global cooling. “Now we’re getting a break,” Anastasios Tsonis, Distinguished Professor of Mathematics at UWM, said in an interview with the MacIver Institute. Tsonis published a paper last March that found the world goes through periods of warming and cooling that tend to last thirty years. He says we are now in a period of cooling that could last up to fifty years.

Atmospheric Scientist Tsonis on record cold: ‘It just isn’t true to say this is a blip. We can expect colder winters for quite a while’ – Tsonis was flooded with ‘hate emails’ after 2009 peer-reviewed study predicting ’20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures’ — ‘People were accusing me of wanting to destroy the climate, yet all I’m interested in is the truth’

Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory: ‘We could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years’

New Study: Russian Astrophysicist from Russian Academy of Science Predicts Global Cooling: ‘From 2014 we can expect start of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055′ — Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Science, St. Petersburg, 196140, Russia — Applied Physics Research, Vol. 4, No. 1 February 2012: Abstract: ‘We can expect the onset of a deep bicentennial minimum of total solar irradiance (TSI) in approximately 2042±11 and the 19th deep minimum of global temperature in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.’

Flashback Sept. 2009: ‘Sun Sleeps’: Danish Solar Scientist Svensmark declares ‘global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning…enjoy global warming while it lasts’

Global Cooling Coming? Aussie Scientist David Archibald uses solar and surface data to predict 4.9°C fall — ‘Normal solar cycles are 11 years long, but the current one (cycle 24) is shaping up to be 17 years (unusually long), and using historical data from the US, David predicts a 2.1°C decline over Solar Cycle 24 followed by a further 2.8°C over Solar Cycle 25. That adds up to a whopping 4.9°C fall in temperate latitudes over the next 20 years. We can only hope he’s wrong’

Prominent geologist warns ‘global COOLING is almost a slam dunk’ for up to 30 years or more — ‘There is no single piece of real evidence that points to CO2′ as driving temps – Dr. Don Easterbrook: ‘We’ve had 27 climate changes in the last 400 years: warm, cold, warm, cold. There have been four in this past century that have nothing to do with CO2, because CO2 wasn’t a factor hundreds of thousands of years ago. We know that those are not at all related to CO2. So why would we expect climate change today to be related to CO2?’

AUSTRALIAN SCIENTIST PREDICTS GLOBAL COOLING: “SUN IS THE MAJOR CONTROL OF CLIMATE; LOOK FOR COOLING’ — ‘Prof. Cliff Ollier of the School of Earth & Env. Studies, U, of Western Australia, recently presented a paper in Poznan, Poland, in which he described the sun as the major control of climate, but not through greenhouse gases.”There is a very good correlation of sunspots and climate. Solar cycles provide a basis for prediction. Solar Cycle 24 has started and we can expect serious cooling. Many think that political decisions about climate are based on scientific predictions but what politicians get are projections based on computer models. The UN’s main adviser, the IPCC, uses adjusted data for the input, their models and codes remain secret, and they do not accept responsibility for their projections.” Download paper here

New paper finds that a solar proton event could cause global cooling of more than 3C — Paper published today in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics – Study finds that ‘a solar proton event, if it took place in the near future with an intensity similar to that ascribed to the Carrington Event of 1859, must be expected to have a major impact on atmospheric composition throughout the middle atmosphere, resulting in significant and persistent decrease in total ozone,’ resulting in a ‘significant [global] cooling of more than 3C’

Famed hurricane forecaster Dr. William Gray predicts global cooling over next 20 years

Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook at Heartland Skeptic Conf.: ‘The main question is not will we have global cooling, it’s how intense will it be’

Dr. Easterbrook: ‘What we see now in the climate is nothing new 90% of 10000 years was warmer than the present’

Watch Now: Meteorologist Joe Bastardi on how global warming hype is hurting the economy & warns of global cooling

Sampling of scientists and scientific studies predicting global COOLING – Up until October 2008

[Note: Many of the scientists and studies cited below first appeared in the December 2007 U.S. Senate Report of over 400 (For Full Senate Report see: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport ) See also U.S. Senate Report released in July 2008: ‘Consensus’ On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008 ]

Global COOLING Continues: 2008 So Far Coolest For at Least 5 Years Says World Meteorological Organization – ‘First half of 2008 the coolest since 2000’ — Excerpt: – The first half of 2008 was the coolest for at least five years, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said on Wednesday. The whole year will almost certainly be cooler than recent years, although temperatures remain above the historical average. […] The global mean temperature to end-July was 0.28 degrees Celsius above the 1961-1990 average, the UK-based MetOffice Hadley Centre for climate change research said on Wednesday. That would make the first half of 2008 the coolest since 2000. […] Chillier weather this year is partly because of a global weather pattern called La Nina that follows a periodic warming effect called El Nino. “We can expect with high probability this year will be cooler than the previous five years,” said Omar Baddour, responsible for climate data and monitoring at the WMO. “Definitely the La Nina should have had an effect, how much we cannot say.” “Up to July 2008, this year has been cooler than the previous five years at least. It still looks like it’s warmer than average,” added Baddour.

‘This is going to be catastrophic’ – Brrr! Farmers’ Almanac says cold winter ahead – Associated Press – August 20, 2008 — Excerpt: Households worried about the high cost of keeping warm this winter will draw little comfort from the Farmers’ Almanac, which predicts below-average temperatures for most of the U.S. “Numb’s the word,” says the 192-year-old publication, which claims an accuracy rate of 80 to 85 percent for its forecasts that are prepared two years in advance. The almanac’s 2009 edition, which goes on sale Tuesday, says at least two-thirds of the country can expect colder than average temperatures, with only the Far West and Southeast in line for near-normal readings. “This is going to be catastrophic for millions of people,” said almanac editor Peter Geiger, noting that the frigid forecast combined with high prices for heating fuel is sure to compound problems households will face in keeping warm. The almanac predicts above-normal snowfall for the Great Lakes and Midwest, especially during January and February, and above-normal precipitation for the Southwest in December and for the Southeast in January and February. The Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions should be getting an unusually wet or snowy February, the almanac said. The forecasts, which are spelled out in three- and four-day periods for each region, are prepared by the almanac’s reclusive prognosticator Caleb Weatherbee, who uses a secret formula based on sunspots, the position of the planets and the tidal action of the moon.

‘Global warming of the past 30 years is over’ – July 20, 2008 – By Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University, who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications. – Excerpt: Addressing the Washington Policymakers in Seattle, WA, Dr. Don Easterbrook said that shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) from its warm mode to its cool mode virtually assures global cooling for the next 25-30 years and means that the global warming of the past 30 years is over. The announcement by NASA that the (PDO) had shifted from its warm mode to its cool mode (Fig. 1) is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007) and is not an oddity superimposed upon and masking the predicted severe warming by the IPCC. This has significant implications for the future and indicates that the IPCC climate models were wrong in their prediction of global temperatures soaring 1°F per decade for the rest of the century.

Mexican scientist warns Earth will enter ‘Little Ice Age’ for up to 80 Years Due to decrease in solar activity! – August 16, 2008 — Excerpt: An expert from the National Autonomous University of Mexico predicted that in about ten years the Earth will enter a “little ice age” which will last from 60 to 80 years and may be caused by the decrease in solar activity. Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the UNAM, as argued earlier during a conference that teaches at the Centre for Applied Sciences and Technological Development. […] Velasco Herrera described as erroneous predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), pursuant to which the planet is experiencing a gradual increase in temperature, the so-called global warming. The models and forecasts of the IPCC “is incorrect because only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity,” said the specialist also in image processing and signs and prevention of natural disasters. The phenomenon of climate change, he added, should include other kinds of factors, both internal, such as volcanoes and the very human activity, and external, such as solar activity. […] “In this century glaciers are growing”, as seen in the Andes, Perito Moreno, Logan, the highest mountain in Canada, and with Franz-Josef Glacier, New Zealand, said Velasco Herrera. […] The prognosis on the emergence of a new Ice Age has little uncertainty as to their dates. The latest, according to Victor Manuel Velasco, could arrive in approximately two years. In another lecture he gave at the beginning of last December, the same expert had said that the cooling would arrive within 30 or 40 years. And in early July, Velasco Herrera said that satellite data indicate that this period of global cooling could even have already begun, since 2005. Original Spanish language website: http://www.milenio.com/mexico/milenio/nota.asp?id=651680 – Google Translated link from Spanish: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.milenio.com%2Fmexico%2Fmilenio%2Fnota.asp%3Fid%3D651680&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=es&tl=en

Meteorologist David Dilley of Global Weather Oscillations and author of “Global Warming—Global Cooling, Natural Cause Found.” – August 25, 2008 — More Global COOLING Predictions: Meteorologist predicts ‘global climate will become similar to the colder temperatures experienced during the 1800s’ – Excerpt: Global temperatures have cooled during the past 12 months. During 2008 and 2009 the first stage of global cooling will cool the world’s temperatures to those observed during the years from the 1940s through the 1970s. By the year 2023 global climate will become similar to the colder temperatures experienced during the 1800s.

Australian Astronomical Society warns of global COOLING as Sun’s activity ‘significantly diminishes’ – June 29, 2008 – (LINK)) Excerpt: A new paper published by the Astronomical Society of Australia has a warning to global warming believers not immediately obvious from the summary: Based on our claim that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in the Sun’s orbital motion about the barycentre, we propose that the mean period for the Sun’s meridional flow is set by a Synodic resonance between the flow period (~22.3 yr), the overall 178.7-yr repetition period for the solar orbital motion, and the 19.86-yr synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn. Or as one of the authors, Ian Wilson, kindly explained to me: It supports the contention that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20 – 30 years. On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by ~ 1 – 2 C. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/cooling_coming#35743 & (LINK)

Renowned Norwegian solar expert warns temps may ‘actually fall in the course of a 50-year period’ – [ By Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth and served as a referee for scientific journals. Brekke was the deputy project scientist for the entire international Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO). SOHO is collaboration between the European Space Agency (ESA) and NASA researching every aspect of the Sun. Full bio here: http://www.solarmax.no/pbrekke_en.html and information on Brekke’s new book on the sun titled “SolarMax.” Here: http://www.solarmax.no/Hjem.html ] Excerpt: “We could be in for a surprise,” Brekke cautions. “It’s possible that the sun plays an even more central role in global warming than we have suspected. Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” […] “There is much evidence that the sun’s high-activity cycle is levelling off or abating. If it is true that the sun’s activity is of great significance in determining the earth’s climate, this reduced solar activity could work in the opposite direction to climate change caused by humans. In that case,” contends Dr Brekke, “we could find the temperature levelling off or actually falling in the course of a 50-year period” – an assertion that provokes many climate researchers. […] The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) has determined that the earth’s temperature has risen by about 0.7° C since 1901. According to Dr Brekke, this time period coincides not only with an increase in human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, but also with a higher level of solar activity, which makes it complicated to separate the effects of these two phenomena. […] Dr Brekke has published more than 40 scientific articles on the sun and on the interaction between the sun and the earth. (LINK)

NY Times Cites Possible Coming Little Ice Age! – Dot Earth Blog – October 3, 2008 — Expert: Some wonder if this could be the start of an extended period of solar indolence that would more than offset the warming effect of human-made carbon dioxide emissions. From the middle of the 17th century to the early 18th, a period known as the Maunder Minimum, sunspots were extremely rare, and the reduced activity coincided with lower temperatures in what is known as the Little Ice Age.

NEW JASON SATELLITE INDICATES 23-YEAR GLOBAL COOLING – Canada Free Press, 1 May 2008 – By Dennis Avery, Environmental Economist and Global Warming Co-author — Excerpt: Now it’s not just the sunspots that predict a 23-year global cooling. The new Jason oceanographic satellite shows that 2007 was a “cool” La Nina year-but Jason also says something more important is at work: The much larger and more persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its cool phase, telling us to expect moderately lower global temperatures until 2030 or so. […]All of this defies the “consensus” that human-emitted carbon dioxide has been responsible for our global warming. But the evidence for man-made warming has never been as strong as its Green advocates maintained. The earth’s warming from 1915 to 1940 was just about as strong as the “scary” 1975 to 1998 warming in both scope and duration-and occurred too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 defied the Greenhouse Theory, occurring during the first big surge of man-made greenhouse emissions. Most recently, the climate has stubbornly refused to warm since 1998, even though human CO2 emissions have continued to rise strongly. […] How many years of declining world temperature would it take now – in the wake of the ten-year nonwarming since 1998 – to break up Al Gore’s “climate change consensus”?

National Post: Global Cooling! ‘Spotless Sun’ prompts scientists to fear ‘dramatic turn for the worse’ – May 31, 2008 – Excerpt: ith the debate focused on a warming Earth, the icy consequences of a cooler future have not been considered You probably haven’t heard much of Solar Cycle 24, the current cycle that our sun has entered, and I hope you don’t. If Solar Cycle 24 becomes a household term, your lifestyle could be taking a dramatic turn for the worse. That of your children and their children could fare worse still, say some scientists, because Solar Cycle 24 could mark a time of profound long-term change in the climate. As put by geophysicist Philip Chapman, a former NASA astronaut-scientist and former president of the National Space Society, “It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age.” The sun, of late, is remarkably free of eruptions: It has lost its spots. By this point in the solar cycle, sunspots would ordinarily have been present in goodly numbers. Today’s spotlessness — what alarms Dr. Chapman and others — may be an anomaly of some kind, and the sun may soon revert to form. But if it doesn’t – and with each passing day, the speculation in the scientific community grows that it will not – we could be entering a new epoch that few would welcome. […] Several renowned scientists have been predicting for some time that the world could enter a period of cooling right around now, with consequences that could be dire. “The next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do,” believes Dr. Chapman. “There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the U.S. and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.”

NASA reveals ‘sun’s solar wind is at a 50-year low’ — could result in solar system changes (NASA press release) – September 22, 2008 – Excerpt: NASA will hold a media teleconference Tuesday, Sept. 23, at 12:30 p.m. EDT, to discuss data from the joint NASA and European Space Agency Ulysses mission that reveals the sun’s solar wind is at a 50-year low. The sun’s current state could result in changing conditions in the solar system. Ulysses was the first mission to survey the space environment above and below the poles of the sun. The reams of data Ulysses returned have changed forever the way scientists view our star and its effects. The venerable spacecraft has lasted more than 17 years – almost four times its expected mission lifetime.

We should prepare now for dangerous global cooling (By Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa) — Excerpt: Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University, who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications, predicts that temperatures should cool between 2065 until 2100, and that global temperatures at the end of the century should be less than 1 degree cooler than at present. This is in contrast to other theories that there will be a warming by as much as 10 degrees by 2100. - Excerpts of sampling of scientists predicting a coming global cooling Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications, announced earlier this week that he was putting his “reputation on the line” by predicting global cooling. “The average of the four main temperature measuring methods is slightly cooler since 2002 (except for a brief el Niño interruption) and record breaking cooling this winter. The argument that this is too short a time period to be meaningful would be valid were it not for the fact that this cooling exactly fits the pattern of timing of warm/cool cycles over the past 400 years,” Easterbrook wrote on March 1, 2008. (LINK)

Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States – March 2, 2008 (By Geologist David Archibald of Summa Development Limited inAustralia is a Perth-based scientist working in the field of climate research. Archibald .wrote a scientific paper titled “Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and Predicted Climate Response” in Energy and Environment in 2006) Excerpt: I will demonstrate that the Sun drives climate, and use that demonstrated relationship to predict the Earth’s climate to 2030. It is a prediction that differs from most in the public domain. It is a prediction of imminent cooling. […] We have 29 years of satellite temperature data. It shows that the temperature of the Southern Hemisphere has been flat, with a slight increase in the Northern Hemisphere. Note the El Nino peak in 1998. Globally, we have had 10 years of temperature decline since that peak in 1998, with a rate of decline of 0.06 degrees per annum. I am expecting the rate of decline to accelerate to 0.2 degrees per annum from the end of this decade. That satellite record is corroborated by the record of Antarctic and Arctic sea ice extent over the same period. There is no long term trend evident. Most recently, there has been a 1 million square kilometre increase over the long term mean. This is a five per cent increase. […] The peak US temperature was in 1936, at much the same time that Total Solar Irradiance peaked. If you have wondered why US temperatures are still lower than what they were 70 years ago, the fact that Total Solar Irradiance is lower than what it was 70 years ago might provide an explanation.

Geologist David Archibald reveals CO2 is ‘tuckered out as a greenhouse gas’ – May 12, 2008 — Excerpt: The more carbon dioxide you put into the atmosphere, the more you are helping all plants on the planet to grow, and of course that makes you a better person. Virtue is in direct proportion to your carbon dioxide output. What of the temperature, you ask? Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but the effect is strongly logarithmic. The first 20 ppm achieves 1.5 degrees of heating, but it takes more than another 400 ppm to equal that. By the time we get to the current level of 384 ppm, carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. From here, every 100 ppm extra may be worth 0.1 of a degree. […] Surely a few more years of cooling will leave only the true believers in their misanthropic ideology, and the truly idiotic. […] Not only will it continue, substantial cooling next decade is in the bag based on current solar behavior. There is a good correlation between solar cycle length and the temperature over the following solar cycle. Long solar cycles cause lower temperatures.

Canadian Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball: “If we are facing [a crisis] at all, I think it is that we are preparing for warming when it is looking like we are cooling. We are preparing for the wrong thing.” (March 2008)

UK Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn: “There is no evidence that CO2 has ever driven or will ever drive world temperatures and climate change. The consequence of that is that worrying about CO2 is irrelevant. Our prediction is world temperatures will continue to decline until 2014 and probably continue to decline after that.” (March 2008)

Four prominent scientists warn ‘global warming out, global cooling in’- ‘Potential for a significant decline in the average mean temperature’ – July 12, 2008 (LINK) & (LINK) – Excerpt: Four scientists, four scenarios, four more or less similar conclusions without actually saying it outright — the global warming trend is done, and a cooling trend is about to kick in. The implication: Future energy price response is likely to be significant. Late last month, some leading climatologists and meteorologists met in New York at the Energy Business Watch Climate and Hurricane Forum. The theme of the forum strongly suggested that a period of global cooling is about emerge, though possible concerns for a political backlash kept it from being spelled out. However, the message was loud and clear, a cyclical global warming trend may be coming to an end for a variety of reasons, and a new cooling cycle could impact the energy markets in a big way. Words like “highly possible,” “likely” or “reasonably convincing” about what may soon occur were used frequently. Then there were other words like “mass pattern shift” and “wholesale change in anomalies” and “changes in global circulation.” Noted presenters, such as William Gray, Harry van Loon, Rol Madden and Dave Melita, signaled in the strongest terms that huge climate changes are afoot. Each weather guru, from a different angle, suggested that global warming is part of a cycle that is nearing an end. All agreed the earth is in a warm cycle right now, and has been for a while, but that is about to change significantly. […] We are on our way out of the latest (warming) cycle, and are headed for a new cycle of low (solar) activity,” van Loon said. “There is a change coming. We may see 180-degree changes in anomalies during high and low sunspot periods. There were three global climate changes in the last century, there is a change coming now.” […] Perhaps the best known speaker was Colorado State University’s Gray, founder of the school’s famed hurricane research team. Gray spoke about multi-decade periods of warming and cooling and how global climate flux has been the norm for as long as there have been records. Gray has taken quite a bit of political heat for insistence that global warming is not a man-made condition. Man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) is negligible, he said, compared to the amount of CO2 Mother Nature makes and disposes of each day or century. “We’ve reached the top of the heat cycle,” he said. “The next 10 years will be hardly any warmer than the last 10 years.”

‘Global Warming Will Stop,’ New Peer-Reviewed Study Says — Excerpt: The UK Telegraph reports on April 30: “Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said. Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a “lull” for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical Pacific remains unchanged. This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper publishedin the scientific journal Nature.” End article excerpt. This significant new study adds to a growing body of peer-reviewed literature and other scientific analyses challenging former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s March 2008 presentation of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office found the Earth has had “no statistically significant warming since 1995.” (LINK)

Is there a cold future just lying in wait for us? – August 13, 2008 – Belfast Telegraph — Excerpt: Based on the past Armagh measurements, this suggests that over the next two decades, global temperatures may fall by about 2 degrees C — that is, to a level lower than any we have seen in the last 100 years. Of course, nothing in science is certain. Perhaps (though I doubt it) Armagh’s old measurements are wrong or perhaps there are now other factors, such as CO2 emissions, which may change things somewhat. However, temperatures have already fallen by about 0.5 degrees C over the past 12 months and, if this is only the start of it, it would be a serious concern.

Solar Declines Freeze Global Warming, Drops Seas: – Excerpt: By John Zyrkowski, President, Lean Techniques, LLC, © 2008 – New Book: It’s the Sun Not Your SUV, St. Augustine’s Press © 2008 – Foreword by 2001 IPCC Reviewer – The temperature record tracks the sun’s decline in energy output over the past 10 years. In my new book, “IT’S THE SUN, NOT YOUR SUV,” using the Global Warming community’s own data, a conclusive proof is made that the zigzag historic temperature record is forced to change by the major changes in the sun’s energy. Using solar forces only from 1880 to 1960, the increase to 0.61° C in 1998 then the recent decline to 0.32° C over 1960 is accurately forecast to within several hundredths of a degree. This miniscule change forecast is as accurate as the most current data when compared to the sun’s forcing the earth’s surface 280°+ C over deep space temperatures (Chart 1). Other fits to the historic record can include minor influences of green house gases (GHG). Confirming the decline in temperature is a 28% drop in the level of the oceans since October, 2006 when the oceans increased by 2.3 inches over 1992. Since then they have declined to 1.8 inches according to Topex/Jason-1 measurements from Jet Propulsion Laboratories (Chart 1a). These are miniscule changes compared to the gargantuan projections by the Global Warming community. http://www.itsthesunnotyoursuv.com

Solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, of the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics of the Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences, believe the climate is driven by the sun and predict global cooling will soon occur. The two scientists are so convinced that global temperatures will cool within the next decade they have placed a $10,000 wager with a UK scientist to prove their certainty. The criteria for the $10,000 bet will be to “compare global temperatures between 1998 and 2003 with those between 2012 and 2017. The loser will pay up in 2018,” according to an April 16, 2007 article in Live Science. (LINK)

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of Space Research for the Pulkovo Observatory in Russia, predicted the decline in solar irradiance is going to lead to global cooling by 2015 and “will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60,” according to Abdussamatov. Abdussamatov was also featured in a February 28, 2007 article in National Geographic titled “Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says,” where he reiterated his scientific findings that “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.” (LINK)

Australian engineer Dr. Peter Harris authored an August 20, 2007 paper entitled “Probability of Sudden Global Cooling.” The study Harris authored found that “the data…clearly shows the nominal 100KY cycle for glaciation and the interglacial phases and it shows that we have reached the end of the typical interglacial cycle and are due for a sudden cooling climate change. Based on this analysis we can say that there is a probability of 94% of imminent global cooling and the beginning of the coming ice age.” He added, “By observation of a number of natural internal processes we can find further support for the coming change and I have referred before to the confirmed slowdown of the Gulf Stream, the effect of major endothermic polar ice melt and forecast reduction in solar activity after 70 years of extreme activity not seen for 8000 years before. The Stratosphere is cooling and ice is building on the South Pole. Climate is becoming unstable. Most of these major natural processes that we are witnessing now are interdependent and occur at the end of each interglacial period, ultimately causing sudden long term cooling.” (LINK) & (LINK)

A cold spell soon to replace global warming (Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute.) – Excerpt: Stock up on fur coats and felt boots! This is my paradoxical advice to the warm world. Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases. […] Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man’s influence on nature is a drop in the ocean.

Global Cooling is Imminent! (By Meteorologist Jim Clark of Florida’s WZVN-TV ABC 7) – Excerpt: It was about this time (1990’s) that Dr. Bill Gray, the famed hurricane climatologist, began speaking out against the global warming crisis at the National Hurricane Conferences. He didn’t just stop at criticizing the scary climate models, but went so far as to predict GLOBAL COOLING in the first have of the 21st Century. Now, nearly 15 years later, it looks like Dr. Gray may be right! The planet has not warmed over the last decade and climate factors seem to be lining up for a global cool down, despite the ever increasing concentration of atmospheric CO2. The approaching ‘cold snap’ is not a global crisis, but when it is all said and done, we will likely have a better appreciation for the relative warmth we have enjoyed recently.

Hurricane Forecaster William Gray Predicts Global Cooling in 10 Years — Excerpt: “We should begin to see cooling coming on,” Gray said. “I’m willing to make a big financial bet on it. In 10 years, I expect the globe to be somewhat cooler than it is now, because this ocean effect will dominate over the human-induced CO2 effect and I believe the solar effect and the land-use effect. I think this is likely bigger.” Gray, 79, wasn’t sure if he’d be around to see his prediction come true. “I may not be around by that time,” Gray said. “But, I’ve asked some of my students to put dandelions on my grave if that happens.” Gray criticized NASA scientist and global warming alarmist James Hansen, calling him “the most egregious abuser” of data. According to Gray, Hansen’s alarmism is exaggerated because the models he uses to predict the increase in global warming count on too much water vapor in the atmosphere. “o he puts that much vapor in his model and of course he gets this,” Gray said. “He must get upper troposphere where the temperature is seven degrees warmer for a doubl[ing of] CO2. Well, the reason he got that was – why this upper-level warming was there – was he put too much water vapor in the model.”

Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), dissented from global warming fears, and warned of a coming ice age. “The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon,” Chapman wrote in a April 23, 2008, article tilted “Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh.” “There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the U.S. and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it. Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases,” Chapman explained. “The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years. The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue,” Chapman wrote. “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead. It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilization may be at stake,” he added. (LINK)

Statistician Dr. Richard Mackey authored a 2007 peer-reviewed study which found that the solar system regulates the earth’s climate. The paper was published August 17, 2007 in the Journal of Coastal Research. Mackey predicted a coming global cooling in 2008. Mackey wrote: “The solar inertial motion hypothesis predicts that the period from about 2010 to 2040 will be one of relatively severe cold throughout the world. The hypothesis predicts that the emergent Sunspot Cycle No 24 will be quieter than Sunspot Cycle No 23 and just like Sunspot Cycle No 14, the weakest cycle in the last 100 years, which began in February, 1902 and ended in August, 1913. “Other things being equal, a strong geomagnetic field contributes to a warmer climate; a weaker field to a cooler climate. But the effect may not be uniform across the planet. Currently, the geomagnetic field seems to be weakening, contributing to global cooling.,” Mackey wrote on February 8, 2008. “The science of climate dynamics: continues to publish findings about solar/climate relationships and internal variability of the climate system that invalidate the account of the Earth’s climate dynamics presented by the IPCC; predicts the likelihood of an extended period of global cooling, if the emergent solar cycle 24 has a low amplitude, as seems increasingly likely on the basis of current science,” Mackey explained. “Low amplitude solar activity cycles generally result in a cooler global climate. Two or more such cycles in succession usually result in severe cooling. In the past such sequences have induced cold epochs referred to as little ice ages. There is increasing evidence that the emergent solar cycle 24 will be low amplitude and followed by one or two more low amplitude cycles,” he added. “If there is a period of severe global cooling over the next several decades as indicated by the science of solar/climate relationships and predictions of the next three solar cycles, there would be a 30 year period of far greater hardship than our ancestors experienced during the last several cycles of the quieter Sun,” he added. (LINK) &http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_sceptical_scientists_do_it_tougher/ &http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

UN Scientist & Professor Dr. Will J.R. Alexander, Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters. “This whole climate change issue is rapidly disintegrating. From now onwards climate alarmists will be on the retreat. […] All indications are that we are now on the threshold of global cooling associated with the second and less active solar cycle.” – May 2, 2008 – (LINK)http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/alexwjr.2-3.5.08.pdf

Atmospheric Scientist Tennekes: ‘Sun may cause some cooling’ - ‘No evidence at all for catastrophic global warming’ – July 14, 2008 (By Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute.) (LINK)

U.S Army Chief Scientist Says Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change – June 3, 2008 (Dr. Bruce West, Chief Scientist, Mathematical & Information Science Directorate, Army Research Office)

[Note: Dr. West co-authored a March 2008 scientific analysis Nicola Scafetta showing the Sun “could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth's average temperature” (LINK) & (LINK) ]

Excerpt: The Army is weighing in on the global warming debate, claiming that climate change is not man-made. Instead, Dr. Bruce West, with the Army Research Office, argues that “changes in the earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to … the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles.” In an advisory to bloggers entitled “Global Warming: Fact of Fiction [sic],” an Army public affairs official promoted a conference call with West about “the causes of global warming, and how it may not be caused by the common indicates [sic] some scientists and the media are indicating.” In the March, 2008 issue of Physics Today, West, the chief scientist of the Army Research Office’s mathematical and information science directorate, wrote that “the Sun’s turbulent dynamics” are linked with the Earth’s complex ecosystem. These connections are what is heating up the planet. “The Sun could account for as much as 69 percent of the increase in Earth’s average temperature,” West noted. […] He argues that these groups have done a poor job modeling the Sun’s impact, however, and that’s why they have “significantly over-estimated” the “anthropogenic contribution to global warming.” […] Global Warming: Fact of Fiction – 11 AM Thursday, June 5 – Is global warming really caused by humans, or is it simply the result of different aspects of the sun’s dynamics? Dr. Bruce West, Chief Scientist, Mathematical & Information Science Directorate, Army Research Office, will discuss the causes of global warming, and how it may not be caused by the common indicates some scientists and the media are indicating. Research conducted by Dr. West contends that the changes in the earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to two distinctly different aspects of the sun’s dynamics: the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles. Please reply to this message if you are interested in participating. Lindy Kyzer – Public Affairs Specialist – Media Relations Division – Office of the Chief of Public Affairs – Department of the Army http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/army-vs-global.html

New Peer-Reviewed Study Shows Arctic COOLING Over last 1500 years! – Feb 5, 2008 – Published in Climate Dynamics on 30 January 2008 (LINK)

Ivy League Geologist Explains that Earth is currently in one of coldest periods in History. Excerpt: Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack is a professor of earth and environmental science at the University of Pennsylvania. Giegengack noted that the history the last one billion years on the planet reveals “only about 5% of that time has been characterized by conditions on Earth that were so cold that the poles could support masses of permanent ice.” Giegengack also noted “for most of Earth’s history, the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely been cooler.” http://www.phillymag.com/articles/science_al_gore_is_a_greenhouse_gasbag & http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/al_gore_is_a_greenhouse_gasbag/

I can post LOTS MORE if you want?

[yyz28]

Regarding the past decade, you're wrong as to the consensus there as well, my friend.

The mainstream media is reporting the World Meteorological Organization’s assessment of global average temperatures asserting this decade is “the warmest on record,” without mentioning the WMO data actually documents the United States and Canada experienced cooler-than-average conditions since 2000.

The reports circulating from the U.N.’s climate summit in Copenhagen also don’t mention scientific climate data that suggest the globe has cooled in the last 10 years.

Data from the U.S. National Climate Data Center indicate temperatures in the U.S. have cooled over the last decade at a rate that projects to a decline of 7.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.

Satellite data recorded at the University of Alabama in Huntsville show a global-cooling pattern over the last decade, contrary to the WMO observations reported in Copenhagen.

Here, a U.N. scientist predicts decade of global cooling - Global-warming alarmists were thrown into disarray last September at the U.N.’s world climate conference when a noted global-warming scientist presented data showing the earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and likely is entering “one or two decades during which temperatures cool.”

Mojib Latif, a climate physicist at the Liebniz Institute of Marine Sciences at the University of Kiel in Germany and a lead author for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, produced evidence predicting two decades of natural global cooling caused by cyclical changes in the atmosphere and ocean currents in the North Atlantic, known as the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Atlantic Meridional Oscillation.

Speaking at the World Meteorological Organization’s World Climate Conference 3 in Geneva, Switzerland, Latif produced slides that documented cooling temperatures that could be a 10- to 20-year phase into the future. “I’m not one of the skeptics,” Latif has affirmed. “However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it.” Global-warming ideologues disagree.

After publishing the results, proponents of anthropogenic global warming put considerable pressure on Latif to assert his belief that the earth would be considerably warmer by 2050 unless global greenhouse-gas emissions are reduced.

Latif’s scientific paper published in Nature in May 2008 concludes: “Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.”

While careful not to confront the conventional global-warming hypothesis directly, Latif and his colleagues stated clearly their forecast for global cooling: “Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: Over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST (sea surface temperature) and European and North Atlantic surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged.”

Additionally, the NOAA data has been found by some to be incompatible with theory of man-made global warming. Previous statements by Dr. Noor van Andel have demonstrated that the theory of anthropogenic global warming [AGW] is falsified by observations over the past 62 years which show outgoing radiation from greenhouse gases has significantly increased, rather than decreased as predicted by the AGW theory. The observations instead show the 'greenhouse effect' has decreased over the past 62 years instead of increased due to an exponential rise in greenhouse gases.

ANTHROPOGENIC Global Warming (AGW) theory claims the earth is warming because rising CO2 is like a blanket, reducing Earth’s energy loss to space. However, data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that at least for the last 30 years, Earth’s energy loss to space has been rising. The last 30 years of NOAA data is not compatible with the theory of AGW. It would appear that either 30 years of NOAA data is wrong or the theory of AGW is flawed. This is Michael Hammer’s conclusion following analysis of the official outgoing long wave radiation (OLR) data.

The research uncovers some interesting trends and most importantly highlights that:

1. Earth can only warm if the rate of energy input exceeds the rate of energy loss;

2. Thus earth would warm if energy absorbed from the sun increased or energy loss to space (outgoing longwave radiation or OLR for short) decreased – or of course both;

3. The theory of AGW claims that Earth is warming because rising CO2 is reducing the energy loss to space i.e. is causing OLR to decrease;

4. Thirty years of experimental data published by NOAA (one of the prime AGW reference sites) shows OLR has been rising progressively between 1980 and 2010 and is now 2.5 watt/sqM higher than in 1980; and

5. The period between 1980 and 2010 is when almost all the CO2 induced warming is supposed to have taken place.

“If the corner stone of AGW theory says earth is warming because outgoing long wave radiation is decreasing yet 30 years of experimental data shows OLR is rising (remember 30 years is the time AGW proponents claim is the interval necessary to separate climate from weather) it would seem the theory of AGW is as a minimum extremely seriously compromised.”

Additioanlly, the validity of the NOAA data is often called into question for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, locations being moved or closed. many locations which were once in areas where the environment was simply cooler are now in heat soaked urban environments, etc. There is little to no consistency with the data.

Edited February 26, 2014 by yyz28

[yyz28]

...one final point, since you like to label your opponents as "ignorant" "liars", It should be pointed out that despite what an article written in this decade by Captain Hindsight may say in an effort to rewrite an embarrassing history, In the 1960s and 1970s, a growing scientific consensus WAS HELD that the Earth was entering a period of global cooling. The CIA announced that the “Western world’s leading climatologists have confirmed recent reports of detrimental global climatic change” akin to the Little Ice Age of the 17th and 18th centuries, “an era of drought, famine and political unrest in the western world.” President Jimmy Carter signed the National Climate Program Act to deal with the coming global cooling crisis. Newsweek magazine published a chilling article entitled “The Cooling World.” The point I am making here (and why it is so critical to people who believe in TODAY's science that fits their agenda discredit the accurate criticism of the science of the 60's and 70's) is that if they were so far off the mark then, it certainly stands to reason they may be now, particularly considering that there IS evidence to the contrary. It is YOUR choice to accept that fact or deny it. ...but your denial of it makes it no less real.

...good day, my friends.

...and GO MEAN GREEN!

Edited February 26, 2014 by yyz28

[UNT90]

Climate change isn't, or shouldn't be, a conservative/liberal issue. The consequences will be the same for all of us.

But it is a political issue. Just look at you dismissing an argument over what may or may not happen in the future. You think the science is definitive when it is far from it.

And your dismissive attitude to those that disagree indicates a political belief, because that is what people do with political beliefs.

[yyz28]

Funny, I just stumbled onto this today...

Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder, Says ‘No Scientific Proof’ Climate Change Is Caused By Humans

By Philip Ross

on February 26 2014 4:57 PM

Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, known as one of the co-founders of the environmental activist group Greenpeace, has a history of sharply deferring with policies supported by major environment groups, including the one he helped create. Moore’s latest departure is that climate change, particularly the gradual warming of Earth’s surface temperature over the last century, is not caused by humans.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” Moore said during an appearance before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Tuesday. “If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”

The ecologist, who worked with Greenpeace from 1971 to 1986 and left “not necessarily by his own choice,” went on to found Greenspirit Strategies, an environmental and sustainability consulting firm based in Vancouver.

“After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective,” Moore said. “Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.”

Moore argued that the sophisticated computer models scientists use to predict future patterns in global climate are “not a crystal ball.” He maintained that the claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, that humans are “extremely likely” to be the dominant cause of global warming since the mid-20th century is bogus, given that the scale used to measure probability was constructed by IPCC members themselves.

“Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of ‘extreme certainty’ is to look at the historical record…When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia,” Moore argued.

Moore said this “fundamentally contradicts” the notion that man’s CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm.

http://www.ibtimes.com/patrick-moore-greenpeace-co-founder-says-no-scientific-proof-climate-change-caused-humans-poll

[UNT90]

Funny, I just stumbled onto this today...

Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-Founder, Says ‘No Scientific Proof’ Climate Change Is Caused By Humans

By Philip Ross

on February 26 2014 4:57 PM

Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, known as one of the co-founders of the environmental activist group Greenpeace, has a history of sharply deferring with policies supported by major environment groups, including the one he helped create. Moore’s latest departure is that climate change, particularly the gradual warming of Earth’s surface temperature over the last century, is not caused by humans.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” Moore said during an appearance before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Tuesday. “If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”

The ecologist, who worked with Greenpeace from 1971 to 1986 and left “not necessarily by his own choice,” went on to found Greenspirit Strategies, an environmental and sustainability consulting firm based in Vancouver.

“After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective,” Moore said. “Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.”

Moore argued that the sophisticated computer models scientists use to predict future patterns in global climate are “not a crystal ball.” He maintained that the claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, that humans are “extremely likely” to be the dominant cause of global warming since the mid-20th century is bogus, given that the scale used to measure probability was constructed by IPCC members themselves.

“Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of ‘extreme certainty’ is to look at the historical record…When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia,” Moore argued.

Moore said this “fundamentally contradicts” the notion that man’s CO2 emissions are causing the planet to warm.

http://www.ibtimes.com/patrick-moore-greenpeace-co-founder-says-no-scientific-proof-climate-change-caused-humans-poll

There will be character assassination articles posted shortly by scientist calling this guy names and saying what a kook he is without ever directly addressing his claims.

Just watch.

[GTWT]

YYZ28,

Good job of piling on the bs. It will take awhile to sort the information from the verbage. A quick overview suggests it's just the same old cast reciting the same old trash. I suspect a creationist could collect just as massive a set of blurbs - but evolution would still be true.

[UNT90]

YYZ28,

Good job of piling on the bs. It will take awhile to sort the information from the verbage. A quick overview suggests it's just the same old cast reciting the same old trash. I suspect a creationist could collect just as massive a set of blurbs - but evolution would still be true.

What is amazing is your religious-like devotion to this theory.

[oldguystudent]

This thread is really heating up!

[Censored by Laurie]

This thread is really heating up!

PROVE IT!!!!!!!