GoFigure | Indy Week

Member since Oct 22, 2015



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Greg Fishel was once a Limbaugh-loving climate skeptic. Now he’s fighting global warming.

President Obama, on his recent trip to Alaska, pointed out two receding glaciers as examples of “climate change”. (His use of the term “climate change” means significant global warming due to human activity, mostly involving fossil fuel usage.) However, one of those glaciers, “Exit”, has been receding since 1750, a century before co2 began increasing and two centuries before co2 could have had any noticeable impact on temperature. Neither did he nor the major news media take notice of several other Alaskan glaciers, including Hubbard and Taku, which have been advancing. Obviously both phenomenon cannot be attributed to global warming. (Even though it is true that some alarmists seriously claim that co2 can simultaneously bring on both warming and cooling events!)

Consider the serious implication if no glaciers were receding. That would imply that our next ice age was underway! The average duration over the past 1.3 million years for ice ages is 90,000 years. The warmer intervals between ice ages (interglacial periods, one of which we are now enjoying) average only 10,000 years. Instead of worrying about some rising level of water in NY City, try wrapping your mind around what actually happened last time, numerous times before that, and may instead be on the way again - a mile high glacier over the Big Apple., and for a very long time!

The claims of a “97% consensus” have been thoroughly debunked. Among other problems these unprofessional “surveys” count many skeptics as part of their supposed consensus. These “surveyors” made no distinction between the IPCC cabal, which claims human activity is the PRINCIPLE cause of global warming, and the other respondents (mostly identified as skeptics) who merely acknowledge that increasing co2 MIGHT have SOME impact on global warming. Had those alarmist surveys been designed (and handled) by unbiased professionals the result may well have shown that skeptics were actually in the majority, but it matters not, since scientific truths are not dependent on vote counts.

When you strike a match that action may impact global warming (although it’s not likely measurable). The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is well known, but also turns out to have no measurable impact on global temperature. That’s because urban areas represent only a small portion of the earth’s surface and even the rural areas immediately surrounding an UHI show no measurable temperature impact from that UHI. Never the less no credible skeptic is likely to flatly declare that human activity is having NO impact on global warming. The issue is that the IPCC, and its supporters, claim that (1) co2 increase causes global warming and (2) human activity, which appears to be responsible for most of the co2 increase, is therefore the principle cause of the warming. There is no empirical evidence that co2 level has ever, even over geologic periods when it was much higher than now, had any impact on global temperature

The term “climate change”, until recently, referred to 4 billion years of natural climate events and included such things as ice ages. Now, and with full cooperation of the major news media, “climate change” instead means “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” (CAGW), and skeptics are accused of being “climate change” deniers. (“catastrophic” because co2 level is likely to increase indefinitely and human activity appears to be the likely cause of most of the co2 increase.)

But, it turns out that during most of our planet’s history the co2 level has been several times higher than now, and yet, even over geologic periods, there is no empirical evidence showing that co2 has EVER had any impact on the global temperature. In fact, over geologic periods there is a strong correlation showing the opposite - that temperature variation occurs FIRST and only 800 to 2800 years LATER do similar variations show up in the co2 level. Furthermore, a comparison of our current interglacial with the four immediately prior interglacials (a span of about 340,000 years) shows that, while co2 level is now 40% higher, our current temperature is about two degrees cooler. Obviously co2, even at its now much higher level, is apparently having little, if any, impact on global temperature. Since both co2 level and UHI appear to be ruled out insofar as having even a measurable (let alone significant) impact on global temperature, what is the basis for the IPCC claim that human activity is the PRINCIPLE cause? Our two weather satellites show no further temperature increase for the past 18+ years and it is clear that the computer models did not expect, nor can they account for what happened to that missing heat. There is no physical basis for claiming that the “missing heat” could disappear into the ocean, sink unnoticed past 3,600 ARGO buoys, subsequently hide in the deep ocean, and somehow later re-surface and escape back into the atmosphere. Also, the measurable increase in recent ocean temperature, whether influenced by atmospheric temperature increase or not, is miniscule, hardly sufficient to explain the “missing heat”. The speculation has now evolved into dozens of different excuses, and the same suspects continue to insist the science is “settled”.

It’s also known that the capability of co2 to influence warming diminishes as its level increases. A greenhouse is hardly an adequate model for our open atmosphere because there is no convection from within a real greenhouse, and satellites detect heat escaping to space. Neither does a greenhouse experience planetary-level feedbacks. Finally, computer models cannot begin to deal with ongoing chaotic events (volcano eruptions, earthquakes, bombardment by asteroids and comets, plate tectonics, continent movement, etc.) all of which are an integral part of the climate system.

The computer models have consistently projected higher temperature increases than have subsequently been recorded, and this discrepancy has continued even after several rounds of revisions to the models. What’s more the spread between actual temperature and computer projected temperatures has continued to WIDEN. Climate model results are not evidence of anything apart from the author(s) limited understanding. All these models ASSUME that water vapor is the real culprit, creating 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as supposedly brought on directly by co2 increase. Feedbacks are not well understood , yet the alarmists assume not only that water vapor feedback is positive, but has an impact on temperature which is 2 to 3 times that of the co2 impact (which itself is in question.) Cloud cover, one aspect of water vapor, clearly appears to have a cooling rather than a warming effect. Without the water vapor feedback assumption, the threat of co2 impact drops by 75%.

The current co2 level is 400 ppmv, (parts per million by volume) clearly a trace gas, which can also be stated as 4/100 of one percent of the atmosphere, by volume. (4/100 of one percent of a mile is about 2 feet). The annual rate of increase in co2 is about 2 ppmv. co2 level is estimated to reach 600 ppmv by 2100, so would still be a trace gas. A crowded gym with poor ventilation may reach 1,000 ppmv. Submarine crews survive for months in a 5,000 to 8,000 + ppmv environment. Plants, grow faster, healthier, produce more oxygen, and need less water in higher co2 environments. In fact, our earth is greening as this controversy continues.

The proponents of CAGW base their entire hypothesis on less than 30 years of climate history. Even the most rabid CAGW scientists recognize that any temperature impact brought on by increasing co2 would have taken until about 1950 (at 2ppmv per year) before having a measurable impact on global temperature. While co2 began rising in the mid 1800s our current warming (such as it is) began, by definition, at the bottom of the Little Ice Age, and therefore in the mid 1600s. That implies 300 years (1650 to 1950) of natural warming. There was also some serious warming during the 1930s, and a mild cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s, followed by THE warming, from the mid 1970s to about 1998. Although it remains warm there has been no additional warming since about 1998 according to both weather satellites. (The satellite data agrees well with weather balloon data.)

There are 5 global temperature datasets, 3 terrestrial and 2 satellite. However, according to Phil Jones (2003) the three terrestrial datasets all utilize 90 to 95% of the same raw data. There are now three sets of terrestrial temperature datasets and this is because three separate organizations are involved and each makes its own revisions to the raw data. With regard to satellites, UAH shows no additional warming for the past 18 years and 5 months and RSS shows no additional warming for the past 18 years and 8 months. (However, this could change because the upcoming el Nino, a natural warming event, may bring on some additional temporary warming.) This 18+ year duration of no additional warming is not cherry picked. The results depend solely on the data and answer a relevant question, – for how long has there been no additional warming? If the same analysis for satellite is instead applied to the mean of all 5 datasets, there has been no additional warming for the past 13+ years. (However, since all three terrestrial datasets are basically derived from the same raw data, the 3/5 weighting for terrestrial data in that calculation is overly generous.)

The three terrestrial datasets have various other issues. Even the current raw data must be continually revised because many stations are located within or near UHIs and that effect, which often changes over time, must be ESTIMATED and removed. (Why these folks continue to also revise the historic data is not so obvious.) The distance between some land stations may be as much as 1200km, and there are even fewer stations in remote (jungles, mountains, deserts, plains, grasslands, etc.) areas. Finally, many land based temperature stations do not satisfy even the basic requirements laid down by the government. (Why have NOAA and NASA not at least included a separate analysis, for comparison purposes, using only raw data from rural locations? And both NASA and NOAA strictly base their claims on terrestrial data. Why? )

Some alarmists, and that also includes many liberal politicians, continue to blame such things as severe weather events and sea level rise as “evidence” of CAGW. Sea level has been rising for the past 15,000 years, ever since the last ice age BEGAN melting, and sea level is now up 400+ feet. More recently the rate of sea level increase has been flat, or dropping, with sea level rise now at a miniscule 1 to 2 mm per YEAR, (1 mm = 4/100 of one inch. In 25 years, the level would be up one inch.) A quick review of a graph showing sea level over the past 12-15 thousand year period should be sufficient to assuage any concerned rational person about what is happening. In the case of severe weather events various statistical analysis have demonstrated conclusively that, for the past several decades, these events have all remained within natural climate variation. Hurricanes, typhoons, tornados, floods, rain, and droughts have been no more severe nor more frequent during the past several decades.

At least one well known member of the IPCC cabal, Phil Jones, stated that if the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was global and as warm as now, then “that’s another ballgame”. The Climate Gate email conversations showed concern about the MWP. (In fact, one email made clear that they had to get rid of the MWP !) The IPCC and its cohort also continue to insist that the MWP was only a regional phenomenon, and not as warm as now. This completely unjustifiable claim is apparently an attempt to avoid having to deal with the following embarrassing question -- “If the MWP, a natural event 1,000 years ago, was as warm (probably warmer) than now, why do you think humans are the cause of our current warming?” Certainly any credible scientist who was a proponent of CAGW should have demanded that a global investigation be undertaken to confirm the MWP situation. But this alarmist group chose instead to cling to their belief and ignore even the information already available. The alarmists now instead demand that skeptics must provide evidence that the MWP was global and as warm or warmer than now. Please consider - if even one region remote from Europe shows the same warming trend, their hypothesis crumbles. As it turns out, the higher temperatures and the MWP trend show up in numerous locations.

Ironically, there were numerous peer-reviewed studies available showing the MWP to be global and as warm, likely warmer, long before the alarmist position became public, even before their cries reverted from claims of oncoming ice age to global warming. (Holdren, science adviser to Obama, was an alarmist for cooling before becoming an alarmist for warming.) The alarmist denials continue even now, in spite of new confirming studies continuing to show up regularly. The website co2science.org has links to all the MWP peer reviewed studies. These studies have employed various temperature proxies, including some newer methods not available during earlier studies. And that is topped off by the results from 6,000 boreholes around the globe which independently confirm that the MWP trend was indeed global.

The Alaskan Mendenhall Glacier, recently retreated sufficiently to expose some splintered tree trunks (dated 1000+ years old) preserved in their original upright positions. Receding Swiss glaciers have revealed 4000 year old trees showing that area to have been glacier free at that time. Antique vineyards dating back to the MWP have also been exposed in Scandinavia and the Alps at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown even today. Burial sites have been found beneath the permafrost. Attempts to brush off such information as “anecdotal evidence” is ludicrous. Claiming the dating on recently exposed splintered tree trunks may be inaccurate is a joke. It does not eliminate the fact that there were warmer durations than now during this interglacial, and these took place at temperatures below the current co2 level.

In fact, there were several earlier warm durations during this interglacial before the MWP, all warmer than the MWP. Even the IPCC only claims that our current warming is a record for the past 800 years, and with less likelihood, (but no justification provided) for the past 1200 years. Lord Monckton points out that while the IPCC has finally admitted in its latest report that the current RATE of warming is now lower than published earlier their committee (which reviews every word of their report multiple times) has still somehow managed to avoid correcting their erroneous out-years high temperature estimate.

In late 2014 both NASA and NOAA claimed that 2014 was the “hottest” year, but both backed down after skeptics pointed out that if their same analysis had been applied to satellite data, then 2014 ranking would have been either 3rd or 6th hottest. (Both of those results imply at least a short term cooling is underway.) Also, neither agency felt the need to include in their initial press release that the difference amongst recent annual global temperatures was miniscule, (a few hundredths of one degree) so well within the uncertainty error, which renders their contrived comparison across recent years meaningless. The major news media, as usual, jumped on their original news (2014 “hottest”) release, but overlooked the NOAA/NASA subsequent retreat. These two agencies are apparently still at it, recently claiming that June 2015 was the “hottest” month. There has also been no accompanying acknowledgement that sea ice extent in the Arctic recently increased considerably and sea ice extent in the southern hemisphere continues to break records. Neither was it noted that new weather trends begin at the two poles.

Quite recently the two agencies (now evidently desperate) decided to revise the sea surface temperatures in an apparent effort to do away with the temperature “hiatus”. But, as CFACT points out “…NOAA “adjusted” sea-surface temperature (SST) data from buoys upward by .12 degrees C, to make them ‘homogeneous’ with lengthier records from past engine intake systems in ships. However, engine intake data are ‘clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the ships, and that data were never intended for scientific use – whereas the global buoy network was designed for environmental monitoring”. These agencies also recently declared that their three terrestrial datasets were “independent”, which is questionable, given that all three datasets basically use the same raw data.

Then there is our government’s “solution” for this doubtful problem. Obama wants to reduce electrical power emissions by 32% by 2030. The following is quoted directly from Joanne Nova’ website which merely confirms what the EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, recently admitted:

This “ambitious” goal is purely symbolic. Here’s why. Electrical power plants make 37% of US emissions, which are about one-fifth of global human emissions, which are 4% of total CO2 emissions globally. So a 32% cut in US electrical emissions will result in a 0.1% cut in total global CO2 emissions (at best)*. If the Obama/EPA plan is “successful” and if the IPCC are right, Paul Knappenberger and Pat Michaels estimate that Obama’s new plan will cool the world by an unmeasurable 0.02°C by 2100.

The mission of the UN’s well-funded IPCC was to identify human impact on climate. Would anybody expect this (or any such) bureaucracy to report that it’s apparently just “Mother Nature” at work? Large western governments all view this issue as an opportunity to introduce new taxes. Small countries have been promised remuneration for the “climate change” pain supposedly imposed on them by the larger countries. Practically every governmental entity in existence loves the potential which accompanies the “climate change” issue. While we do need to be concerned about energy consumption and resources, it will take centuries before co2 attains levels comparable to earlier periods, so there’s likely time to find and implement the needed technology. Certainly politicians’ mindless rush to implement very costly policies to attack this likely bogus issue is the real threat

Whether these alarmists are “useful idiots”, or willing to lie because they believe in some higher principle (one-world government, or abhor the fossil fuel industry, or want to transfer western resources to third world countries) hardly matters. The road to hell is paved with “good” intentions. 10/17

62 likes, 23 dislikes
Posted by GoFigure on 10/22/2015 at 4:46 PM

Extra Extra!

Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.

  • Weekly Newsletter (Wednesday) - The stories in this week's issue
  • Weekly Events Newsletter - Our picks for your weekend and beyond

Login to choose
your subscriptions!

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2018 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation