Climate Change

[Sparky]

Warming?...rising water level!?..I wouldn't mind a sea level rise of 1000 ft or so...would make my property a beach...

[nick c]

This thread is combination of the following threads:

Global Warming

AGW or not? (split from - Runaway warming on Venus?)

global warming

global warming

global warming

Hide the Decline on youtube ("climate change")

Global warming

ClimateGate??

FR thread on "climate change(TM)" and Wikipedia

Probable total disproof of planetary greenhouse theories

The Definitive 1.5hr Climate Change Rebuttal

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent ...

Global Warming does another DOH

The world has never seen such freezing heat

Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change

The Coming Little Ice Age

WEATHER CHANNEL FOUNDER: 'I ask Al Gore, where's the global

Glacial melt faster in the 1940s than today

Ice melt and electric currents

[seasmith]

Contrails warm the planet more than planes' carbon dioxide emissions do

The white, cloudlike trails left in the wake of high-altitude jets are warming the earth more than the planes' carbon-dioxide emissions, a new study suggests. Although some so-called contrails, which are simply clouds of tiny ice crystals condensed from the moisture in aircraft exhaust, evaporate quickly, many linger for hours and spread across the sky. A new model that can estimate the formation and persistence of contrails suggests that as much as 6% of eastern North America can be covered with these humanmade clouds. In central Europe, coverage can reach 10%, researchers report today in Nature Climate Change. Just like natural cirrus clouds, contrails block infrared radiation emitted from Earth's surface, and the increased coverage provided by contrails boosts cloud-induced warming. On a worldwide average, contrail-induced cloudiness traps an extra 31 milliwatts of energy per square meter. Previous analyses suggest that the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft since the beginning of the jet age traps 28 milliwatts per square meter.

ScienceShot: Jet Contrails a Big Global Warmer
by Sid Perkins on 29 March 2011, 5:00 AM
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... .html?etoc

[jjohnson]

Well, while water is the most efficient greenhouse gas (gas, liquid or solid), it also is the major contributor to Earth's albedo. More clouds, more "white". Less heat gain. How are these two factors balanced in the scientists' conclusions?

By the way, even the densest sky full of contrails still appears gauzy and thin, compared to a fully overcast sky of either low stratus or very high cirrostratus. Do contrails high above a lower cloud deck (pilots call this the undercast) have any measurable effect on net heat rejection and heat trapping? How measured?

Svensmark's experiments and research (The Chilling Stars) showed that cosmic rays result in muon showers which in turn develop zillions of perfectly sized particles which condense water droplets in the form of lower-atmosphere clouds, affecting global warming and cooling rates and resulting in long-term climate variability, with good correlation in various records, astronomical to geophysical. This goes on over very long time scales, independent of whether or not jet aircraft create contrails or not.

I wonder how much heat is produced at the Earth's surface in watts per m² from outward conduction from its [assumed] molten core, and how much that figure affects weather and climate, compared to contrail cover?

Measurements made during the U.S. air traffic stand-down immediately after 9-11 showed a slight, temporary cooling when contrails were almsot completely absent. Looking at a temperature change over a period of days is fal less than the blink of an eye in either weather or climate study. Feedback mechanisms hardly have had time to kick in, oscillate, and steady in such a brief period. Doesn't concluding that contrails "trap" more energy on the Earth's surface than the CO2 created by all the aircraft that have flown since the dawn of aviation last century seems a little... premature? Or is CO2 simply that much weaker a greenhouse gas than water? If that's the case, why the huge emphasis on carbon emissions from human/industrial/agricultural sources, especially when volcanic activity dwarfs the latter, and has forever?

I dislike burning carbon fuels because it concentrates dangerous pollutants where humans live and breathe, creating real health problems, not because it causes "sea level rise and global warming". One wonders how the heat gain from CO2 and water vapor emissions from volcanic activity on the planet compare to anthropogenic sources of those two molecules.

Just questions... the by-products of large gaps in my knowledge.

Jim

[webolife]

Questions are symptoms of knowledge, not gaps in it.

Whoever wrote the article quoted above was clearly not a meteorologist, or they would have caught the clear misunderstanding about cloud cover! It is gaseous constituents of the air [primarily water vapor, also methane and CO2] that trap heat... contrarily, contrail and other clouds increase albedo, and therefore cool the atmosphere just as Jim said. Unfortunately that scientific faux pas renders the other statements of the article regarding anthropogenic warming to be less credible.

[seasmith]

webolife,

Certainly not certified meteorologist myself, but concerning the debates over Estimated albedo vs trapping effects of the various and transient components of the atmospheric and ionic envelopes surrounding earth, i would venture to guess that any and all energetic quanta (including space 'dust') having once penetrated or been entrained by earth's outer double-layer become additive of earth's atmospheric energy level.
The re-radiation of thermal emissions and the reflection at higher altitudes of derivative photonic bandwidth are in sum small, compared to to total influx.
The intensity and cyclic duration of total influx would be far more important to resulting meteorological effects, imo.

s

[MrAmsterdam]

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/news ... o2-inquiry
Published 10:29 PM, 13 Apr 2011

BNP Paribas Fortis says cooperating with CO2 inquiry

LONDON (Reuters) - BNP Paribas Fortis said on Wednesday it is cooperating with Belgian authorities in an investigation after a newspaper said the bank may have been a victim of suspected carbon tax fraud.

Belgian newspaper De Tijd on Wednesday reported, without citing sources, that Fortis Bank NV, the Belgian banking arm of BNP Paribas, had been the victim of carbon tax fraud and lost over 72 million euros ($104 million) in 2009.

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/news ... ion-report
Published 3:04 AM, 6 Mar 2011

Germany lost 850 million euros in CO2 tax evasion: report

FRANKFURT (Reuters) - The German government has lost 850 million euros ($1.19 billion) in connection with suspected tax evasion in carbon permit trading, far more than previously anticipated, a German newspaper reported.

Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported, citing the Frankfurt attorney general's office, that damages were seen at that level, compared with an estimate of at least 200 million euros given by the German government in July last year.

The Frankfurt attorney general's office was not immediately available for comment. The fraud occurs when companies buy carbon permits in one country without paying value-added tax (VAT) and sell them in another adding tax to the price but pocketing the difference for themselves.

Taxing gases in the air is fraudulent and corrupted business since the start in 2009?

[Lloyd]

The Stormy Sun and Next Year's 2nd Earth Summit in Rio
Friends -
Despite Nobel Prizes given to Al Gore, the UN's IPCC, and an army of government-funded climatologists, new measurements and observations have discredited the basic underlying assumption of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro [1-6].
The Sun is definitely NOT the steady heat source world leaders assumed at the first Rio Earth Summit. 1. “The whole solar hemisphere erupted simultaneously in an avalanche effect that had been triggered in the tiny solar core and propagated outwards”, NASA (Dec 13, 2010). http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/ 2010/13dec_globaleruption/ http://www.suite101.com/content/vast-so ... orya327330 2. "The Cold Sun," by John L. Casey (2011). http://climaterealists.com/? id=7823 3. "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun," Energy & Environment 20, 131-144 (2009). http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704v1 4. "The Sun Kings . . . ," by Stuart Clark (2007). http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8370.html 5. "The Sun - Living with the stormy star," by Curt Suplee, National Geographic Magazine (2004). http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0 ... index.html
6. "Superfluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate," Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002).

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0501441v1

With kind regards,
Oliver

[davesmith_au]

The posts which were in this thread relating to chemtrails have been moved to the NIAMI board.

Dave Smith.
Forum Administrator.

[kiwi]

Head of the world’s leading physics lab has issued a gag order preventing scientists from stating their interpretation of a study that links historical climate changes to cosmic rays...

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/0 ... ays-35691/

[MrAmsterdam]

Head of the world’s leading physics lab has issued a gag order preventing scientists from stating their interpretation of a study that links historical climate changes to cosmic rays...

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/0 ... ays-35691/

https://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/07/ ... %E2%80%9D/

"I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters."

Rolf-Dieter Heuer, Director General of CERN, in an interview by Welt Online a few days ago.

http://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article ... n-hat.html

Okay, ehm....One has to make clear that CO2 (0.068 procent of the atmosphere) is only one of the many parameters.

Did anyone notice that the german newspaper "Die Welt" calls CERN scientists illuminati ?! What about that!

[Tina]

Is it expecting too much to think that this proposed announcement by CERN will actually make a difference to the politics of taxing carbon emissions. Can confirmation of the impact of solar activity on climate change end this debate?

The next climate debate bombshell
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/38627

[MrAmsterdam]

Carbon price battle is lost, say experts

Political experts believe the battle to sell the carbon tax to the Australian public has been lost and the Prime Minister can do nothing to change voters' minds on the issue

Despite the issue dominating the news cycle for the past week, support for the carbon tax (32.4 per cent) remained 28.6 points behind support against the reform (61 per cent) over the past seven days.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environ ... 1hn0l.html

Climate change 'threatens peace', UN official warns

"Clearly the international community - if the scenarios in climate change for the future come true - will face an expediential growth of these kinds of extreme events," he added.
-
Speaking as negotiations were continuing, Mr Pankin argued that the move was unnecessary and opposed by many countries.

"We believe that involving the Security Council in a regular review of the issue of climate change will not bring any added value whatsoever and will merely lead to further increased politicisation of this issue and increased disagreements between countries," he said.

However US Ambassador Susan Rice said that the council had an "essential responsibility to address the clear-cut peace and security implications of a changing climate" and said all countries should be demanding action.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14229237

?

[hertz]

tina wrote:
Can confirmation of the impact of solar activity on climate change end this debate?

Like you, i was surprised this story didn't garner more attention, until i figured out it's not news...that is, imagine yourself a news editor and you're going through the daily press releases...you see one that says "New Study Proves Sun Responsible for Global Warming", uh...duh...it's summer...it's hot...nobody's going to doubt the sun makes it hot...sounds like dog bites man, unless they've been following the agw debate closely and recognize the significance, but they haven't, so they won't...timing is everything

[Lloyd]

Global Warming Vs. Nuclear Proliferation?
* Oliver Manuel, the iron sun theorist who used to work for NASA, has a new document in which he suggests that global warming was chosen as a potential enemy that the world could unite against, instead of nations threatening each other with nuclear weapons.
* First, there are some spelling errors in the document at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/201107 ... _Roots.doc; http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/201107 ... _Roots.pdf.
* Here they are in context in bold, the words score and titters:
xiv. 2002: Two highly respect scientists join the effort to show that the Sun's violently unstable score causes climate change and solar eruptions [41,42].
xix. 2010: As the world titters on the brink of economic and social collapse,
* I'm sure score is supposed to be core and titters is supposed to be teeters.
* I read through the document and would like to comment a bit.
Venus Greenhouse?
* First, the timeline doesn't mention the fact that Margaret Mead headed the first global warming conference in 1975, a year after she was president of AAAS. With the AAAS in 1974 she apparently was involved in setting up the symposium to discredit Velikovsky. And to me it seems very suspicious that global warming assumes that CO2 is the cause, that Venus was considered evidence of runaway global warming, and that Velikovsky's findings were that Venus is hot, not because of CO2, but because it's a new planet. That seems like a very likely motive for wanting to discredit him and thus hide the truth about the Venus heat.
Radioactive Decay Rate
* Next, basing the age of the Sun on the radioactive decay rate of uranium ignores the strong possibility that the degree of electrical stress determines whether elements are radioactive, or not, and that the electrical stress on the Sun and planets likely has varied considerably over the millennia, especially in the last 10,000 years.
Supernovae and Pulsars?
* Lastly, the claim that there is a pulsar within the Sun, formed by a supernova explosion or implosion, assumes that stars can explode and implode with spherical synchronicity and condense matter into stable neutrons, whereas there appears to be no reason to expect spherically synchronous explosions and no evidence of stable neutrons outside of atoms. It seems more likely that supernovae are electrical explosions of stellar plasma sheaths, sustained by electrical current from galactic Birkeland currents. I haven't heard of pulsar pulses having been detected from the Sun, but such pulses from pulsars are likely not rotating beams, but electrical discharge pulses.
Control Info to Control People?
* Someone said: Controlling information is required to control people. That was ... demonstrated in George Orwell's book, "1984" - http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984.
* I agree that there are attempts to control people by controlling information, but I'm not confident that the global warming scare was intended to end nuclear proliferation. I await further data.